Whole post pasted here for continuity:
To: Wampus SC
There's no guarantee that there would be any provision for giving the states a chance to ratify or reject it. This is flat-out incorrect. Please read the essay I've linked to, and you'll see why this statement is wrong.
60 posted on
07/14/2004 2:36:27 AM EDT by
Publius (Mother Nature is a hanging judge.)
I read it, and read the subsequent discussion. I read others' comments on how the Constitution might possibly be deconstructed and reshuffled by this lawful amendment process. I also read your explanation that the convention of 1787 was also only to propose amendments, and that Congress could have told them they'd gone out of bounds, but didn't. I also read your comment about the "third forbidden subject" -don't rewrite the constitution, and how it is implicit rather than explicitly spelled out.
I think you're absolutely right in that the Constitution does have those safeguards explained in your essay.
Where we might seem to differ appears to come down to a matter of how much one trusts the delegates to an Article V convention to abide by both the letter (explicit requirements) and spirit (implicit assumptions) of the Constitution. I have very little, based on the record of both Congress and the courts - and the politicians that fill them - of following provisions of the Constitution, implicit or explicit.
Another question still in my mind is about enforcement of Article V. For example, if the convention were to overstep its bounds and start repealing some of the Bill of Rights, or decide not to give the states their say, who brings the delegates back in line by enforcing Article V? And by what method?