“Nothing in the record of the constitutional convention or state ratifying conventions supports your premises. “
By the same token, there is nothing in the last 100 yrs of federal governance that supports your premise that Washington would keep their hands off a Con-Con.
There is much to support the supposition that all three branches of the fedgov would move heaven and earth to cram down any attempt by the States to intervene with their unification of powers.
You say that can’t happen because the Constitution says so. I’ve seen many things the Constitution constrains happen. When the convention is a runaway of federal involvement DESPITE the fact that can’t happen, then what?
When all three branches agree and the media backs them, then what do you do?
To me, it’s a non sequitur that we’re going to call a con-con to end federal blasphemy of the Constitution and by doing so, the fedgov is going to follow the rules and allow that to happen. The sentiment so certainly expressed by proponents of a con-con that the fedgov is going to follow the Constitution as we try to stop and reverse them from a long history of not doing so - that scares me. Be careful for what you wish.
I say, let them try. Let them show the people that they are at war with the states.
I, for one, am tired of people who talk themselves out of action because they presume a worst-case scenario as a foregone conclusion, and then give up entirely before even engaging the opposition.
Who knows what will ultimately happen? Who knows if the people will turn on Congress and support the states, or if Congress will suspend habeas corpus and crack down on the people?
Let's at least do something, and find out!
-PJ