[justiceseeker93]

No matter what Congress would like to do to influence or attempt to ‘control’ the convention, they have no authority to do so. The convention can ignore anything Congress ‘says’ about the convention.

Correct. As stated in Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments," Congress's role in such a scenario would be purely ministerial. It is obligated to call the convention "at the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states." But Congress can propose one of two methods of ratification of any amendment(s) that such a constitutional convention may propose.

The relevant passages in Article V are:

The Congress,...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which...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 one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

There are no procedures specified in the Constitution as to how delegates to such a constitutional convention might be chosen, nor as to the procedures to be employed by the convention once it is assembled. Hence, there is a concern among some that such a convention might get out of control and propose amendments outside the scope of the issues it had been called to address.

[Jacquerie]

Let's say seventeen states note in their applications that they wish to pass a balanced budget amendment.

Another seventeen make applications without specifying topics.

With thirty-four applications in hand, should congress call a convention?

[Kenny Bunk]

This is really The American Problem.

A Convention to repeal the 17th is the key step to restoring balance to the system. Right now, with popularly elected Senators, the big cities can dominate an entire state. Fundamentally conservative states, i.e., those with Republican legislatures, are often represented by fundamentally Liberal Senators, who see their first duty to the Federal Government, not to protect the interests of their state.

Is Cruz pushing this? Is anyone in the hunt for POTUS?

[RKBA Democrat]

“Hence, there is a concern among some that such a convention might get out of control and propose amendments outside the scope of the issues it had been called to address. “

That’s a tired canard. The ratification requirement of 3/4 of states pretty much assures that a runaway convention wouldn’t happen.

My argument against an article V is the opposite. The 3/4 ratification requirement would neuter anything useful coming out of a convention, so why bother?

[SunkenCiv]

thanks justiceseeker93.