Replies

I have read it many times. Although I'm fine with the term "Convention of States" an article V convention has never to my knowledge been referred as such. The two methods for amending the constitution have traditionally been known as first through congress or second by constitutional convention.

Myself I could care less if we call it a PTA meeting as long as we get it done. My concern is the term "convention of states" could ultimately hurt the credibility of the effort if it becomes known and understood that their is really no difference at all between the two terms and in fact constitutional convention is more correct.

I remember myself, even back in early elementary school (back when schools were still honest education) the "other" method for amending the constitution was by "Constitutional Convention" and this of course was coming from teachers who are much older than I am today. These teachers also knew this method as a "Con Con" and it's many of these people who's support is needed. To many, the term Convention of States may have a spin like feel that may create a feeling of distrust to the true intent of the effort.

I don't want to sound like I'm making a big deal about this because like I said, I don't care myself what we call it as long as we get it done. I just was trying to point out if someone refers to an Article V convention as a Constitutional Convention there is no need to overreact. Simply state the facts and don't even react to the difference in terms. They both are the same and mean the same thing to many many people. What we don't want is them distorting the truth about the process itself.