[C210N]

There is NO “Constitutional Convention” proposed by MI or Mark Levin, or anybody else today. We hand one “Constitutional Convention” in 1789, and under THIS Constitution, ONLY conventions to propose amendments are Constitutional.

Furthermore, not all Article-V conventions are the same... they always have a Call Topic.

In the case of MI, it is for a balance budget amendment. PERIOD.A BBA amendment convention is VERY narrowly focused, and would produce one amendment.

In the case of the COS and Levin, it is to reign-in the federal govt. PERIOD. A COS might produce a few to a half-dozen or so amendments (term limits, abolish the 17th, and a few others).

[cookcounty]

"Furthermore, not all Article-V conventions are the same... they always have a Call Topic."

the term "always" and "the same" seems a bit odd here, as there have been zero Article V Conventions.

[12th_Monkey]

I think it’s a risky thing, but anything is better than what we have now.

I lean more toward secession

[SkyPilot]

A Balanced Budget Amendment would mean massive tax increases. Period. The reason for that is no one, and I mean no one wants touch the Big 3 Entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Of those, two are earned and one is unearned, but they are still the biggest Federal expenditures BY FAR. Add ObamaCare very soon. the unearned Entitlements won't be touched either, and that includes all giveaway welfare. If you have a BBA, it can only mean one thing - massive taxes. I am not saying that a BBA is a bad thing. Our massive debt and deficits are unsustainable. All I am saying is it sounds a lot better on paper, but to implement a BBA is not magic. There isn't this fairy dust of “waste” that we can cut to balance the books. Since we won't cut programs, we will have to raise taxes.

[xzins]

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I do not see in the Constitution where a constitutional convention can be limited to one topic. "Call topic" is no place in the text. It even says "amendments" and if one were to propose more than one amendment there is nothing in the text that would prevent that.

Personally, I think a Constitutional Convention is a terrible idea, and none of the specifics are laid out EXCEPT to say that Congress is in charge. IOW, the current corrupt leaders are in charge of the process.

I think it's a terrible idea and an example of where Levin is mistaken.