[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.

[C210N]

I’d suggest doing some research on your own then...

I have, and know that there is a ton of precedent and practice. The nuts and bolts of how it works includes Congress counting the applications. At any one time there can be and have been multiple seperate calls, and Congress has to track and group them. That is why the states passing calls spell out specific language to make it easier for Congress to count. The closer the language between the states are, the more likely that congress WILL call the COS. The more apart the language, the more likely Congress will ignore the calls, because it can easily consider them for separate conventions.

[P-Marlowe]

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.

The problem is not the Constitution, it is the liberal interpretation of the Constitution that has led us down the road to tyranny. Nothing will prevent the courts from liberally interpreting any of Levin's proposed amendment so that they don't have any effect on the status quo.

On top of everything else, none of Levin's proposed amendments stand a snowball chance of being ratified. I like Levin, but usually when he goes on his rampage about a Constitutional Convention, I change the channel.

We don't have any Jeffersons or Madisons or Washingtons in power right now. Any amendments that would come out of a 21st century constitutional convention are likely to increase tyranny rather than eliminate it.