Exactly. There's some Birchers in my Tea party group and they can never tell me HOW they will go about enforcing it while at the same time asking me how we would enforce any new amendments. They also say a convention would destroy the constitution while at the same time saying the constitution is being destroyed by Washington, D.C.! Apparently, no explanation is necessary on their side while they dismiss the explanations given by the Article V proponents.
It all sounds suspiciously like progressive disinformation and propaganda to me. They are advocating "business as usual" and that helps only the status-quo and the establishment elite in D.C.
Change the Constitution through the process which already exists: remove or add amendments without calling for an Article V Resolution.
Calling for a what would essentially be a Constitutional Congress is like going to war — once that happens, you cannot predict or control the outcome.
I believe it would destroy our Constitution as it now exists, and am opposed to an Article V Resolution action.
You are exactly right—the argument about enforcing the amendments is fixed right in the amendments. The amendments that can get the support of the states and citizens to be enacted are those that shift power back toward the states and away from the fed govt. The fix to the problem of enforcement is clear—the fed won’t support citizens’ rights but the closer power gets to the citizens, the more those rights are likely to be protected.
Having Vermont propose an amendment that shifts power from non-govt groups to the fed govt (which is what it does)is what Vermont does. Vermont is more like Sweden than a state of the US. It no longer fits in the US and its interests will not have the support of the rest of the US. They might as well propose an amendment that maple syrup be legal tender. They are merely jokes to thinking people.