[LS]

This is a false argument. Nobody says things are fine and you know it. Nobody says that there aren’t ongoing changes (which, of course, was argued when slaves were freed, or when the Civil Service Act was passed, or when any zillion other changes have occurred. So please, refrain from the straw men and address the issues I raised.

[nathanbedford]

You suggest that every revolution runs away but surely not every reform runs away. But let's assume that you are correct, the founding fathers ran away (you and I disagree on this history but I'm assuming arguendo your point of view) you must then concede that in your view it would have been better for the founding fathers to have done nothing. They should not have started the revolution against Great Britain, they should not have reformed the articles of Confederation. In fact, by your logic it would be better for no reform movement in history ever to have occurred. That is absurd.

You argue that since we cannot win (i.e. reform) Republican primaries how can we hope to reform with Article V amendments. Two reasons: 1) the players are different and more conservative in the state legislatures or state conventions created by state legislatures than are the players in Washington; 2) I have repeatedly posted that it will probably require a "black swan" event to change the political landscape enough to animate the state legislatures to reform. But as I expressed in my last post that day of reckoning might not be long delayed.

You ask how we will be able to control the people in an Article V convention. There are many strictures which the state legislatures can place on their delegates and, as noted in my next previous post, it would require only 13 separate legislatures of 99 to block any wrongheaded amendments.

You assert the following oxymoron:

"You think you have a foolproof "lockbox" to keep the Article V delegates in line. I say such a thing doesn't exist. The Founders knew it."

If the founders knew it one might think it passing strange that they inserted Article V into the Constitution. I think they actually intended it to be used in precisely these circumstances and that's why we have it.

I trust you found this responsive .