Replies

That's a distinction without a difference. A convention could scrap the entire constitution and rewrite it. Thus, it is properly called a constitutional convention, con-con, or just CC for short.

Nope.

The difference is that there wasn't a Constitution in place the first time, and there is one now.

The justification for the Convention to propose amendments is Article V. There was no Article V before.

If you think the Convention to propose amendments can just scrap the Constitution outright, then you must believe that they won't need to have any states ratify it, since ratification is in the Article V that was just scrapped?

Furthermore, how do you address the fact that the states are still sovereign governments? Do you believe that the legislatures of the several states would just sit back and let a Convention to propose amendments tell them that the Constitution has been voided and they are now in charge?

Since the states were sovereign governments that preexisted the Constitution, wouldn't scrapping the Constitution just revert the states back to individual sovereign governments? If the Convention for proposing amendments decides to ignore that Constitutional boundary on their powers and declare a new Constitution is now in force, what would behold the states to this new Constitution?

Even the first Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. Are you suggesting that a new Constitution to replace the existing Constitution would not have ratification processes as well, and would be imposed on the sovereign states by Convention fiat?

-PJ

The difference is that there wasn't a Constitution in place the first time, and there is one now.

The present constitution was created in violation of the previous Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous agreement to change them. That prevented nothing.

The justification for the Convention to propose amendments is Article V. There was no Article V before.

Irrelevant. The only limitation in Article V is that a state cannot be denied equal representation in the Senate.

If you think the Convention to propose amendments can just scrap the Constitution outright, then you must believe that they won't need to have any states ratify it, since ratification is in the Article V that was just scrapped?

Certainly it could. It appears that it would require 3/4's of states to vote to secede, and then create a new union to avoid the only limitation in Article V, denying equal representation in the Senate. (By present standards, Rhode Island is too small to be a state. It should be joined with Connecticut.) The dissenting states would then need to decide if they wanted to remain in a rump Old United States, join with Canada, or join the new union. With that caveat, anything goes.

Furthermore, how do you address the fact that the states are still sovereign governments?

As a practical matter, states have not been sovereign since the expansion of the commerce clause. Since most everything is now considered to be in the "stream of commerce", state sovereignty has become mostly a vestigial right, more theoretical than real.

Do you believe that the legislatures of the several states would just sit back and let a Convention to propose amendments tell them that the Constitution has been voided and they are now in charge?

If 38 states ratify an amendment, the remaining states would need to accept the fact, because that's the constitution.

Since the states were sovereign governments that preexisted the Constitution, wouldn't scrapping the Constitution just revert the states back to individual sovereign governments? If the Convention for proposing amendments decides to ignore that Constitutional boundary on their powers and declare a new Constitution is now in force, what would behold the states to this new Constitution?
Even the first Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. Are you suggesting that a new Constitution to replace the existing Constitution would not have ratification processes as well, and would be imposed on the sovereign states by Convention fiat?

A repetition of rhetorical questions already addressed. See above.