What's to stop states from sending their own legislators instead of the "common man?" I don't think state assemblymen or senators would need to resign, do they?
Convention delegates must be elected by the people of a state, not chosen by a legislature or governor. Could a state legislator run for delegate? Yes. Would he have to resign his seat in the legislature to run? No. That only applies to federal officeholders.
Doesn't this say that the supremecy of the Constitution as the law of the land cannot be overridden by amendment?
Technically, an amendment altering the Supremacy Clause might be possible because Article V doesn't forbid it. But vitiating that clause would void much of the Constitution and strip it of all enforcement value. It would be one step away from dissolving the Union.
But is this enough to stop a convention from changing the Senate to be 3 Senators from each state? Is that an alteration of the arrangement of equal representation of the states (from 2 to 3)?
As I understand Article V, the states must have equal representation. Three senators from each state would be permissible as much as one senator from each state. It's representation that must be equal.
Agreed. My point is that I think that a state officeholder would have an almost insurmountable advantage over the common man when running for convention delegate. On the other hand, there would be more state delegates than the state legislature could tolerate losing for the duration, so others would have to participate. I would still be suspicious of "ringers."
Technically, an amendment altering the Supremacy Clause might be possible because Article V doesn't forbid it.
I'm asking about Article VI implications.
If you reread Article VI Section 2, I think that actually does forbid amending the supremacy of the Constitution ("... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.") To me, this means that you cannot amend the Constitution so that the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land, because that amendment would be a "thing in the Constitution" that would be in conflict with this section.
I'm not aware of any other language in the Constitution that makes such restrictions on what can be amended.
John / Billybob