[afsnco]

I agree completely that the SCOTUS is out of control. Same with the Executive for that matter. But there’s nothing I’ve seen that would limit the amendments that could be considered under an Article V convention.

Amendments can have disastrous results. The rights that the Constitution or an amendment gives, a subsequent amendment can take away, and vice versa. Prohibition came about via a constitutional amendment. Prohibition was repealed via a constitutional amendment. Why couldn’t the 1A or the 2A or the 4A or the 5A be repealed via a constitutional amendment if everything becomes fair game during an Article V?

I think the wiser course of action is to keep proposing and passing individual amendments to get where we want to go. The risk appears to be too great to throw it open to any and all amendments in an Article V given how moronic the majority of Americans obviously are.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Why couldn’t the 1A or the 2A or the 4A or the 5A be repealed via a constitutional amendment if everything becomes fair game during an Article V?

The problem has been that everything has continually been “fair game” during any session of SCOTUS. The difference in an Article V convention is that the convention is not beholden to Congress or SCOTUS. Thus, congressional term limits become thinkable. And the institution of direct critique by the states of (at least the precedential value of) any SCOTUS decision could be given effect.

I think the wiser course of action is to keep proposing and passing individual amendments to get where we want to go. The risk appears to be too great to throw it open to any and all amendments in an Article V given how moronic the majority of Americans obviously are.

The Article V convention is, granted, an addition to the ways the Constitution might be changed. But at least a mere one-fourth of the states (i.e., only thirteen states) retain the veto power over^{would by default veto} any amendments the convention proposed. I grant that the convention, if convened, would propose amendments. After all, what is the point of being in a convention to propose amendments and then not proposing any??

But the default is that they will not be ratified. It takes action by the states to approve any of them.

. . . and that thought will motivate the convention to come up with good proposals.