There is no risk as the US Constitution is a deal letter at this point. We need a CoS to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.
Well, that would be loverly. But don't hold your breath 'til one is CALLED.
Congress has no motivation at ALL to CALL one, not under Article V. But it does indeed have a DUTY to CALL one, upon the satisfaction of certain requirements. Preeminently, the two-thirds of the States requirement expressing some common purpose(s) for the CALLING of an Article V COS.
It is the working of common purpose(s), across the States, that provides the basis for the aggregation rules. On what other reasonable basis can one found the entire idea of "aggregation" if not from some idea of common purpose?
Or is the entire future of the United States of America to be left to the tender mercies of "expert readings" of "random 'citizen' behavior," as ascertained by constant, day-to-day public polling; the tallies of which are recorded by elite professional "bean-counters?" Thus to be recorded, transmitted, and accepted as some kind of public "truth?"
* * * * * * *
I share your passion to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. It seems to me that both were the products of the populist, "progressive" passion that had gripped "mainstream America" at the time. Government, in principle, is corrupt: The popular supposition then was that all government at all levels was thoroughly corrupt; and as a consequence, all virtue was thought to reside wherever the People decide....
NOT!!! As PUBLIUS [Madison, Hamilton, and Jay] exhorts us in The Federalist: ALWAYS recriminate, and ever resist the "spirit of faction."
Methinks Left Progressivism — as embodied in our sitting Mesmer-in-Chief with all his legions of cohorts and enablers, all of whom seem to live under some kind of unworldly spell, or enchantment — legitimately falls into a class that we can describe as "faction."
"Faction," from the Latin root, facere, meaning: "To do" or "to make."
Left Progressives are very busy bees nowadays, with their "makings." Among other things, they grind out (nonsensical) propaganda about The Nature of Things Politic and Why You Need to Get on Board Right Now [or Else].
But again, I'm probably digressing....
Before I sign off, let me just add this. What I passionately want is a COS that is NOT limited to a single subject. It seems to me a single-subject constitutional amendment proceeding from the States is easy for Congress to co-opt, as arguably happened WRT the 17th Amendment.
At the time, some 32 States had applied for an Article V COS on the subject matter of direct election of federal Senators. That meant two more States to go to reach the two-thirds requirement, a quorum that would leave Congress with no choice but to CALL an Article V COS.
So what did Congress do? When Congress got word that two more States were on the verge of applying for direct election of Senators, it obviated the "call" from the States, and took it upon itself to propose an Amendment calling for direct election of Senators. Thereby co-opting the States' call for a COS.
I'm very afraid that the call from the States for a balanced budget amendment would be dealt with by Congress similarly. The current aggregated tally of States applying for an Article V COS on balanced-budget amendment grounds now stands at 26 States. Formerly, it had been as many as 32 States; but the recent "clean-up" of the Congressional Record tally reduced the number to 26 (ostensibly because of aged or rescinded applications, etc.) — leaving eight more States to go before Congress is CONSTITUTIONALLY OBLIGATED to CALL a COS.
We must recognize, and expect, that Congress has no institutional interest in doing such a thing. So, if the time ever were to come when there are close to 34 State Applications for an Article V COS on the subject matter of a balanced-budget amendment, if past is any guide to the future, Congress would step in to obviate the States' initiative and assert its own right to pass constitutional amendments without consultation with the States. [Thus continuing the federal penchant for overwhelming States' rights wherever possible.] Though Congress still has to get its amendment ratified by three-quarters of the States (38) before the amendment can be adopted as constitutional law. However, given the prevailing pubic sentiment at the time of the 17th Amendment controversy, the congressionally-drafted amendment for direct election of Senators was easily ratified....
I gather that few people at the time realized that this meant that the sovereign States thereby would lose representation in the federal Congress.... Oh, so very sad....
The point is, Congress has no interest in "power-sharing" with the States. It always wants to be the "big dog" in the fight....
Which is why I so love the recent Georgia Application: It is not "single-issue," thus difficult for Congress to co-opt. It specifies a range of interest, a sort of "mission statement," that encompasses three main lines of concern: (1) The balance of power as between the federal government vis-a-vis the States; (2) federal fiscal responsibility; (3) federal term limits.
The Georgia Application also has the virtue of informing Congress of two things that Congress must respect: (1) The Georgia Application is not time-limited. Rather it is perpetual, until such time as 33 other States agree with it. (2) It informs the Clerk of Congress that the Georgia Application is to be aggregated with all other State Applications on the same subject matter.
BTW central–va, the thought strikes me that repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments clearly falls within the purview of the Georgia Application.
The good news is: The Georgia Application has been followed by State Applications from three other States by now, all using the same language. There is no way they can't be "aggregated"; rather they must be aggregated, on epistemological and logical grounds.
The bad news is: We need another 30 States to get on-board with the splendid Georgia COS Application effort....
I hope liberty-loving Americans, petitioning their State governments, will adopt the Georgia Application as the "model" application that they want their State to emulate in framing their own Application — as close as can be — for the restoration of American public order, the order of human liberty under equal and just law. And then hold their State's feet to the fire, to apply for an Article V COS on the particular grounds of the Georgia Application.
We live in interesting, fascinating, and yet somehow joyful times, my friend. Never lose hope!