Which Constitution was that? The Constitution before the Bill of Rights was added? The Constitution before slavery was abolished? The idea that there is some "Constitution" that came into existence whole and perfect is belied by history. Just because modern opponents of Article V are historically ignorant as well as confused in the present is not grounds to say that the Framers were confused, or ignorant of history or misguided about the future of constitutional government. Out of their perspicacity they contemplated new amendments.
Much of the resistance on the Right to Article V comes from the NRA who would put the whole nation, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, at risk of extinction rather than suffer any supposed risk to their precious Second Amendment. They define liberty downward into a corner consisting only of the right to bear arms and would sacrifice all other liberties to defend this narrow patch.
Many of the posters on these threads motivated by Second Amendment concerns are fully familiar with the arithmetic that renders derisory any argument that a convention of the would possibly restrict their precious right (I might add my precious right) to bear arms. The arithmetic is dispositive: only 13 legislative bodies from 13 different states out of 99 legislative bodies from 50 states would be required to defeat any such pernicious amendments. If the confirmation process is to be conducted by state conventions rather than state legislatures, the same arithmetic would apply because if both houses of a state legislature cannot agree on a position, they cannot vote for the amendment. There is no realistic possibility of loss of Second Amendment rights or any right vouchsafed us under the Bill of Rights. Thread after thread reveals that the same posters raise the same objection over and over even though they had been informed of the arithmetic. They simply ignore the arithmetic and repeat their conclusionary language but they rarely reveal their concerns about keeping their guns or other even darker motives.
Do not be deceived by those who conceal their motives.
There is another group of conservatives who oppose attempts to save the Republic through the amendment process and they are those who would actually prefer bloodshed to an orderly constitutional process of reform. These people will never be convinced. They are the kind of people who give excuse to those equally crazy people who presently control our government and who define the greater danger to our security to be domestic terrorists on the right.
There is a group, most prominently identified as the John Birch Society, which favors nullification, interposition, or secession as the solution. The short answer to that proposition is to point hundreds of thousands of graves of Americans who died to preserve the union.
Some object by arguing that the Article V movement is a diversion from more productive avenues of reform. This argument says that the electorate has limited attention span, limited capacity to entertain political ideas. In effect, the argument is that the nation cannot walk and chew gum. I say that an electorate that has passively submitted to the gradual erosion of its liberties in exchange for Obama phones and cable television has plenty of time for whatever catches its fancy. The media knows how to focus the country's attention on irrelevancies and does so routinely. However, the nation is also quite capable in the television age of being transfixed by Robert Bork hearings, the Clarence Thomas hearings, the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, the trial of O.J. Simpson, etc. This assumption about the limited attention span of the American people is a question of media savvy not inherent genetic disorders. Just as the media manipulates the people, conservatives should learn how to manipulate the media. Watch Donald Trump.
The most often voiced objection is to say that it simply will not work. I have treated of these objections in an old reply which I reproduce here:
So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:
1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.
2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.
3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.
4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.
That reply concludes with the question: "Which category are you in?"
Stonewall Jackson exhorts us, "never take counsel of your fears." Do not succumb to the counsel of despair. The road is long and arduous, the way clear is not yet apparent, yet we know the destination, the Shining City on the Hill.
