Yeah we do, we still have the Bill of Rights now which means we have the upper hand morally if the final check and balance becomes necessary.
Now the 2 Fatal Flaws to this idea.
1. We already have the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 9th and 10th; they ignore them - So what is your basis for presuming they will obey more Constitutional restrictions on them when they ignore the ones already existing?
2. There is no reason to believe that there are enough patriots in positions of power so that an article 5 Convention will not end up being a God-Send for the Marxists. See eliminating the Above.
Have you read Levine’s book? If not, he goes into great detail addressing your issues.
The short answer is, these would not be Constitutional restrictions as you frame them. They (the Liberty Amendments) are about putting power back into the hands of the states and by extension, closer to the people. The Constitution means nothing if no one will enforce it...which is what we have now. The LA would both reduce Obama’s dictatorial grabs and increase ability of states to override his edicts. That means the dynamics would change. Instead of the POS POTUS hiding behind interpretations of Constitutional law which Republican CONGRESS members won’t challenge, the POS POTUS would be blatantly defying law clearly passed by the people for specific reasons leaving nothing to hide behind. Now, that could still happen, but there would be NO gray area. He would be declaring himself dictator.
There’s a lot more to the LA than the above, but that’s the part that applies to your issue. There is no fatal flaw to this idea. The choice is, our Republic will certainly die if something does not change. The Republic might die if we try to change it...but at least we can try. It will be exercised in the same spirit that created the USA...but it is up to us this time. Do we defend what our Founding Fathers wrought, or do we roll over and let the Obamunists take it without a fight?
I know what side I’m on.