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.
Where did I deny anyone the right to frame their own government? I only contest your claim of certainty that a particular process will produce a good result.
I can also think of numerous times when people have supported governments that made them slaves, including the mobs of the Roman Republic cheering Caesar, the Weimar Republic appointing Hitler Chancellor, and the colony of Brazil anointing Dom Pedro I emperor. That is three of many that turned to monarchs and dictators to “amend” their governments. We were blessed, not lucky that we had good Christian people framing our government.
You are supposing that similar good people will assemble for an Article V convention. Where they come from, how they are elected, or appointed, we don’t know but you are sure these will be good people. And they will all rise to the occasion - health care for all, eliminate starvation, end cruelty to animals, abolish fire arms - and they will think they are good people, perhaps even better than our founders.
If we were a country that had just emerged from oppression and bondage, I would agree good people that cherish liberty and justice could be found. No, the people that will attend your convention will cherish their security and vanity more and work harder than ever to make a name for themselves. The fires of struggle that temper a good people burned out long ago. It is only the will of force that will preserve a corrupted republic, for better or worse.
So yes, it is your God given right to support an Article V convention, and it is my God given right to question its wisdom and oppose it if I find the wisdom lacking.