The people have a God given right to frame their government.
To that end, the Framers provided for the peaceful means to do so via Article V.
From George Washington's Farewell Address
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
True indeed. The people also have the right to pick their representatives at both the State and the Federal level. Are you suggesting that the States are inherently less corrupted by public education? Hmm? Those are the people we have now to manage said Article V convention, with the exclusive option that they are restricted to whatever terms upon which 3/4 of the States will agree. That list includes Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, California, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Hawaii. That's thirteen. Any amendments proposed MUST include the approval of one or more of those States. So, are you suggesting a closed Article V convention producing a "take-it-or-leave-it" deal (similar to what the Constitution was in the first place, complete with its critical flaws), would produce an output superior to a 2/3 vote of both houses in full view of the public and the same list of States proposing amendments one-at-a-time?
I don't. I prefer the traditional route and have a few critically important Amendments in mind that would be hard for any politician to oppose.
To that end, the Framers provided for the peaceful means to do so via Article V.
Although Article V Convention of the States is probably a necessary alternative mechanism for proposing much-needed constitutional amendments these days, I wouldn't quite agree that it would be "the people" exercising such a right if it were to come to fruition. It would be the state legislatures (two-thirds of them) who would petition for such a Convention of the States, but once such a convention were established, it is entirely unclear how the delegates to such a convention would be chosen what voting procedures would be employed at that convention.
The author of the posted article reveals himself to be an advocate of the crooked and dysfunctional status quo of American government by sneering at all creative ideas of new constitutional amendments as if to say "why bother?" The idea of an Article V convention of the states never entered his narrow mind. I've never heard of him before, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were a fatcat elitist.