I'm not trying to hassle you, and I do appreciate your thoughtful reply, but I have to say, I think it DOES invalidate your position. We have to deal in reality. You can't say you believe in self-government, so long as it's not with the actual people. Theoretical people, yes. Real people, no. It doesn't work.
I believe that a Constitutional Convention would be dominated by professional politicians (Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, etc) and that private citiziens (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Huck, ClearCase_Guy, etc.) would be squeezed out.
I wouldn't expect to be a delegate. The original convention was comprised of professional politicians, as well. Hell, in the original process, the people didn't even get to vote on the Constitution--that was done by state convention. We the people? Don't make me laugh.
The resulting document would be trumpeted by Chris Matthews and Jay Leno as the best thing ever, and would probably be ratified by NY, CA, MI and MA pretty quickly. With that kind of momentum, I bet a lot of other states would quickly follow.
In other words, the people are stupid and can be easily mislead. I might agree with you there, but it doesn't do much to bolster the self-government argument.
The risks are too great. Our current Constitution isn't perfect but it lays out a framework of limited government, and it is still a fine idea.
This is where I strongly disagree. The Constitution lays out a framework for national consolidated government. It does not accomplish its stated objectives of "few and defined" powers. Article 3 blows the whole thing out of the water.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that the product of a modern Convention would be superior to what we have (it would most likely make explicit the implicit powers that already exist.) I'm arguing that it's the proper route to the exit. Simply don't ratify it, and withdraw from the union.
AHHHHH! I see! I would strongly endorse such an approach.