[icwhatudo]

Mike Lee, Scalia, the headlined article in this thread, multiple media outlets(conservative and liberal), Harvard Law, all refer to this Article 5 effort as an effort to have a "constitutional covention". Yes, I understand an Article 5 convention has a different set of rules basically giving states the control and keeping congress out but as we can already see how the constitution is being perverted and ignored I find myself in good company with those who worry about opening pandoras box with this effort. Yes, I understand we never have held an Article V Convention. I never said we did. What I said was that we have actual history of rules being changed. What I quoted was a reference to changing the rules as was done in 1787.

"The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s pro­posals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies.

[Jacquerie]

First off, understand a fundamental difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The Articles were approved as any other statute by each state. It is why the states readily and regularly gaffed off their duties under the confederation. No legislature can prevent subsequent legislatures from changing statutes.

The constitution was recognized as a higher order government because its ratification was by conventions of reps of the people.

The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established . . .

Not true. State conventions were old hat by 1787. They went way back to early colonial times. The states themselves convened the federal convention of 1787. Congress had nothing to do with it. For you to claim the confederation congress called the convention, is like me calling for the Florida legislature to meet next month. My call will have nothing to do with its meeting.

. . . lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution

To amend the articles, the confederation required unanimous consent of state legislatures. Several attempts were made to amend the articles regarding tariffs and commerce, but RI consistently prevented amendments. It was this practical impossibility to amend that prodded the states (minus RI) to convene in 1787.

and removing Congress from the approval process.

The federal convention advanced the draft constitution to congress. Congress could have tabled it, or thrown it away. Instead, it passed the constitution on to the several states for ratification by the people. Congress was certainly involved.

Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s pro­posals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies.

Huh?