We almost had one some years ago. Who initiated it? Is it still under consideration?
As of April, 1987, 32 states have voted to issue convential calls to hold a second constitutional convention. Convention bills are pending before 11 more state legislatures, while bills to rescind previous calls are under consideration in four states. When the total reaches 34, the Constitution stipulates that a convention must be held. The convention drive began in the mid 1970s to bring about the consideration of an amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.
The first state to make the request for a constitutional convention to consider a balanced-budget amendment was North Dakota. The total was up to 31 states by the end of the 1970s. Missouri made it 32 in 1983. Then people began to realize that a con-con could not be limited to a single issue. Politicians from across the political spectrum feared any number of changes the convention could propose.
Since 1983, 3 of the 32 states (including N.D) have rescinded their requests, bring the current total down to 29 (as of 1998), 5 short of the requirement.
IMO, there really is no need for a constitutional convention, as any necessary changes can be made with an amendment. An amendment would require the approval of 38 states, by the way, whereas a new Constitution would require the approval of all 50, plus DC.
Seeing that an amendment is a change to the Constitution, isn’t it correct to say that a Constitutional convention is one of the means of adding an amendment?
I’ll have to reread the applicable portions of the Constitution, but I seem to recall that there are two or three methods of amending it.