The common contention that congress had authority over the 1787 convention is another example of deceit making its way around the globe before the truth gets its boots on.
There was going to be a federal convention in Philadelphia regardless of what congress did or did not do. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power over a convention. There was nothing to prevent congress from proposing amendments, which it did, regarding taxes and trade a couple of times in the early 1780s. Why did congress need a convention to propose amendments, when it had already done so in the previous few years?
Timeline:
1786.
November 23, Virginia authorizes election of delegates.
November 23, New Jersey elects delegates.
December 4, Virginia elects delegates.
December 30, Pennsylvania elects delegates.
1787.
January 6, North Carolina elects delegates.
January 17, New Hampshire elects delegates.
February 3, Delaware elects delegates.
February 10, Georgia elects delegates.
February 21, Congress calls for a federal convention.
Just as the federal convention of 1787 was extra-congressional, our future amendment convention of the states will also be extra-congressional. Unlike nullification, the state amendment convention will be constitutional.
Since you replied to my post why not address the content of that post?
Which is little different than the Convention called by Congress on February 21, 1787 (obviously not an art. V convention as that did not yet exist) which specified that states were to choose delegates for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. Those delegates threw out the Articles of Confederation.The point of that post is that the 1787 Convention was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”, a limited call just as the current call is intended for limited purposes.
Boilerplate doesn't address the point.