I understand the constitutional process but there is a downside to a constitutional convention.
A constitutional convention cannot be limited to a single issue.
A constitutional convention can subject the entire Constitution to proposed changes.
Actually, it can, if done correctly. The term "constitutional convention" is an unfortunate misnomer here, and it's even more unfortunate that the excerpt comes from an official website. Nevertheless, a distinction must be made, and common usage and our understanding for the purposes of this discussion has it that there has been only one Constitutional Convention (note the capitalization), and that was to create the original document.
Technically, nowhere in Article V (nor anywhere else in the Constitution) does one find the authority for a convention to draw up a new constitution. There is authority, however, for a convention of states to propose amendments to the constitution.
No one here is calling for another Con-Con. We already have a Constitution, and one is enough. We simply believe that it needs to be clarified in a few places by amendment, a wholly legitimate and constitutional process. Like any convention, a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution can (and will) define its scope, and, like any convention, an issue that falls outside of those strict parameters will be ruled out of order.
A constitutional convention can subject the entire Constitution to proposed changes.
Only if it's defined scope allows, and I don't see that being proposed in any of the legislation currently moving through the state legislatures.
What I do see are two bills, one drafted by the Compact for America that will apply to Congress for a Convention of States to Propose a Balanced Budget Amendment (CFA BBA), and a second bill drawn up by the Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG COS) applying to Congress for a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and that limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.
That's it, and they are both rather specific. Everyday parliamentary procedure would quickly dispose of any motion to "re-write the constitution" or to broaden the power of the federal in any way as void ab initio, or dead on arrival. Such an item would never make it to debate, let alone consideration. That's the way conventions work.
None of this is to say, however, that those who do wish to re-write the constitution can't try to pull off their own convention for that specific purpose down the block. It's a free country (sort of), and personally, I wish them lots of luck. They should do they math, though, and understand that it only takes 13 states to kill any harebrained ideas that they come up with... actually only one chamber in each of 13 state legislatures.
Bottom line here, in my opinion, is that the only legitimate "runaway" fear is that of a runaway federal government, and a Convention of States is a solution as big as the problem!
We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.