[Jacquerie]

You must craft a vanity, a freeper-editorial around #44. No excuses. Ping the world, including JimRob. Most objections to Article V involve its potential pain v. gain. Absent reform, our pretend constitutional republic is headed for certain destruction.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks for your kind words but I think the reply needs work before it can become a vanity and I was hoping to get some help from both supporters and critics of The Article V movement on this thread.

[TomGuy]

Most objections to Article V involve its potential pain v. gain.

Such an activity would have to be well thought out, gone through legal review, etc. You can bet the opposition will go through it with a fine tooth comb to find loopholes and ways to co-opt it.

Look at what happened to the Tea Party in many areas: politicians and individuals tried (and still try) to co-opt it for their own reasons.

Such a 'convention' might well be formed with the best of intentions, but it is the unintended consequences that could do greater damage. [Think Obamacare committee creating that monstrosity -- behind closed doors.]

Someone posted 'rules' in a related thread. Basically, an Article V would require 30-some state legislatures to call for it. The wording would have to be almost identical in all state resolutions.

30-some states agreeing on a document? That could be a popcorn event. What are the other states and opposition going to be doing? Setting quietly in the corner? What, exactly, is/are the provisions this document will have?

There are still too many question, too few answers, to jump onboard with a bunch of politicians/political appointees tinkering with The Constitution -- behind closed doors.