[FourtySeven]

I agree it’s a high bar to reach if the law is followed. But when, in recent history, have the Democrats followed the law (when it wasn’t politically expedient for them to do so)?

I can absolutely see the following scenario unfolding: a state convention is called, Democrats hem and haw about racism, sexism, blah blah, the agenda of amendments gets changed, the requirement for ratification gets changed and before we have it we have two new amendments stating, “no public expression of religious beliefs that offend another” and “in times of emergency, the 4th Amendment is recinded”. Or some such.

Honestly, some have bemoaned the state of FR discourse on this subject, I’m bemoaning the level of trust some seem to be assigning to government, on both sides of this debate mind you (see my first point from my first post).

[Political Junkie Too]

First, we have to see how the States set it up. You seem concerned about the way the federal parties act. The states have to ensure that Congress stays out of it.

According to Article V, the only role that Congress has is in calling for the Convention, and in establishing how proposed amendments get ratified by the states.

Other than that, it's up to the states to manage.

-PJ