[Publius]

Here's how it will play out. Let's say that 34 states request a general convention so that Levin's proposals can be addressed. For the moment, let's ignore the tricks that Congress can play to avoid calling an Amendments Convention. They used those tricks in 1912 to avoid a convention over the issue of direct election of senators, so there is precedent for congressional intransigence. But let's put that aside and say that Congress sets the time and place for the states to assemble in convention.

That ABA Report will be retrieved from 535 dusty file cabinets in a warehouse somewhere, and 50 different bills will be introduced to regulate the selection of delegates and the conduct of the convention. Eventually, the House and Senate will agree on a bill despite Rand Paul's arguing that Congress has no place in the proceedings. By the way, I agree with Paul and you, but I'm just telling you how power politics work.

At least one state attorney general will go to federal court to argue that Congress has overstepped his bounds. He'll be making your arguments. Eventually, it will reach the Supreme Court, and we'll get one of those definitive decisions like Dillon or Coleman. I don't know which way the Court will go, considering that there are already two precedents allowing Congress wide latitude in regulating the amendatory process.

Eventually, your side will win, or Congress will win. I'm not prepared to wager on the outcome.

[Red Badger]

As far as I can tell, according to the Constitution, the only ‘say so’ Congress has in the Convention process is to Log or collect the ‘applications’ from the states for a convention and deciding whether 3/4 of the states legislatures or mini conventions within those states will be required to pass the amendments. Other than that, they have no say.........