Please read carefully.
I never said or implied don’t bother trying. That is what you are reading into it.
There is simply no thought being given to implementing whatever is ratified upon a lawless government that will (as already evidenced) undoubtably ignore, disregard and rule as ‘unConstitutional’ whatever is ratified.
I’m cautioning those who cite Amendment V as a civil recourse against tyranny.
You cannot stop a tyranny via civil means, no matter what laws and amendments we pass. I do not know what is so difficult to understand about that fact of history and human nature.
Lawless tyrants and their corrupt systems must be removed from power before laws limiting a tyrannical government can carry the full force of moral and just law.
If you think those lawless now in power are going to just give up their stranglehold without a bloody conflict, you have no understanding of the reality we now live in.
Perhaps you'd like to refine your Maxim a bit upon consideration of the fall of the Soviet Empire which changed the system radically, although not perfectly and not permanently, without bloody conflict. One might also consider the devolution of the Soviet satellite states at the time.
The recent election in Scotland might well of gone the other way and there is no reason to anticipate that violence would've occurred for Britain to hold on to Scotland. One might recall that the British relinquished India without much bloodshed, the bloodshed mostly occurring between Muslims and Hindus. Bloodshed is not always inevitable. One need only consider the wholesale relinquishment of colonies in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s which was done often without violence to question whether violence is inevitable upon changes of power and government. I submit violence is even less likely when the change is associated with reform rather than revolution, when the reformers of a "soft" rather than a" harsh" tyranny.
So my point is, what is your point? Yes there may or may not be resistance and violence if the Article V movement is successful. Therefore?
Violence is always a possibility and I do not concede that it is inevitable in the wake of Article V. Nor do I believe that the possibility, even the inevitability, of violence should deter efforts to reform. Indeed, the absence of reform might well lead to violence.
I ask again, where do you stand on Article V?
