Where I disagree, as I touched on in my post, I think repeal of the 17th is doable. It is certainly necessary.
I also understand your concern regarding a runaway convention. Another thread today expressed the same fear.
First, as Mark explained, a state initiated convention would be limited as Congress is, to amendments.
Secondly, whatever amendments emerged would be subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states.
But let's say you are correct as to an open, carte blanche convention. Another poster today thought the constitutional convention of 1787 was illegal because it went outside the Articles of Confederation. We are comparing similar situations, yes?
Well, if that is the fear, the states could be prepared for it as they were in 1787. Back then, delegates from NJ and IIRC, DE were limited BY STATE LAW from considering any change that denied equality of state suffrage in Congress. That is the reason each state has an equal number of senators.
My point is, for instance, my state of Florida in a future convention could limit our delegates to decide on a limited number of specific amendments and how to vote on them.
The 16th and 17th Amendments helped propel us along the road to an evil Socialist democracy. Both must be repealed.
I have most of Mark's books and listen to him most days. I look forward to this one.
I feel whatever Mark proposes will be a long shot. We need a plan C. Plan C (restoration after Collapse) is for the various states to openly coordinate a Constitutional plan to deal with an economic collapse caused by the Federal government.
The Feds have a plan and it is Marshal Law.
The States need to actively have in place proposals to quickly dissolve ALL unconstitutional aspects of the Federal government.
The States must have a coordinated plan to repel what will become a truly tyrannical government.
Part of the States plan can include the Amendments Mark will propose.
What is distressing is the likelihood that there will be no coordination and violence and chaos will ensue.