Sure. I think you made the point that the reason changes could be made in the first instance (the change being lets just replace the entire thing with a constitution) is that there was no rule forbidding it. In this case, the constitution expressly says no way to full replacement.
While I would agree thats the case, I don’t think anyone is worried about a full replacement. They are worried of games being played, “repeals” and “interpretations” of things we are being assured would limit and control the process.
>>*Congress does have power in this process
*Provisions of Article 5 can be repealed
*The ABA has identified gray areas in the process=I.E. some things are open to interpretation.
I do not think it is ignorant to at least “worry” about possible abuse.<<
First, an apology for snark yesterday. You’re clearly drilling through these issues with deliberate purpose.
And to Star Traveler, thanks for posting a series of polemics, some disinformation indeed, in one place, that characterize some of the calmer discussion from that side. Yesterday, I had just re-read Phylis Schaffly’s diatribe in Town Hall wherein she cites her figment called The Call that cedes all power to congress then invites feverish imaginations of all the horrors that will derive from the COS process. Complete with calumny for all who might suggest such a thing. This is irksome, coming from someone I’ve admired for decades.
And the central issue (ConCon vs. COS) does seem to center on control; how much control does Congress have, vs. the States. It seems odd that those, like EF and JBS, who bravely tout 10th Amendment arguments, or nullification, or secession - which have never gone anywhere - so vehemently deny that States might assert, seize, and enforce their power to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed. Albeit a handful, the state reps, and candidates for office, I’ve discussed this with are jealous of State (TX) power, and are supportive of the COS program.
Your concerns are well taken and sensible.