And thus you reduce the constitutional order of the United States to a simple confederation of the sovereign States, as if each State had one vote in overriding the Constitution which each State ratified in the beginning of our constitutional republic.
But I do believe that the Constitution calls for more than that. There is a federal interest — as delegated by We the People — that needs to be taken into account, in order to fully understand, and appreciate, the genius of the Framers's design, the order of public life that they, in their wisdom, thought most desirable, given their wise understanding of the vagaries and perplexities of basic human nature.
Above all, it seems they worried about a popular majority, driven by the passing passions of the time, in the interest of faction, would perpetrate injustice on minorities.
It seems to me that Article V tries to obviate that possibility, by requiring popular dissent to be channeled through the States, in an orderly, as much as possible consensual manner.
See Madison, No. 39, of The Federalist, for details.
I think you put too much on the glory of the federal government.
Day to day governing was to be done by the states, the sovereign states. Sovereignty meant that what one state chose to do, another could decline to do. Article IV full faith and credit was meant to ensure this, that what one state allowed would not be held against a citizen while in another state.
The federal government is demanding homogeneity amongst all the states, decreeing one set of laws that all must follow universally. This goes far beyond the constraints of limited powers, few and defined, that the states delegated to the federal government.
Above all, it seems they worried about a popular majority, driven by the passing passions of the time, in the interest of faction, would perpetrate injustice on minorities.
Only insofar as federal law was made, pitting the House of the People against the Senate of the states. But it does nothing regarding how each sovereign state makes its own law. The laws in one state make no regard for the laws in other states. California is free to be passionate to excess about their environment while North Dakota is free to encourage maximum oil fracking exploration and production.
It seems to me that Article V tries to obviate that possibility, by requiring popular dissent to be channeled through the States, in an orderly, as much as possible consensual manner.
It seems to me that the Article V Convention of States was to be that channel, allowing the states the orderly process of debate and proposal in a way that preserves their sovereignty. If there is an issue that is so obvious that popular consent is there, then simply instruct Congress to use Article V to propose the amendment. If there isn't yet consensus, then what other medium is there for states to meet outside of an Article V convention to gain that consensus so that they can meet your high bar of aggregation before being allowed to have their convention?
I say again that forcing a supermajority of states to meet an arbitrary definition by Congress of what constitutes a same-subject application serves to invert the relationship between the sovereign states and the Congress they created. The proper order is that when a supermajority of states decides that they want to meet in Convention, for any reason, they instruct Congress to issue the call to all of the states to attend.
Congress acts as the servant of the states, not as the master who decides what is sufficient and appropriate.
-PJ