There is no limit on who might be sent to attend this convention, or what might be proposed.
Dear YHAOS, you articulate a fairly common concern. Indeed, when I first heard that preparations for an Article V Convention of the States for the Proposing of Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were going on, well below the radar screen of public notice, I was concerned. So I did a little research.
One of the first things I found out was that there are certain “interested parties” who wish to foment as much public confusion as possible about the Article V COS, and to teach the public to fear one. Mainly for the reasons you gave, above. And mainly for the preservation of their own status-quo interests.
Getting down to nuts and bolts, your stated concerns are two in number: (1) “There is no limit on who might be sent to attend this convention”; and (2) “what might be proposed” at such a convention.
The first seems to have two main aspects: (a) the number of delegates (“commissioners”) that a given State might send to the convention; and (b) the qualifications (“credentials”) of the delegates, which goes straight to the matter of how they are appointed.
The American Legislative Executive Council (“ALEC”) has done an amazing amount of spadework in proposing and defining Article V COS rules pertaining to both these questions. (Which eventually would have to be passed by the entire Convention, on a State-by-State, one-vote-per-state simple majority basis, in order to take effect.)
ALEC’s current working document suggests five commissioners per participating State would be nominal; but in order for the COS to be recognized as proceeding from the States, ALEC can only suggest. Any State can send as many delegates as it wants to. But astute procedural rules, as developed by ALEC, limit opportunities for political demagogy — such as a maximum of two speeches by any State delegate on a single topic, limited to ten minutes in duration, that must be intervened by another delegate’s speech before the first delegate can make his second speech on the single topic — should keep sober deliberation on a fairly even keel, to the frustration of political opportunists.
As to (b), the qualifications of delegates. They are completely chosen by the States they are to represent. The historical precedents as to the manner of selection validate two methods, which IIRC have been concurrently accommodated in past conventions: appointment by State legislature; or by State popular referendum. I gather any State can choose whichever method it will follow. It is answerable to its own electorate for its decision.
Your second concern deals with the fear of a “runaway convention.” Let’s look at that.
In the first place, it seems to me we ought to consider the Article V constitutional recognition that the U.S. Constitution itself is subject to modification over time, to meet changing circumstances, to remove defects in its original construction that have become manifest over time. That is why the Constitution itself contains its own amendment process.
Which is what Article V specifies. Article V recognizes two legitimate channels of constitutional change: the proposal of Amendments by Congress, or by a Convention of the States (“COS”). Both methods are perfectly equal in constitutional dignity in all respects. Both methods are subject to ratification by three-fourths of the States (as Congress “directs,” whether by State legislatures or by State conventions called for the purpose) before they can be constitutionally adopted and made effective as basic elements of our rule of law.
A COS can only exist if it is “called” by Congress. To be “called,” 34 of the several States must show that they want to work together on an issue that calls for modification of our basic rule of law. The issue might be, for instance, a balanced budget amendment. Any State interested in pursuing this issue must file an Application to Congress that clearly indicates this purpose. If another 33 States file similar, or (better!) virtually identical Applications on this single topic, then Congress cannot fail but to aggregate them, and, finding the 34-state threshold having been achieved, MUST issue a CALL for a Convention of the States, recognizing a 34-state quorum as sufficient for the conduct of business for proposing amendments on the relevant subject matter.
Which has no effect whatsoever, unless 38 States ratify their product.
Which is to suggest that I think the “runaway convention” fear is unfounded. For if a Convention has been called on the basis of subject matter “X,” then you can’t legitimately redirect the Convention to subject matter “Y.”
If you do, you’d get killed in Court….
Anyhoot, dear brother in Christ, just some thoughts, FWTW. Hopefully, you might find some of them helpful. Thank you ever so much for your reply!