What needs to be done here first is to agree on terminology... otherwise, there can be no communication.

There has been but one Constitutional Convention, and that was called not under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, but under the powers that the sovereign states had reserved to themselves. The purpose of that convention was very broadly defined, in that the delegates were empowered to recommend any and all expedient changes to remedy a failing political system. The resultant document is today’s Constitution. Nowhere does it provide for the authority to call for another Constitutional Convention, nor does it allow the states to retain their sovereign capacity to do so unilaterally. It does, however, provide the authority for a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution. For the purposes of this discussion, that distinction must be acknowledged, and the term “Con-Con” set aside for use in debating Constitutional Conventions at some other time in some other discussion.

"The one time there has been a Constitutional Convention was in 1787. That was without an Article V similar to the current one and there has not been a Con-Con held since. Probably for good reason. In 1787 it was originally intended to amend the Articles of Confederation, indeed turned into a “runaway” convention and produced a whole new Constitution – thankfully by people with intelligent heads on their shoulders. The point has been made by many, that given today’s generally deplorable state of political education and well known powerful influences such as George Soros and many others that a modern Constitutional Convention could turn into a most unwelcome opening of a Pandora’s Box."

I think there is a very high potential for what you say. The amount of money and international influence is almost limitless. Generations of Americans have been dumb downed and many have no concept of the founding and the precepts of a constitutional republic. Laws and restrictions are now observed by the powerful only when they want too and the potential for the complete subversion of the US is great.

Well, the answer is simple. The John Birchers do not say any such thing, they acknowledge that the Constitution has been amended many times, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. They also acknowledge that Article V outlines several ways that the Constitution can be amended. They just say be very careful and be very aware of what could happen.

What needs to happen here is to frame the discussion based on the correct premises. The question is not whether the John Birch Society protests the States having a role in amending the Constitution - that assertion is absurd on its face - but whether it is wise to call a Constitutional Convention at all.

Having said that, part of the discussion revolves around the question of whether there is a difference or not between a Constitutional Convention (a Con-Con) and what is being called an Article V Convention of the States. Mark Levin has contributed to the recent momentum of the movement with his book entitled "The Liberty Amendments". A major group currently pushing this concept is called The Convention of the States (COS).

Article V provides for three mechanisms to amend the Constitution. Congress can propose amendments to go to the State legislatures for ratification requiring three fourths in number, the States can apply to Congress if two thirds agree to call for a Convention for proposing amendments then requiring the three fourths of the State legislatures to ratify, or if conventions are held in three fourths of the States successfully proposing and ratifying the same amendments. The latter is clearly a logistical issue so the historic pushes for a Convention have been with the effort to gain enough States to apply to Congress to call a Convention.

Article V provides two primary methods for calling a National Convention for amending the Constitution. Either way it is a Constitutional Convention. Now COS is trying to change what has been historically referred to as a Constitutional Convention or the Con-Con with something called an Article V Convention of the States. But clearly there is no difference after the National Convention has convened.

So, resolving the discussion to what is truly at heart here, is whether it is a wise thing or a dangerous thing to call for a Con-Con. A major objection from those that say no to a Con-Con is that it would become a “runaway” Convention with all kinds of potential chicanery from the likes of George Soros funded leftists groups and others gaining a foothold and radically changing the fundamentals of our existing Constitution. The pro Con-Con folks maintain that the Convention can be limited ahead of time and presumably to Mark Levin’s proposed Liberty Amendments. But, as the John Birchers and others point out, there is nothing in Article V providing for this supposed ability for a limited Convention.

The one time there has been a Constitutional Convention was in 1787. That was without an Article V similar to the current one and there has not been a Con-Con held since. Probably for good reason. In 1787 it was originally intended to amend the Articles of Confederation, indeed turned into a “runaway” convention and produced a whole new Constitution – thankfully by people with intelligent heads on their shoulders. The point has been made by many, that given today’s generally deplorable state of political education and well known powerful influences such as George Soros and many others that a modern Constitutional Convention could turn into a most unwelcome opening of a Pandora’s Box.

It has also been pointed out by many that good people have come down on both sides of this issue. It is a split amongst conservative constitutionalists with the stakes potentially very high.