[Political Junkie Too]

Asserting that “only a federal agency (Congress, as provided by the Constitution) is competent to propose” amendments, he claimed that the convention procedure should be disregarded as “no longer of any effect.”

He might as well declare that the Supremacy clause is no longer in effect. He can't, though, because he needs it to justify everything else.

So Article V is either supreme law of the land, or nothing is.

-PJ

[Publius]

There is a legal term for what that individual was suggesting. It's called "the Doctrine of Laches". (The last word is French and is pronounced "laash".) It means that if a legal procedure hasn't been used in a very long time, it no longer exists under law.

The problem is that the Doctrine of Laches does not apply to the Constitution. In theory, unless the words of the Constitution are changed via the amendatory process, every word stands.

Unfortunately, every time a federal judge rules on a case, he holds a miniature constitutional convention in his chambers when he writes his opinion. Large swaths of the Constitution have been nullified by judges in their legal opinions as part of the theology of the Living Constitution. The primary purpose of the Convention of the States movement is to put an end to that with structural changes that rebalance the role of the Judiciary.