[cotton1706]

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.

[Congressman Billybob]

See my earlier post pointing out that the original Convention was NOT limited to amending the Articles of Confederation. That assertion is the only major error in Catherine Drinker Bowen's towering work, "Miracle at Philadelphia."

Nine states had already accepted their invitations and chosen and authorized their delegates before Congress passed a non-binding resolution seeking to limit the Convention. Congress even recognized that it had no authority to convene or control that Convention. The exact words of Congress were "Resolved that in the opinion of Congress...." An opinion is NOT a binding law or regulation.

John / Billybob