The problem is not with the existing document, but rather the refusal of man to adhere to the document. That cannot be changed by altering the document.
They get away with it by pretending it means something other than what it says. A CoS would define those meanings to be much harder to fudge on. One amendment might state the
Congress shall not delegate the authority to make rules with the power of law to any government agency it creates. I have better wording on my computer at home. Another amendment would clarify and limit that the “interstate commerce” clause as it was NEVER meant to give Congress literally unlimited power over commerce between states. And let’s not forget that repealing the 17th Amendment would help restore states’ rights. And don’t forget that installing term limits on congressmen would keep an individual from accruing too much power.
That's my opinion as well.
Not only would the NEW constitution also be ignored, just as the current one is, but there is also the distinct possibility of provisions which are too "democratic" being introduced. In other words, majority Tyranny.
The problem, as buckalfa stated, is not with the existing Constitution, other than a couple of Amendments like the 16th and 17th.
To me, the best argument for an Article V convention would have to be that the current constitution has been so egregiously altered, that it is no longer a "good" Constitution, and, despite my complaints with the 16th and 17th Amendments, among others, I don't believe that is the case.
IMHO, the dangers outweigh the benefits. We simply need to promulgate Amendments, laws, and policies which restrict the abuse of power and force government to function within its legal and philosophical bounds.
I don't want authoritarians from the left or right to rewrite the Constitution according to their pet whims. I want a country where all can pursue happiness in the way they see fit, as long as they are not violating the rights of others. Liberty and Justice for All is the ideal toward which we should strive, and discarding the greatest governing document ever created on earth is not the best way to do that, IMHO.
I've been on the fence about the issue for some time. I believe your argument is the simplest, most succinct and common sense argument against an Article V convention I've seen yet. Excellent!
Post no. three says it all, there is really nothing to add. I could think up other ways to say the same thing but that is pointless.