Dave Weigel and Emma Roller have an essay in Slate about a group of state legislators who recently met, proposing a way to introduce Article V Constitutional Amendments. And of course, there is the obligatory reference to the “Constitution in Exile.”

But conservatives wouldn’t be clamoring for Article V if they thought a convention would produce victories for the left. They’ve got a head start on this; they’re thinking of how to build a movement that runs around Congress to restore the “Constitution in exile.” The convention, if it happened some years from now, needs to happen on their terms. Not that they’re going to shout that from the mountaintop.

I don’t know if this is an apt usage of that phrase, as these people want to actually change the Constitution, and in many respects, bring it to a place it has never been, rather than restore things that have been repealed.

And what are the proposals being considered?

Meckler and his colleagues would make it easy. In the book, CFSG listed a few “examples of amendment topics” that were stalled in Washington but doable at a convention: a balanced budget amendment, term limits for the Supreme Court, “a prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States,” and a “limit” on taxes.

Also, they address Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments”:

And Levin knew what the Framers would have wanted. He proposed 10 amendments, starting with 12-year term limits for members of Congress and Supreme Court judges. Unpopular Supreme Court decisions could be overridden by a three-fifths congressional vote, “not subject to a presidential veto.” The 17th Amendment would be abolished, letting state legislatures once again elect the Senate. (If that happened today, the Senate would be snapped up immediately by Republicans.) If 34 states chose to, they could override any federal statues or regulations “exceeding an economic burden of $100 million.”

Is this feasible? Sandy Levinson chimes in.

That’s true. There are progressive-minded legal thinkers who like the idea of states blowing past the unmanageable Congress. “Relying on ALEC will assure that the specific proposals will be untenably right-wing,” said University of Texas law professor Sandy Levinson. “But, of course, that doesn’t guarantee they’ll get to the magic number of 34, let alone the further magic number of 38 actually to amend the Constitution.” Some good-government reform, like multiple-member House districts, would combat gerrymandering in a way that cut against Republicans.

“It’s impossible to imagine that the House of Representatives would adopt such a proposal,” said Levinson, referring to the notion of multiple-member seats. “But one can imagine that it could get to 38. There would be no reason for the 19 states with four or fewer representatives particularly to care, and one could imagine that another 19 states would see this as a way to diminish the reapportionment wars.”

But conservatives wouldn’t be clamoring for Article V if they thought a convention would produce victories for the left. They’ve got a head start on this; they’re thinking of how to build a movement that runs around Congress to restore the “Constitution in exile.” The convention, if it happened some years from now, needs to happen on their terms. Not that they’re going to shout that from the mountaintop.