Yes they do, but considering how corrupt the "people" have become, I doubt they would allow other people their God given rights. At some point, if the government they create based on their God given rights goes wrong, am I supposed to just roll over and do as they demand? While you seem certain an Article V convention will work, I remain concerned about the time it takes and even more so as to the honor and integrity of the people who would attend. I don't see any equals to Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington, Franklin and on and on. We were blessed but that time has passed. The few very good ones we have are not enough to counter all the clever attorneys who think they are so smart.
We have the right to frame our government, BUT you would deny it.
Never, in any process designed to create or amend a government, from the English parliament in 1688, the thirteen state constitutional conventions beginning in 1776, nor the federal convention of 1787, did any people EVER set themselves up to be slaves. Go back further and you'll find that the Roman Republic amended itself often enough to last 450 years. It did so not by declaring rights on paper, but rather by setting up institutions whose natural, structural interests tended to secure the liberty of the people.
Article V opponents equate a state amendment convention with our corrupted congress, a congress in which our freedoms and rights are easily traded away today for money, media support, and reelection tomorrow.
They are wrong. Article V opponents are stuck in static analysis.
Few people are not shaped by the institutions in which they participate. Without the federal convention of 1787, most of the delegates to it would be unknown to us. Not all were by any means virtuous, but in convention they set regional and personal interests aside to design good government. The 2015 congressman who would sell the rights of millions today for campaign cash would never think of harming his family. Michele Bachmann was run out of congress for being virtuous in a corrupt institution; she refused to conform. Had she joined the sleaze and venality that typifies congress, she could be there today. What I describe is identical to the behavioral difference between men in strip clubs and church.
The states will send serious men/women of character and judgment armed with commissions to promote their state supported amendments. Delegates to an amendment convention will be unconcerned with that which drives congress: money, personal power, and reelection will not be their focus or interest.
We can have every expectation that state delegates will rise to the occasion. They will understand the gravity of their assignment and conduct themselves in a manner precisely opposite that of congress.