A New Constitutional Convention?

On December 10th of this year one of the ‘lists’ that I read had a comment on the fact that we were two states away from the US Congress being forced to call a Constitutional Convention in order to propose Amendments to the US Constitution – or what the current day lingo calls a Con Con. A vote was to be held by the Ohio legislature, which – if successful – would leave only one state left to apply for a Convention before that Convention became a reality.

At first the significance of this escaped me – as did finding much written literature on the subject. But, through perseverance, the following discoveries were made:

Article V of the Constitution provides for two methods of amending the Constitution. 1) The US Congress proposes, and 3/4th of the States have to approve the proposed amendment before it goes into effect; and 2) when 2/3rd of the States (34) apply to Congress for a Con Con. This latter method has never been used, and a number of questions arise about it.

While many of the applications for a Con Con have centered on creating an amendment for a balanced Federal budget, Article V does not limit what the Con Con – if called - could propose in the form of amendments. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."”

That is one of many questions that arise about a Con Con.

Some resources to enlighten the reader/listener:
-A number of concerns are summed up in a short You Tube presentation proportedly addressed to State legislators.
-One source did provide some interesting FAQ’s on a Con-Con.
-An article from the Daily Herald (Utah) concerning a Convention.

Things I don’t know, but would like to:

-How long is an application valid?
-What states have approved (and tried to rescind) their applications for a Con-Con?
-Why can’t a state rescind (as apparently some have done) their application?
-How often have the states neared the magic number for a Con Con occurred?
-What would a Con-Con really look like?
-Why isn’t this concept surfacing in the mainstream media?
-Why am I so clueless about this?

The Constitution Rights Foundation has an interesting lesson plan for the Convention process that could be used in the classroom.

Essential Question: What do you think would be the effects of a Constitutional Convention to provide amendments to the Constitution?