The Supreme Court today just ruled, that just because an article says something it doesn’t really mean they have to follow it.
I guess you can have your convention if you want too - but get ready for piles of lawsuits that will be run through the corrupt court system, entrenched bureaucrats and politicians who don’t like you or what you’re doing and all kinds of new laws stymieing your efforts.
The problem is the system is corrupt from top to bottom.
You can’t use the corrupt system to fix itself.
I respectfully disagree. I do agree with your statement that you can’t use the corrupt system to fix itself, but that’s the point of the article V process. It bypasses the federal government - aside from congress’s obligation to call for the convention once enough states have petitioned.
If you’re contending that they would try to interfere with the process at that stage, I can’t say whether you’re right or wrong, only that if they did, the defiance on their part would be open and undeniable. This would take their defiance to a whole new level. The gauntlet will have been thrown down and if that happens, then at least it will have served the purpose of forcing the fight.
My sense is that they would not try something so brazen. Politicians are sneaky and devious but also risk averse. They don’t like to fight their battles in the open where the average American can see them for what they really are. They prefer the safety of their backroom deals.
Aside from that possibility, they would be powerless to effect the process of proposing amendments and the subsequent process of ratifying them. They simply play no role in that process. How will they prevent it? Send the army to the convention of the states to force it to disband? Dissolve the state legislatures when they vote on a specific amendment?
As far as their ability to ignore any amendments that might get passed through this process, it’s possible, but I think it’s important to distinguish between two types of amendments that would likely be at issue - those that require the federal government’s compliance in order to be carried out, and those that don’t.
I agree that amendments like a balanced budget amendment could be problematic. I could easily envision Congress devising various accounting gimmicks that would allow them to ignore the law while claiming to comply with it. Likewise, I could envision the Executive branch continuing to spend money they are not authorized to spend, and a SCOTUS all too happy to grant their stamp of approval.
However, there are other types of amendments that would make structural changes to our government and which would be enforced from outside the federal government, not from within. Term limits for Congress, or repeal of the 17th amendment would be examples.
The election process is controlled by the states. They certify the winners and losers. They control the ballot process. If a senator or congressman wanted to run for an additional term that exceeded the limits placed on him by a term limits amendment, practically speaking, the only way he would be able to get away with it would be if the states allowed it to happen - the very states that would have just voted 3 to 1 to enact the amendment.
The only way the federal government would be able to prevent it’s implementation would be to directly interfere with the process (e.g. send troops to occupy the state legislatures or election commissions). Aside from that, there is little they could do legislatively to prevent it.
In short, the ability of the federal government to interfere with this process, would require them to take their defiance of the people and their Constitution to a whole new level. Most American’s, even the low information voters would see their actions for what they really are. If we’re ultimately headed for civil war then that’s as good a starting point as any. At least we’d know that we had done all we could to prevent it.