In a recent government meeting, discussions centered around the implications of a potential constitutional convention, particularly focusing on Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. A key point raised was the assertion that efforts by the Convention of States group represent a \"stealth attack\" on the Constitution. Critics argue that while proponents claim the convention would be limited in scope, historical precedent suggests otherwise.

Article 5 outlines two methods for amending the Constitution: one involves Congress proposing an amendment, which is then sent to the states for ratification; the other, a method that has never been utilized, allows states to request Congress to convene a constitutional convention, requiring the agreement of 34 states. Currently, proponents of the Convention of States are advocating for a resolution aimed at limiting the federal government's jurisdiction and power.

The meeting highlighted concerns regarding the feasibility and potential consequences of such a convention, emphasizing that the lack of historical precedent raises questions about the ability to effectively limit its scope. As discussions continue, the debate over the Convention of States and its implications for the Constitution remains a contentious issue among lawmakers and legal experts.