I get the feeling that there is a notion out there, based on the fear of states proposing amendments, that Congress proposing amendments is just fine.
Is that the sentiment?
In Congress, we have a much smaller number of people proposing amendments. 51 Senators and 238 Representatives is all it takes to get a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. And we all know how Senators and Representatives are elected today, and what agendas are driving them.
In the Senate, each state has equal suffrage, but in the House, the smaller states have fewer "delegates" to participate in proposing amendments. Will state delegations to a convention to propose amendments have a similar proportioned make-up, or will the states decide to have more even representation, perhaps giving the smaller states more power in proposing amendments than they would get within Congress?
Conversely, there would be more balance against bad amendments coming from a convention of the states than we might see coming from Congress, due to the larger representation in a state proposing convention. Yes? No?
So why this imputed sanctity for the Congressional method of proposing amendments, versus the outright fear of states proposing amendments?
-PJ
Congress does not meet to propose amendments to the Constitution. Although they do during the course of their session, no amendment has passed muster for many years.
Now we have a proposal for a meeting what's purpose is to engage solely in the Amendment process. We're talking two entirely different processes and designs here.
Anyway, that's besides the points that I wrote earlier.