[John Valentine]

PLEASE, please everyone, cease and desist referring to a “Constitutional Convention”. This is misleading too many people into false thoughts - it’s so lazy, inaccurate and dangerously deceitful that I have concluded that its usage here is probably a statist tactic to divert and derail the debate.

Please call it a “Convention of the States” or a “Convention for Proposing Amendments to the Constitution”. Anything but what it is not.

And what is it not? It is NOT NOT NOT a Constitutional Convention, nothing like it at all.

[Publius]

Agreed. A Constitutional Convention is a convention to either write a constitution or amend one. Technically it's a good term, but it has so many connotations that it causes panic. Article V doesn't permit the kind of convention that these people fear.

I used to use the term "Article V Convention" until somebody asked me what Article V was.

I now use the term "Amendments Convention" because Judge Andrew Napolitano uses it and because it is succinct and to the point.

I don't like the term "Convention of the States" because it is not as clear, but I occasionally use the term "the States Assembled in Convention".

The term "Convention for Proposing Amendments" is right out of the Constitution, but it has too many words.

[boxlunch]

Yes and anyone who calls it a constitutional convention has NOT read Levin’s book, and has no business wholesale smacking down the whole idea if they don’t even understand what he is proposing.

I am all for debate and discussion, I think it is good for people to have hope and engage again, even if they disagree, but I am frustrated with people who are knocking this thing down who obviously have not read the book.
Levin goes into detail explaining what he is and is not proposing, and it would be helpful if posters on threads about the book would READ it FIRST (even just read the first few chapters to get a sense of the overall proposal).

[donmeaker]

I think it could be called an Article V convention.