The takeaway from the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation is that the AofC had a mechanism for amendment that the Constitution completely ignored. The Constitution declared its own and separate validation method.
Supporters of the Art V Con-Con (calling it a COS is the misnomer) rely on the fact that the Constitution would require a proofing mechanism that wouldn’t necessarily be followed. After all, there is precedent to NOT follow it in the event of a total rewrite (and a total rewrite is what you’d get).
You won’t get the liberty amendments with a Con-Con; you’ll only get the liberal ones. More to the point, when the Constitution is bastardized by this process (and it will be), what you’ll get, almost immediately, is a civil war.
If you have any doubt, consider this: liberals have tried for decades to erase the import of the 2nd amendment so that they can remove an individual right to bear arms. For liberals, the single biggest opportunity to do what they have not been able to do in the Courts would be a re-write or outright elimination of the 2nd amendment. If you don’t think they wouldn’t resort to outright illegal tactics to make sure that is one result of the Con-Con, then I refer you to Obamacare for what the left is willing to do to the process in order to get what they want.
So. what will YOU do when the new and improved Constitution removes your right to bear arms?
“So. what will YOU do when the new and improved Constitution removes your right to bear arms?”
Instruct my State delegation to vote no if inserted.
Next Question.
BTW, your moniker needs changing, as we were unsuccessful and it is another 6 years for the next primary. (That it, unless you are advocating that we elect a Dem as Texas Senator in the fall?)
My comment asserted that the Philadelphia Convention acted illegally and by extension the document produced is illegal, too. Please don’t conflate recognizing this historical fact with me advocating an Article Five convention.
My own thoughts are not really important, but since you seem interested, my position is that of secession from the United States. Pan-secession actually. The idea that one document can effectively govern over three-hundred million souls is a conceit.