when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States
OR < ————————
“by Conventions in three fourths thereof “
if a convention is called.. and 3/4 of the representatives of the states agree... they can do ANYTHING, no later ratification is necessary.
Ratification is only necessary when a constitutional amendment is put forward by congress. Since the states are the ones that are calling for convention, and since those very states will send representatives to said convention, agreement among 3/4 of said representatives is implicitly implied.
you also have to think about this... how will the states decide how the representatives from each state will be picked?
will there be an equal number of representatives from each state? (as I think conservatives wrongly assume)
OR
will the big liberal states push for representation based population (arguing that is more democratic)...
remember... there ARE NO RULES once the convention is called (it makes it’s own rules), the supreme court can’t step in, the congress cant interfere.... ANYTHING they decide to do is fair game and stands since from the moment it is called it is extra constitutional and not subject to review by anyone.
I think Article V makes it clear that it's a two step process. A convention can be called if two-thirds of the states request it. Once convened the convention can propose constitutional amendments. That's step one. These amendments must be sent back to the states for ratification. The states can ratify either through vote of legislature OR convention on its citizens. But in any event three-fourths of the states need to do so. The amendments can't be proposed and ratified in the same convention.
Before I address Article V conventions, I will state that since the Constituton is not broke, let's not "fix" it. In other words, the only problem with the Constitution is politically correct interpretations of it which promote unconstitutionally big federal government.
What the country really needs to do is for Congress to impeach activist justices and corrupt presidents for ignoring their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. The problem is that corrupt members of Congress need to be impeached themselves. So voters really need to wise up to major federal government corruption and use their voting power fire a bunch of "leaders."
Regarding conventions, the way that I read Article V is the following. A given proposed amendment can trigger possibly 0, 1 or 2 layers of conventions before it is possibly ratified.
For no conventions, Congress proposes an amendment(s) to the states, and also proposes that the state legislatures decide yea or nay on the proposed amendment.
For one layer of convention, a national convention, Congress calls this convention because state officials have indicated that they want to get together and agree upon the wording of an official proposed amendment(s) to the states, Congress also proposing that state legislatures, as opposed to state conventions, later decide yea or nay to the proposed amendment.
In all three approaches to amending the Constitution, the yea or nay on a proposed amendment is decided in a later stage, and most likely by different people than the ones who drafted it at a national convention if Congress didn't propose it.
Again, although I can recommend a few changes to the Constitution myself, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment for example, the Constitution is not broke, so let's not "fix" it, particularly since the states are divided on so many issues anyway.