Why do you think we would fair any better in preventing a convention of the states from proposing constitutional amendments that will result in an oppressive constitution than we have in preventing the rise of the anti-constitution, the unwritten Frankenstein constitution?
Why do you think we would prevail in a convention of the states so as to correct the mistake of the 17th Amendment, thoroughly re-federalize our government with structural amendments, and subsequently reverse the oppression that we have already failed to prevent and thus allowed to happen?
When you write “government”, do you mean the structure/organization of the government? I ask because so many people seem to mean the people who occupy positions therein rather than the structure/organization of the government and they are not the same thing.
What do you mean by “structural amendments”?
States will not send schlubs off the street, or even reps with plenary powers to the convention. Legislators will send trusted, known men/women as delegates with tight commissions.
The Frankenstein constitution exists because the 17th Amendment turned the US overnight from a federal republic into a democratic republic. As our framers knew, democratic republics eventually drift into anarchy and finally, tyranny.
I believe the states are awakening to the power they have under Article V. It is one the Left has not yet excised. Oppression from DC is very well known in state capitals. Recent events, starting with the Tea Party, the mess over immigration, voter ID, and over half of the states standing against Obamacare in court reveals a growing undercurrent of building resistance.
In short, I think our nation awaits a Patrick Henry of 1765 spark, but this time to peaceful revolution.
I try to be careful and distinguish between government and people. By structural amendments, I mean along the lines of those proposed by Mark Levin.