NOTE:  This data is being updated, because we have now found  643 (or more) Article V Amendment Applications (see images here) by all  50 states.
              Therefore, many of the totals below are larger and include a larger number of different states.

• TABLE 01:   567 Amendments by 49 States (sorted by Year and/or Sequence)

• TABLE 02:   567 Amendments by 49 States and Total Applications Per Subject

• TABLE 03:   104 Balanced Budget/General Amendments by 37 Different States

• TABLE 04:   109 Apportionment/General Amendments by 35 Different States

• TABLE 05:   567 Amendments by 49 States (sorted by State)

• TABLE 06:   154 Amendments by 34 States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1963 to 1969

• TABLE 07:   102 Amendments by 35 States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1965 to 1971

• Images of Article V  Amendment Applications

ISSUE #01:  While Article V contains no mention of any "contemporaneous" requirement, some have argued that amendments must be "contemporaneous" (i.e. occurring about the same time) before Congress must call an Article V Convention. 

REBUTTAL #01:  Once an amendment is provided to the states for ratification, Congress can set a time limit (typically 7 years) for amendment to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. However, the 27th Amendment was ratified after 203 years.  Beginning with the proposed 18th Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within 7 years from the time of the submission to the States.  The Supreme Court, in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act to ratify an amendment is a political question to be determined by the Congress.

If  7 years is acceptable for ratification, then it seems reasonable that 7 years is acceptable for the expiration of proposed amendments.  If so, that condition has been satisfied at least twice (for the 7 years from 1963 to 1969, and from 1965 to 1971), as shown below in TABLE 06 and TABLE 07 (respectively).

Therefore, the question is:   Why has Congress not yet called an Article V Convention ?

Article V of  the U.S. Constitution:  The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight [1808] shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

REBUTTAL #02:  Another important point about whether the intended meaning of "whenever" in Article V (above) implies some sort of expiration time-limit was intended by the framers is weakened by the fact that the framers of Article V carefully specified an expiration time-limit within Article V for restrictions on amendments to the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of the 1st Article prior to year 1808.  Therefore, if the framers intended for there to be an expiration time-limit on proposed amendments for other parts of the U.S. Constitution, how likely is it that they would so explicitly include restrictions on amendments to the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of the 1st Article prior to year 1808, but forget to specify expiration time-limits for restrictions for future amendments to other parts of the U.S. Constitution?  

REBUTTAL #03:  Also, there is nothing in the Federalist papers that support the theory of any expiration time-limits.

REBUTTAL #04:  The Supreme Court, in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act to ratify an amendment is a "political question" to be determined by the Congress.  However, there are no Supreme Court cases or statements supporting the "contemporaneousness" requirement for proposed amendments;  only for the ratification process.  That may possibly due to the word  "whenever" in Article V (above), and the other cases in which the Supreme Court has also dealt with cases in interpreting the Constitution (some which explicitly referred to Article V).  

However, if Coleman V. Miller is going to also be used as a requirement for "contemporaneousness" for the proposal of amendments, then why should the expiration time-limit for proposed amendments be less than the ratification time-limit (e.g. typically 7 years)?   Any argument for a shorter time limit for proposing amendments would clearly begin to appear as though Congress and/or the Supreme Court have a conflict of interest.  Especially when some proposed amendments are very likely to contain amendments for Term-Limits for Congress, Term-Limits for Supreme Court Justices, Balanced Budget, Campaign Finance Reform, Tax Reform, etc.  More obfuscation and obstructionism by Congress will most certainly begin to give credibility to the assertions that Congress and/or the Supreme Court are flagrantly violating the U.S. Constitution.

ISSUE #02:  While Article V contains no mention of a "same-subject" requirement, some have argued that amendments must be same-subject before Congress must call an Article V Convention. 

REBUTTAL #05:  As for the argument for a "same-subject" requirement, that condition has also been met at least twice, as show below in TABLE 03 and TABLE 04.  Since General calls for an Article V Convention do not specify any specific amendment subject, General calls can supplement any other amendment subject to satisfy requirements for Congress to call an Article V Convention (i.e. when requested by at least 2/3 of all states).

REBUTTAL #06:  The Supreme Court has also, many times, dealt with cases in interpreting the Constitution (some which explicitly referred to Article V).  There are some cases and statements by the Supreme Court that support the literal text of Article V as being consistent with the intended meaning of Article V.
 

TABLE 01:   567 Amendments by 49 States (sorted by Year and/or Sequence)
 

Subject = Subject of Amendment Application

SubjectTotal = Total Number of Amendment Applications of That Single Subject (e.g. 30 General requests)