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.
That's because of the whacky nature of many of the amendments that get proposed, such as the recent one from Chuck Schumer about curtailing political speech in the wake of the Citizen's United ruling from SCOTUS. Just today, Harry Reid is supporting Schumer's proposal. But, the other's in Congress don't take these partisan ideas seriously, and it won't see a vote.
And that's what will happen in a state proposing convention, too. Whacky amendments won't get serious consideration, either, and won't make it to the states.
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.
No, this is not a "proposal for a meeting," it is states exercising their proper Constitutional powers as a check and balance against an overreaching federal government. One cannot delegitimize it simply because it hasn't been exercised before.
I'm sure that a proposing convention would just as similarly reject a Schumer-like amendment restricting political free speech, and never send it to the states for ratification.
What about other powers in the Constitution that haven't been exercised before? Should those be abandoned too? What about the power of Congress to eliminate or reorganize the lower federal courts? Should Congress never try to exercise their Article III Section 1 power to eliminate and/or recreate "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" in order to oust runaway liberal judges?
-PJ