[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Why would anyone assume that an Article V Convention would magically be conservative? Or in the extremely unlikely case that it did produce a more conservative document, that it would be ratified by the requisite 3/4 of the states?

The result could just as easily be something worse, but by far the most likely result is no ratification because the country is too divided.

[Jacquerie]

<>by far the most likely result is no ratification because the country is too divided<>

Agree, and that would be a good thing. It would put the JBS irrational fear of a “runaway” convention to rest.

[Subcutaneous Fishstick Blues]

So, let me summarize, you are saying the 3/4 ratification threshold would make it nearly impossible to ratify more conservative amendments (not a more conservative constitution as you imply - Article V is about holding a convention to propose amendments 3/4 of the states must ratify, just like congress does), but it could result in something worse... which could... um... be stopped by 1/4 of the states refusing to ratify?

Do I have that right?

Meanwhile, we experience the rewriting of the Constitution on a piecemeal basis, every time the SCOTUS issues its rulings for the year. And the Dems have been saying they intend to pack or, as they put it, expand the court to have 3 times as many justices when they get back to controlling the other branches of government.