[central_va]

Your timidity and ignorance aside the proposal is for an Art V convention.

[icwhatudo]

How does having the same concern as Scalia make me timid or ignorant?

"A number of prominent jurists and legal scholars have warned that a constitutional convention could open up the Constitution to radical and harmful changes. For instance, Justice Antonin Scalia recently said, “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”
--------------------------------------------------

"the proposal is for an Art V convention"

Not sure what this comment meant...are you implying that is somehow different than the title of this thread "Constitutional Convention" or the comment about a "Constitutional Convention" I agreed with?

Many freepers and others worry about the abuses that could happen. It doesn't make them ignorant or timid. In fact, the "rules" that some take comfort in to prevent possible abuses can AND HAVE been rewritten:

"A convention could choose a new ratification process. The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s pro­posals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies. For example, a convention might remove the states from the approval process entirely and pro­pose a national referendum instead. Or it could follow the example of the 1787 convention and lower the required fraction of the states needed to approve its proposals from three-quarters to two-thirds."