Replies

I obviously read it. I don't agree. You did not make your case because you start from the unfounded assumption that it matters what is written down either in the current Constitution or some future version. I do not agree with that assumption - not matter how much it might matter to you and to me, it does not matter to the political class.

My own premise - based on what has obviously happened in the last 60 years - is that the socialists do not care what is written down. If we can fix *that* problem, then what's currently written is good enough. Abiding by the 10th Amendment in particular would fix nearly all the problems that people want a new Constitution for.

I also disagree with your assumption that those who are broadly called conservative would somehow control the new Constitution. I think the political class would fight that very hard. And despite the number of politicians with 'R' after their name, they are virtually all in favor of a bigger government. This includes the state legislatures who would presumably approve the new Constitution if Congress would not.

Since there is no guarantee - and a host of empirical data against it - that a new Constitution would 1) be observed by the political class, or 2) have a high likelihood of embodying conservative principles, and there is a high risk that instead we would see things like the 2nd Amendment written out of the new Constitution, I think an Article V convention is all risk with no real potential for reward. It's not an absolute necessity. It's an absolute recipe for disaster.