In response to:

“Con Con” Carries Pros and Cons

Anonymous3224 Wrote: Aug 27, 2012 10:33 AM
Except that at a convention, 2/3 of the states have to propose each amendment, and 3/4 of the states have to approve each one. So an amendment wouldn't even make it to the floor if it didn't enjoy very broad support, and wouldn't be approved unless all but the most recalcitrant states signed on. It would only take 13 states to vote an amendment down, so there would be no room for mischief. Slow and steady may be an argument in the House, but it takes six years to turn over the Senate. We don't have 18 years, or 12, if the incumbents keep getting re-elected in the upper chamber. We'll have been Greeced long since. If the spendaholics on the Hill won't vote fiscal discipline upon themselves, We The People MUST impose it.
Corbett_ Wrote: Aug 27, 2012 2:30 PM
You are misreading the Constitution. 2/3 of the states have to propose a convention. Then the convention adopts its own rules about what amendments can be considered. So once a convention is called, there is no telling what might come out of it.

What about a constitutional convention convened for the sole purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the U.S. Constitution?

Many Tea Party-minded activists are taken with the idea of a “Con Con”—and there are some strong arguments in its favor. But there are some dangers, as well. Perhaps enough to outweigh the benefits.

Article V of the Constitution puts forth two ways to change the Constitution. Under the first, Congress passes an amendment, which is then ratified by two-thirds of the States. The second route provides that Congress, “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds...