A “constitutional convention” is not the same thing as an Article V Convention. The language of Article V in the United States Constitution clearly limits an Article V Convention to “proposing amendments...to this Constitution.” Therefore, the only constitutional power the Article V Convention possesses is to propose amendments to the existing Constitution. It is merely an alternative methodology provided by the Framers to discuss and submit amendments for the states to consider. Regardless of how amendments are proposed, either by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress or by Application of the Legislature of two-thirds of the States [which is the Article V Convention method], it would still be necessary for three fourths of the states to ratify such proposals before they would become effective.
On the other hand, a ‘constitutional convention’ — one that seeks to literally discard, replace and re-write the current Constitution — is blatantly extra-constitutional. It is neither authorized by our Constitution nor is it sanctioned elsewhere by any federal or state law. In short, a ‘constitutional convention’ would constitute a quasi-rebellious act if not an outright direct assault on our constitutional republic which, in the view of many constitutional scholars, would violate numerous federal and state laws. This is the type of convention that deserves the scorn of the American people. FOAVC absolutely and categorically opposes a constitutional convention.
I understand what you’re saying, but I have to remind you that the original constitutional convention went well beyond what it was convened for, to amend the Articles of Confederation. And instead, they scrapped it completely and came up with something new.
I don’t trust a convention. I wouldn’t reccommend the Congress calling one. And there haven’t been two-thirds yet. Several states have revoked their applications.