Replies

The entirety of Article V is phrased with Congress being indicated to be in the singular position of control. It's not me making it "sound" that way.

If we cut out all of the the descriptive clauses, we see these statements:

1) The Congress shall propose amendments to this Constitution
2) The Congress shall ... shall call a convention for proposing amendments on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states
3) as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Beyond the convention itself, the entire thing is governed by Congress, with numerous current indications supporting the intent for Congress to have authority far more than just ministerial to a convention, but rather dictating the convention's terms.

Here are the indications from the only direct Supreme Court decision on the matter:

Coleman vs Miller (307 U.S. 433) 1939
Case quotes:

* * * * *
"The Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to control submission of constitutional amendments. ..."
"The Court here treats the amending process of the Constitution in some respects as a subject to judicial construction, in others as subject to the final authority of Congress. There is no disapproval of the conclusion arrived at in Dillon v. Glass, that the Constitution impliedly requires that a properly submitted amendment must die unless ratified with a 'reasonable time.' Nor does the Court now disapprove of its prior assumption of power to make such a pronouncement. And it is not made clear that only Congress has constitutional power to determine if there is any such implication in Article V of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Court's opinion declares that Congress has the exclusive power to decide the 'political questions' of whether a State whose legislature has once acted upon a proposed amendment may subsequently reverse its position, and whether, in the circumstances of such a case as this, an amendment is dead because an 'unreasonable' time has elapsed. Such division between the political and judicial branches of the government is made by Article V which grants power over the amending of the Constitution to Congress alone. Undivided control of that process has been given by the Article exclusively and completely to Congress. The process itself is 'political' in its entirety, from submission until an amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and is not subject to judicial guidance, control or inference at any point.
Since Congress has sole and complete control over the amending process, subject to no judicial review, the views of any court upon this process cannot be binding upon Congress, and insofar as Dillon v. Glass, supra, attempts judicially to impose a limitation upon the right of Congress to determine final adoption of an amendment, its should be disapproved." ...Congress, possessing exclusive power over the amending process, cannot be bound by and is under no duty to accept the pronouncements upon that exclusive power by this Court... Neither State nor federal court can review that power. Therefore, any judicial expression amounting to more than mere acknowledgment of exclusive Congressional power over the political process of amendment is a mere admonition to the Congress in the nature of an advisory opinion, given wholly without constitutional authority."

This is not "me" doing this; I am only indicating what the previous facts to be, even as supported by the precedent of 1787.