There has only been one constitutional convention, the one that happened in Philadelphia in 1787. But all it takes to hold a new one is a call for it from two-thirds of the states. According to some observers, that threshold has already been met.

Republican U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington of Texas, the chair of the U.S. House Committee on the Budget, said a constitutional convention should have been called in 1979 because the state threshold was met at that time. To keep track of it all, Arrington has introduced legislation that would require the National Archives to collect state applications for conventions.

A “bare-bones” website called the Article 5 Library is also keeping count, according to the New York Times. It indicates that more than 34 states have standing requests for a convention, some of which are more than 150 years old.

You might imagine that in order for a constitutional convention to be held you would need 34 states to agree on a specific topic at a specific time, but the Constitution itself doesn't say that. In theory any standing call for a convention, even one from 100 years ago could be considered a valid vote for holding a new convention. And that possibility has some Democrats worried.

Democratic California state Sen. Scott Wiener this week filed legislation to recall all of the state's requests for a U.S. constitutional convention, citing concerns about how a Republican-controlled federal government could strip away rights and change the document that serves as the country's foundation...

"We are getting dangerously close to the number of states required to actually trigger a constitutional convention, and although there are many things I'd like to rewrite in the Constitution, we are in a situation where we have an extremist, right-wing national government, and I personally don't want Jim Jordan and Donald Trump and JD Vance and Mike Johnson controlling what a constitutional convention looks like," Wiener told KCRA 3 in an interview.

California isn't alone. Other blue states have been rescinding their prior calls for a convention.

If Mr. Wiener’s legislation is enacted, California would follow the path of other Democratic-led states that have withdrawn their calls for conventions since 2016, including New Jersey, Oregon and Illinois. New York most recently did so by passing a law this spring that rescinded all of its previous applications, including one from 1789...

Given the broad control that Republicans will have in Washington next year, other Democratic-led states may be motivated to rescind their constitutional convention requests. Lawmakers in Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut previously introduced resolutions to take back their applications, but those measures stalled.

The most recent call for a constitutional convention came from California last year. Gov. Newsome called for one to put in place a ban on gun sales. No one else in any other state has seconded that call, but again calling for a new convention doesn't require that everyone agree about the purpose of it.

By the count of David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on constitutional conventions, the highest number of active requests for a convention on one specific topic is 28, for a balanced budget. But, he said, if Article V is interpreted as allowing any request to count toward convening a constitutional convention, the 34-state threshold has already been reached.

“If Congress declares under whatever crazy counting theory the convention advocates support that we’ve met the threshold, then we’ll have a convention,” Mr. Super said.

Common Cause, a left-leaning watchdog group which is against calls for a constitutional convention, has published a couple of articles this year warning that it could happen. David Super, the professor quoted above, was featured in a Common Cause video about this. This clip is 5 years old but you can still feel the panic radiating from it.

Republicans are eager to eliminate the freedom of speech or other elements of the 1st Amendment? That's a scare tactic and not a very convincing one. If anyone would be likely to alter our freedom of speech and religion it's the progressive left who don't seem committed to either. If anything, it seems far more likely that Democrats would be eager to eliminate the 2nd Amendment and limit the 1st Amendment if given a chance.

As noted above, the one issue that seems most likely to trigger a convention is the demand for a balanced budget. That's obviously something Democrats would not like to see happen since it would cut off their supply of endless government money for whatever new programs they can dream up. If they are afraid of a constitutional convention, this is probably their top worry.