"...if two-thirds of the state legislatures demand one, Congress must call for a constitutional convention, which would have the power to propose amendments. As no such convention has been called, it is unclear how one would work in practice. In two instances — reapportionment in the 1960s and a balanced federal budget during the 1970s and 1980s — attempts to use this process have come extremely close to triggering a constitutional convention. The apportionment debate of the 1960s fell only one state short of the required number of states." Wiki
--------------------------------------------------------------
The original constitutional convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to write a completely separate document. Once in Philadelphia the delegates seized control of the process and without authorization by Congress wrote a document to create a different form of government. They then submitted this document to the states for ratification, not by the state legislatures, but rather by conventions of delegates elected just for this purpose. This was a surprising process. the resulting struggle over ratification was largely determined in the Virginia convention. Before that happened two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island had voted against ratification.
I understand that a large number of states have passed resolutions calling for a new constitutional convention. Is this so? If it is, then I offer the opinion that once called such a constitution would become uncontrollable in its scope. The resulting document would have to be ratified by the states. pl
http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/do-we-need-a-new-constitutional-convention.html