As eloquently stated by GraceG, they are:
1. Elect More Republicans - Failed due to RINO/Uni-party confluence.
2. Article V Convention of States to propose Amendments - Needed to try to take power from the federal government back to the states and reel in the federal leviathan.
3. State Nullification - Last ditch effort to try to take power back from the federal monster, though by this point it may be too late.
4. State Secession - Could either end up peaceably like the breakup of the Czechoslovakia in 1993 or a brutal:
5. Civil War II like the first one.... The longer we wait on #2, the more likely #3, then #4 and finally #5. .
So, do we do nothing and just wait for # 5?
The following links affected my thinking on the Article V process and I am now a champion for pursuing a Convention of States. Please review them and tell me what you think.
My main 'checks and balances' re the Article V process are First, it takes 34 states to even call a convention. Second, it takes 38 states to ratify any proposed amendments from an amendments convention. Third, there are very strict parameters and associated penalties for violations by state convention delegates. See the following link re Indiana Duties of State Delegates to a Convention of States.
Also, calling it a Con-Con is a misnomer. No one wants a Constitutional Convention. The Convention of States is only to propose amendments to the constitution. Period. Anything that veers from that will be a treasonous act.
The links that turned it around for me:
Responses To Convention Of States Opposition A number of good articles that address Con-Con and 'runaway' concerns.
Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the "Runaway Convention" Myth
Indiana Duties of a Delegate to a Convention of States A model for other states.
An Article V Convention Can Be Limited Addresses the "runaway convention" concerns.
A Single-Subject Convention Another article that addresses the "runaway convention" fear.
And finally, an article by Sarah Palin: Sarah Palin: Debunking the myths of a Convention of States From the article:
"There are four reasons why a Convention is safe."
"Number 1 - The applications that the State legislatures are passing right now, define the topics to be addressed at the Convention. Anything beyond that scope is 'out of order'."
"Number 2 - State legislators send Convention Commissioners who are subject to instructions given by their State."
"Number 3 - Lets just say for the sake of argument that reasons number one and number two failed. If they did, the Courts could declare their actions void."
"Number 4 - Whatever amendments the Convention proposes will not take effect until three-fourths of the States ratify them."
"That's 38 States. By definition, if 38 States agree on an amendment it's not runaway. It's a mandate!"
"Here's the bottom line."
"We already have a runaway Congress and a runaway President."
"The founders gave us Article V of the Constitution to stop them."
"It's time to use it!"
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/delegates-article-v-convention-cant-controlled-state-laws/
Article Titile: Delegates to an Article V Convention Can’t be Controlled by State Laws!
Well Gee , the senators and reps that we send to DC cannot be controlled by State Laws EITHER and THEY can ALSO propose NEW AMENDMENTS TOO!
We already send Senators and Reps to D.C. Who say one thing and vote another way, what is the difference...
If the State Legislatures cannot be trusted more than our Senators and Reps we might as well just give up right now, right?
Sack,
I read the article at your link.
What do you propose?
Go with the status quo?
I see an Article V convention of States as our last resort.
It is time, now, before it is too ate.
Here is the Indiana statute that will govern commissions.
BTW, your source's history regarding the 1787 convention is AFU. The states were going to convene regardless of congress, and delegates were indeed limited, some more than others. Delaware's demand of equal state representation, resulted in the key compromise of two senators per state.
If you wish to compare a state amendments convention with a familiar institution, compare it to the electoral college. Both are federal rather than popular, and are/will be limited by state law. If the states are so politically insane, why haven't we had a 'runaway' session of the electoral college?