Karl is one smart fellow. However his argument is a bit faulty. His second amendment argument falls for the idea of incorporation. That each item in the constitution applies to the states, usually as interpreted by a federal court. The constitution with a few exceptions applies to the federal government, and the federal government only. Thus, the federal government cannot abridge the right to keep and bear arms but states and localities can. Karl is spot on regarding the federal courts. But he is completely incorrect when he states that there is nothing wrong with our current constitution. For example the fourteenth and sixteenth amendments need immediate attention. Both need to be repealed. But more fundamentally a legal path needs to put in place to empower the states to directly resist federal tyranny. And this is to address Karl’s and I would say FReepers most fundamental concern which simply stated is the federal government won’t follow the constitution anyway. This is what the COS is intended to address, a lawless federal government. The shape any proposed amendment takes is up for debate but Mark Levin envisions an amendment allowing a super majority of the states to over rule a Supreme Court decision for example. Would the federal government ever issue such an amendment to the states for ratification? Hell no. And this is why we need the Convention of States to bypass the federal government and restore balance. As you state the morality of our people is the root of our present problems and I agree with that analysis. Regardless we must address the crisis that is upon us and the CoS is the peaceful way to do so while bypassing federal tyranny. Anyone has the right to disagree however I believe you re incorrect in doing so.
That was an excellent argument but it does not address how a lawless oligarchy that is a law unto itself can be forced to abide by additional yokes passed by the states when it stripped away the original yokes placed upon it by the Constitution.
Since the rule of law has become whatever the Oligarchy says the rule of law is and is not, what is the plan to enforce new laws upon the lawless?
An Amendment that is ignored, struck down by an activist judiciary or simply decreed to be void by the president, has no power.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't one of the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," what is?
14A changed the relationship between citizens, the states and the federal government a great deal from that of the original constitution, probably more than those who passed and ratified it intended it to.