Thank you. There’s a lot of wacky misinformation that gets posted on these Article V convention threads. In reality, the amendments arising from such a convention are no different from ones proposed by Congress. It’s part of the Constitution, not some radical method for overturning and destroying it.
The real reason for the A5 convention method for proposing amendments is sound. If you look at the ratification process, it involves none of the three branches of the Federal government — ratification is done by the states, either by the legislature or special ratifying conventions. Proposing amendments is a different story. Without the A5 convention method, the only way to propose amendments would be via Congress. The Founders realized that there might come a time where we might need to limit the power of Congress by amending the Constitution. For example, we might want to propose amendments limiting the number of terms that members of the House and Senate can serve. Congress would be unlikely to propose an amendment such as this limiting its own power. The Article V convention gives an alternate method to propose amendments that Congress would not willingly propose.
The typical Freeper equates an Article V COS with Congress.
They think the states will send, with plenary power, a schlub to a COS to do as he desires.
The relationship between the states and their delegates will be as that of a principal to an attorney. The attorney has no power not granted by the principal.
This simple yet ages-old concept is apparently over the heads of many.