Article V is the ‘doing’, the constitutionally authorized means of achieving progress towards ideals.
Nobody here that I have seen has questioned that such means are authorized.
What is at issue is the prudence of it, under the current set of circumstances.
Talking versus doing is what distinguishes opponents from proponents who advocate using Article V as the vehicle to strengthen the role of the Constitution’s design to secure and protect liberty.
The only thing worse than doing nothing is doing the wrong thing.
Your assertion that folks like me are doing nothing is simply false.
> “The only thing worse than doing nothing is doing the wrong thing.”
What is wrong with states ratifying an amendment that requires the federal government to balance its budget?
What is wrong with states ratifying an amendment that defines marriage to be between on man and one woman?
What is wrong with states ratifying an amendment to term limit their US Senators?
> “our assertion that folks like me are doing nothing is simply false.”
With regards to issues your comments point to ‘talk’ as your only contribution.
With respect to Article V your ‘action’ is to mislead and create ‘fear’.
I have often found that NOT to be true.
If you do the wrong thing, you will quickly find out and can fix it. If you do nothing, nothing changes.
So what is the risk of a convention being / doing the wrong thing?
First, if the delegates sense that the convention is being disrupted by unserious agitators, they can simply adjourn and disband.
If they survive the existential attack, they can prevent amendment proposals from passing out of the convention.
If a rogue amendment passes, there are still 13 states that can stop it.
Doing nothing prevents all of these other fail-safes from ever being given a chance, and enshrines the current dysfunction as the status quo.
-PJ