I offer none other than that men will sit down sometime in the future to reframe our government.
The sole question is whether they will do so as equals, as state delegates in a calm setting, or be commanded to do so with a bayonet pointed at their chests.
I did not. I weighed propensities against systemic options and made a choice.
The sole question is whether they will do so as equals, as state delegates in a calm setting, or be commanded to do so with a bayonet pointed at their chests.
Your false setting of exclusive options is preposterous. When the Federal convention was begun, most of the delegates and the people entered negotiations thinking they were only going to amend the Articles of Confederation. Lo and behold, the Federalists had another plan. IMO, the same will happen with an Article V convention with "take it or leave it" as the outcome. I don't like that prospect when there are other possibilities. There is the option, for example, of picking a single easily adoptable amendment and putting an effort behind it, such as correcting the manner of treaty ratification to the 2/3 of the full Senate by recorded vote as opposed to 2/3 of "Senators present." Although I would prefer a different threshold, I'd take that one for now. Then go for the next. It doesn't have to be that hard.