Constitutional Convention - limits?

[Pantastic]

The OP is confusing. If you just want to propose an amendment, you don’t need a constitutional convention, you can use the regular amendment process. If someone does call a constitutional convention, the only precedent is that they can rewrite the entire thing completely, regardless of the stated reason for the convention. The only Consitutional Convention in the US was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, but it ended up ditching them entirely in favor of the modern Constitution.

[DrFidelius]

I still think it was a grave error to go to election of Senators rather than appointment by the various States.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Pantastic

The OP is confusing. If you just want to propose an amendment, you don’t need a constitutional convention, you can use the regular amendment process. If someone does call a constitutional convention, the only precedent is that they can rewrite the entire thing completely, regardless of the stated reason for the convention. The only Consitutional Convention in the US was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, but it ended up ditching them entirely in favor of the modern Constitution.

Yeah, I was confused as well. An amendment is one thing. There are procedures written into the constitution to allow for such and it gives limits on what amendments can do. Well and good.

A Constitutional Convention, on the other hand, is an event designed to cause a wholesale alteration in the way the country is run as a whole. The representatives appointed could elect to throw the entire thing out and install a Westminsterian style parliament - something I might actually favor - or anything else under the sun. At the point of a constitutional convention, things have really gone off the rails.

Here’s a bit of a write up from The Economist last year that gives some history.

America might see a new constitutional convention in a few years

[Bone]

I would like a constitutional convention for the State of CA. For the feds, it would be totally unpredictable.

[Hari_Seldon]

I am not sure, but I assume they could amend the constitution to reduce the senate to something like the Canadian senate. The latter can delay; they can (try to) amend bills, but ultimately parliament prevails. I think the situation with the Lords in Britain is similar. But I cannot see it happening.

[ebb]

@UltraVires

My opinion is no, there is nothing “intolerable” that would pass 3/4 of the states. What did you have in mind?

RESOLVED: States that start with a consonant Rule, states that start with a vowel Drool!

Boom, exactly 38 votes.

[RTFirefly]

@Jonathan_Chance

Yeah, I was confused as well. An amendment is one thing. There are procedures written into the constitution to allow for such and it gives limits on what amendments can do. Well and good.

A Constitutional Convention, on the other hand, is an event designed to cause a wholesale alteration in the way the country is run as a whole. The representatives appointed could elect to throw the entire thing out and install a Westminsterian style parliament - something I might actually favor - or anything else under the sun. At the point of a constitutional convention, things have really gone off the rails.

Here’s a bit of a write up from The Economist last year that gives some history.

America might see a new constitutional convention in a few years | The Economist

The only saving grace of a Constitutional convention is that it only substitutes for getting an amendment through the House and Senate. Amendments coming out of such a convention would still have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. And thank goodness for that, because a Constitutional convention could pass anything they damn well pleased.

We know there’s no way to limit its scope in advance, because look at the one we already had - they were just supposed to make some modifications to the Articles of Confederation, and next thing you know, they had written a whole new Constitution.