[Jacquerie]

Oops. I forgot to add, the only worthwhile amendments are structural, like repeal of the 17th, which cannot be ignored any easier than even calendar year elections.

[Phlyer]

. . . the only worthwhile amendments are structural . . .

This is probably true, but there isn't any obvious way to limit an Article V convention in this way. Even if - somehow - the charter under which the convention was convened established this restriction, it doesn't mean that the convention would abide by it.

. . . which cannot be ignored any easier than . . .

Unfortunately, when 'shadows and penumbras' of what's written are used to ignore the plain language of the 10th Amendment, there's no guarantee that even structural changes wouldn't be 'interpreted' into something that we never intended.

For example: If we repealed the 17th Amendment, then what is to stop the States from holding elections for Senator, with the State legislatures then confirming whoever won the election? And if elections can still be used to select Senators, what is to stop the Supreme Court from deciding - based on 'shadows and penumbras' of the 14th Amendment - that the 'privileges and immunities of US citizens' included the right to vote for their Senators?

I guess my bottom line is: If we actually followed the Constitution as written, all the rest of the problems (like excessive government spending and police-state intrusion into our lives) would be 'fixed.' If I somehow had the power to choose, I'd chose to follow what we already have over any amendment that I could name - or any that I've seen suggested by others.