[Publius]

However, what makes you think that would happen at your hypothetical convention? What makes you think that nothing at least as bad might be enacted?

Let me give the legal answer, and I'll yield to Hostage on the political answer.

If two-thirds of the states request a Convention for Proposing Amendments to "discuss the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments," that is the legal scope of the convention, both by the principle of agency and by the 1992 law. A convention could write an amendment to execute a total repeal, a partial repeal -- or it could come to no agreement and adjourn without writing any amendment at all. That's it. If the convention were to attempt to go out of the bounds of the language within the state petitions, it would be illegal and unconstitutional. This is why the 1992 law requires the Supreme Court to be in session during a convention -- to take questions and cases directly without any delay to the process.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Let me give the legal answer, and I'll yield to Hostage on the political answer.

Chief Justice Warren Burger of the United States Supreme Court disagrees with both of you... on the matter.

I think I'll take his opinion as more valued than yours... if you don't mind... :-)

See Post #106