Under an Article 5 Constitutional Convention it is Congress that chooses how delegates are chosen for the convention. An Article 5 Constitutional Convention has been called for by over 30 states.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article V
No, I don't think so, Kevin.
See the emboldened.
Where does it say that CONGRESS decides who the delegates will be?
It doesn't.
In fact it is silent about that entirely, other than to say that is an alternative way to making changes to the constitution.
If 37 STATE LEGISLATURES call for a constiutional convention, there is really nothing Congress can do about it.
Here's what Cornell seems to think about the CONVENTION alternative
The Convention Alternative.—Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is sur[p.900]rounded by a lengthy list of questions.
21
When and how is a convention to be convened?
Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter?
Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years?
Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider?
These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration.
22
This method has been close to utilization several times. Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators.
23 Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates.
24 The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court’s legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time.
25 Arguments existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two–thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.
So it looks to me like, once again, the Constiution isn't the clear and obvious roadmap to governance that we often think it is.
Here we have a perfect example of the abiguity of the document.
If I were a STATES RIGHTER, (I'm not a big fan of that political theory in most cases, obviously) I'd be all over this.
37 states could call for a Constiutional convention and nullify EVERYTHING in the U,S. Constiution, but the EXACT methodology to doing that seems clouded.
For example, does each state decide who they'd be sending to that convention? (that's the question we have, isn't it?)
How do the STATE LEGISLATURES decide to send and how many representatives does each state send?
The players in that convention, much like the players in the last convention, the one that created our current Constitution, would be sailing unchartered waters...
again.
Obviously, I am not one of the people one this board which worships the Constitution as being a perfect roadmap to governance.
I think it was left vague in many cases because the players at the last convention couldn't find an answer that they could get passed by enough states to make it part of the Consitution.
That is precisly why, in my opinion, the Supreme Court keeps having to "interpret" that document's meaning, too.
The Floundering Fathers left a LOT of wriggle-room because:
1. they had no choice
2. Because they were smart enough to KNOW they could write every law that this nation might need in the future, either.
