You go to the Obama school of Constitutional law?
” Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention’s proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures”
Once convened, the convention can essentially consider ANYTHING. They are not constrained to specific amendments.
I went to the University of San Francisco School of Law, as a matter of fact.
And you are wrong. Persistently adhering to a factual untruth does not add to your credibility on the matter. It just makes you look uninformed.
Free Republic is a place where it is possible to learn a lot, but not if you are unable to realize that what you think is true may not be. This is the position you find yourself in. I suggest that you listen to those better informed than yourself.
From the Handbook:
Opponents of the Convention of the States process often argue that such a convention could result in a runaway convention that would radically rewrite our Constitution.
We respectfully suggest one proper way to analyze these competing claims: Which scenario is more likely to actually happen?
The most common objection to an Article V convention envisions a doomsday scenario in which delegates disregard the original issue, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. Here are the facts:
1. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. This establishes a clear, strong legislative single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge.
2. In prior Article V litigation it was established that improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. This case also held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.
3. Most importantly, ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.
4. Finally, most opponents of the Convention of the States make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an “illegal runaway convention.” Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution. (See the full article in the Appendix: “Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted?”). It defies logic to declare oneself a “defender” of the Constitution while arguing at the same time that it was illegally adopted.
There a multiple lines of defense against a state attempting to pass an amendment that departs from the original subject: (1) A majority of states at the Convention would almost certainly vote such a proposal to be out of order; (2) If such an amendment was proposed, a proper legal challenge would certainly be filed and has a good likelihood of success; (3) It is political certainty that at least 13 states would defeat any such proposed amendment; (4) It is an historical fallacy to argue that we have an established precedent of Conventions changing the rules illegally.