In my opinion, an Article V convention risks destroying our original constitution, which I consider to be a </>divinely inspired</I> document.
Was all of it "divinely inspired", or just some of it?
Note that the product of a constitutional convention is not a new amendment to the Constitution. The product of a constitutional convention is a proposed amendment to the Constitution which the states later choose to ratify or ignore. And if the states choose to ignore the proposed amendment then the constitutional convention that produced it was arguably a waste of time.
In fact, regardless that the delegates to the original Constitutional Convention had signed the final draft, their signatures did not constitute a ratification of the proposed Constitution. The delegates then had to go to their home states and sell their states on the Constitution which the states ultimately ratified.
Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution
38 states are needed to ratify anything. What issue do you see that would be against conservative values that would be supported by 38 states?
“In my opinion, an Article V convention risks destroying our original constitution, which I consider to be a </>divinely inspired</I> document.”
As much as I agree with you on the Constitution and bill of rights(including #11) the following 16 amendments are not so divinely inspired, and the rest of that constitution is now utterly ignored.
Unless we are able to make the injustice system accountable to the people and their States and thus remotely inclined to uphold that Constitution. We don’t really have anything to loses but the now effectively meaningless writings on Washington’s toilet paper.
For better or worse History will remain history no matter what is now done. The only thing we can do now is try to restore some of the checks and balances we once lost in hope that they may be enable us to restore and retain some of the practical freedom from boundless government we have lost.