At the Convention of States Project's website, and under their Frequently Asked Questions the first question presented and then answered is:
Why Do We Want to Call a Convention of States?
“Washington, D.C., is broken. The federal government is spending this country into the ground, seizing power from the states and taking liberty from the people. It’s time American citizens took a stand and made a legitimate effort to curb the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason insisted that the States be given the power to amend the Constitution to curb abuses by Washington, D.C. The Founders gave us the solution for today. It is time to use their solution.”
The problem is indeed identified by the Convention of States project. Our federal government is usurping power not granted and trampling upon the inalienable rights of the American People. A recent example being the passage of Obamacare by Congress and the Supreme Court engaging in judicial tyranny when upholding Congress’ legislative tyranny, not to mention the president’s willful usurping legislative power and imposing his own version of Obamacare upon the people.
And to curb this assault upon the People’s constitutionally limited system of government, the Convention of States project comes to the people’s rescue and suggests they forgo rising up and demanding an adherence to their written Constitution. The Convention of States project’s solution is to take the people out of the equation and find their remedy in our corrupted state governments, our tyrannical Supreme Court and a despotic Congress. Are these not the actors who would be in total charge of a convention should one be called? Would calling a convention under Article V not give them the “legal opportunity” to make constitutional the tyranny which is now rained down upon the people?
One must ask, who would actually attend a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings? Could James Madison be right, and that an election into the convention " would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric...?
Let us take a look at what has already happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to amend its state constitution.
During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery!
The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a public office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”
Now, let us take a look at who is behind the calling of a constitutional convention. See: Exposing the Convention of the States (COS) as an Article V Constitutional Convention … and Who’s Behind It All, including Soros & Levin
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
.
At the Convention of States Project's website, and under their Frequently Asked Questions the second question presented and then answered is:
What is a Convention of States?
"A convention of states is a convention called by the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. They are given power to do this under Article V of the Constitution. It is not a constitutional convention. It cannot throw out the Constitution because its authority is derived from the Constitution."
The Convention of States Project is absolutely correct that when a convention is called, it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural], see Article V! But their opinion which then follows is not based upon historical facts and precedent. The fact is, the Convention of 1787, which is the precedent we must rely upon, was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The Delegates to the Convention were not authorized to draw up an entirely new Constitution and new government which they took it upon themselves to do. And after doing so, the Convention also decided to ignore the Articles of Confederation's requirement that a unanimous consent be obtained by the States to alter the Articles. The Convention changed that requirement to an approval by a mere nine states to put into effect the new government and new Constitution they created.
And so, it is disingenuous for the Convention of States Project to make the claim a convention, if called, “cannot throw out the Constitution”. It certainly does have the constitutionally authorized power to propose countless “amendments” which in effect could eviscerate our entire Constitution and created a new system of government if adopted. And judging from historical precedent, the Convention may also propose a method of adoption different than what our existing Constitution currently requires.
It should also be noted that a Justice of the Supreme Court has already confirmed the autonomy of a convention should one be called. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “ I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’
JWK
"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli