Editor’s note: The following op-ed alleges multiple errors in our April 26 article, “Three GOP Congressional Candidates Back Proposal That Could Deconstruct the U.S. Constitution.” We stand behind the facts in our original article and thus will not be making any corrections — aside from our agreement that the convention would be triggered by 34 states, not 38 as we initially reported. This correction has been made. The overarching reason for our decision against other corrections — aside from our rejection of inaccuracies based on word preferences such as “resolution” versus “application” — is the fact that there is a high level of uncertainty about what would transpire if there were an Article V Convention of the States, according to multiple analyses of it from different types of sources. The facts point to risky, unchartered waters for the country, if such a convention were to occur. For example, the view that the U.S. Constitution would definitely not be dismantled at a convention may or may not be true, in part because the role — if any — of the judiciary in the process is not clear. We believe it’s more factual, based on a range of views, to say it could be dismantled than to say it would not be dismantled or would be dismantled. Hence, the headline of our story used the verb “could be.” Other objections to our article in the op-ed below make declarative statements about convention issues that are uncertain. It is a factual matter to state that those uncertainties carry substantial and unpredictable risks for the U.S. Constitution and the governing structure it outlines.