to mitigate the consensus of fears expressed, it should be noted that the States are fully within their right to apply to Congress with the expressed purpose of calling a Convention of States for well-defined purposes. It would not be prudent to call a convention for the broad purpose of amending the Constitution. States are able to, and many should be willing to, apply for a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND SCOPE of the federal government, for example. Those States on board with this intent would thus attend.
re: “. . . it should be noted that the States are fully within their right to apply to Congress with the expressed purpose of calling a Convention of States for well-defined purposes. It would not be prudent to call a convention for the broad purpose of amending the Constitution. States are able to, and many should be willing to, apply for a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND SCOPE of the federal government, for example. Those States on board with this intent would thus attend.”
That all sounds good, but does Congress have the right to deny the states to hold a convention with well-defined purposes? Or, can the states do it themselves? I guess I’m just too cynical anymore to think that such a thing would accomplish what we want.
I know your heart is totally in the right place, dontreadthis, and if it were to happen, I would pray for its success. I just think our nation is so divided that such a convention would be ignored by this President and current Congress. They’ve ignored the rule of law of the Constitution already - why would this be any different?