It would be pointless to hold a convention that is subject of the edits of the Federal government including its ‘courts’.
If California decides 1 man 1 vote applys to convention rather than 1 state 1 vote as was the rule in every other convention and the nature of our union they can sit the convention out. We will not miss them!
A constitutional convention is a convention of the States not people, just as the federal union is first and foremost a union of States not people. This point is absolute critical to conservative/ republican control of the convention.
California can do whatever it wants in California but California or New York are not of authority to tell other states what to do.
If they get their Federal employees in black robes to issue an edict that edict Must be ignored because Federal Employees HAVE NO JURISDICTION over Constitutional Conventions. NOBODY DOES EXCEPT THE ATTENDING DELEGATES! That is the whole point.
All previous conventions were held under the Articles of Confederation, and under the Articles, everything was done on a One State/One Vote basis. This would be the first convention to be held under the Constitution, and since 1962 the Supreme Court's "One Man/One Vote" rule has applied to every governing body under the law except for the Senate, which Article V specifically exempts. This is why the assumption of Dr. Natelson and the ALEC Document that One State/One Vote would be the rule is not necessarily true. Personally, I favor a One State/One Vote rule because I believe an Amendments Convention is a "primal act of the Republic", but in the end it will boil down to whether the 1962 Reynolds decision can be applied to an Amendments Convention or not. That is why it will end up in court. Read my essay Federalism: Yesterday and Today for more details.
A constitutional convention is a convention of the States not people, just as the federal union is first and foremost a union of States not people.
Madison would disagree with you. He believed the Union was formed by the "Whole People" in their separate political societies (the states), and the states were the agents of the Whole People, not the actual parties to the agreement. This is why Madison chose state ratifying conventions elected by the people, not state legislatures, as the tool for ratification. When Madison, as an old man, challenged John Calhoun on his theory of nullification, he reiterated those principles.
This point is absolute critical to conservative/ republican control of the convention.
Conservative Republicans will not control the convention. The convention will be representative of America at that particular place and time. Keeping the Left out will be impossible both politically and logistically.
If they get their Federal employees in black robes to issue an edict that edict Must be ignored because Federal Employees HAVE NO JURISDICTION over Constitutional Conventions. NOBODY DOES EXCEPT THE ATTENDING DELEGATES
If such an edict comes down, it cannot and will not be ignored. If you go back to my earlier post of the "transcript" of the secret meeting of congressional power brokers, you'll note that Article V gives Congress access to a choke point in the process. Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. A convention that ignores Congress and -- more importantly -- the Supreme Court would be considered an "outlaw convention" that would produce "invalid amendment proposals", and the process under Article V would give Congress the legal wiggle room to ignore anything out of such a convention. There are rules within Article V, and everybody has to follow them.
We are more in agreement than you think. My ground rules for an Amendments Convention are: One State/One Vote, selection of delegates by state legislatures, and the convention setting up its own rules of operation. That's what I want, as does Dr. Natelson, ALEC and the Convention of the States movement. Getting that is going to be a political struggle. If you go back to my "transcript", you'll see that constitutionalists must organize to prevent Congress from imposing Orrin Hatch's 1991 "Constitutional Convention Organizing, Conduct and Stonewalling Act" (as I like to call it) on the convention when Congress is forced by the Constitution to call it.
The Supreme Court is another matter. I know that justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito will hit the Library of Congress and research original intent. They may even agree with you and me. But I can't guess what the other justices will do.