[Salvavida]

Nah, he has good reasoning. I particularly like his section on impeachment. However, his reasoning is impractical in the same manner it is in military service (and I took issue with a JAG on this):

We jack our hands in the air, but never are we TAUGHT how to "support and defend the Constitution". Most of your career you are drilled to obey rders. Then you get 10 seconds of repeating an oath when you enter, and at every reenlistment. Not exactly realistic, and it's no different in federal service.

There is no practical training on how to support/defend the Constitution: it's left up to interpretation.

For that reason we must AMEND.

[dontreadthis]

That is argument for using the amendment process to STRENGTHEN the Constitution, as opposed to CHANGING the Constitution, which I believe is the heart of the purpose of an Article V convention.
Strengthening implies a firm understanding of original intent, and the first order of business of a Convention of States would be to agree upon that purpose. Without that agreement, it seems to me that it would be useless (and detractors would say dangerous)to proceed.

[Nifster]

with you on that