Conservative voices are building for a first-ever, states-driven U.S. constitutional convention.

Nine state legislatures have called for one. Now the proposal is being debated in both houses of the Ohio General Assembly.

Should 34 state legislatures agree, the nation would witness a stunning historical event: a Convention of States to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Until recently, the idea of a Convention of States seemed far-fetched. However, with an increasingly conservative Republican Party controlling 33 state legislatures, a growing coalition of conservative thought leaders think the time is right to make history.

Their goals: shrink the national debt; enact term limits for federal officials, possibly including judges; and strictly limit federal authority over the states.

The strongest argument for a convention is to tame federal spending. With the national debt nearing $20 trillion, majorities of Democrats and independents agree with Republicans that reversing the trend of massive deficit spending is a moral obligation.

Exploding deficits are driven mostly by expanding entitlements that have been actuarially unsustainable for decades. Since the 1960s, no president and no Congress has resisted the allure of deficit spending.

The best argument against a convention is its unpredictability. The U.S. Constitution provides for such a convention, but is silent on its power, structure and proceedings.

Convention proponents downplay the danger by pointing out that the authorizing resolutions specify and limit the issues to be debated.

Opponents counter that the original constitutional convention of 1787 was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, yet delegates decided to tear it up and start anew.

Because a Convention of States has never occurred, the first task facing supporters is to educate state legislators and the public.

Article V of the Constitution allows states to circumvent Congress to draft proposed amendments when two-thirds of state legislatures deem it necessary.

Ohio’s authorizing resolutions say a convention would be “limited to proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and members of Congress.”

The resolutions also state that a convention may not entertain “an amendment that in any way seeks to amend, modify or repeal any provision of the Bill of Rights,” such as those guaranteeing free speech and the bearing of arms.

The resolutions specify that each state can decide how to select delegates, and each state would have one vote on any proposed amendment.

Perhaps the best insights into the specific goals of convention proponents have emerged from mock conventions held in recent years in Colonial Williamsburg.

Those simulations produced amendments that would: require a two-thirds vote of Congress to increase the federal debt; require a three-fifths vote for any tax increase; repeal the 16th Amendment authorizing a federal income tax; impose term limits on members of Congress; and allow the states, if three-fourths agree, to nullify federal laws and regulations.

These go far beyond the goal of another resolution, approved by the legislature in 2013, calling for a constitutional convention only for the drafting of a balanced-budget amendment. That resolution is just a few states short of the threshold of 34.

Regardless of one’s views on any of the goals, the debate is timely and necessary. Those prone to worry should remember no amendment makes it into the Constitution without ratification by 38 states.