Oh, I am a federalist — probably more now than I ever have been. I am also conservative, which means I view with suspicion something that has not been done in 230 years and already is covered in other processes that have been used more recently.
The difference between the Congress putting up the suggestion and a state convention is that the convention can look at EVERYTHING. The output for a convention could be something that does not even look like limited government, but looks more like a police state.
Please do not misunderstand my first comment — I was simply trying to point out the reluctance to open the door to a wholesale edit job as opposed to the piecemeal approach that has been used for the last 225 years is not crazy. I think we need a shake up, but I am not so optimistic these days as to believe that we can get enough blue states to go along with reigning in government. I am concerned that there may be closer to 38 that would choose to become east Germany if it meant they got the goodies they want out of the deal.
What prevents Congress from looking at everything?
Harry Roid tried to push an amendment to pretty much ban the first.