"So, when all on this site who commented suggest no convention, what they are really saying is they support veto of the Constitution. So how do they explain this obviously contradictory position? They can't."
How can someone answer the questions asked?
Who contradicts their own position on limited constitutional government, or self-government, or Common Law government, or voluntary government?
If your question is aimed at criminals or dupes, then the contractions that exist are willful (criminal) or ignorant (duped), but my question to you has to do with your own understanding of limited, competitive, voluntary, constitutional government, whereby there is no contradiction, and therefore my question concerns who you are aiming at when you intend to hold those who are contradictory accountable for their contradictions.
Who contradicts themselves as you claim, and will any of those people who contradict themselves ever publicly answer for those contradictions?
If the answer is no, they will not, then why do they either refuse to resolve those contradictions, or why can then never resolve those contradictions if they were to attempt such an obviously productive challenge.
In other words: Why spend another calorie of energy on "government" if it is no different than crime; without the false justifications?
One thing many people misunderstand about the 1788 Constitution is the actual intent of it, that intent of consolidating the Separate Sovereign Limited Constitutional State Governments into ONE MONOPOLY POWER complete with Money Monopoly Power, so failing to understand that may be the source of many contradictions.
"Congress has the power to regulate commerce not to mention the power of tax and as the courts recently pointed out that makes it constitutional. Bad policy but constitutional."
The battle that has been raging since 1776 was a battle over dictatorial power (as in consolidated government) and self-governing, competitive, voluntary, democratic federated republican, common law, government, and the bad guys won big in 1788, so as you appear to be saying with your quote above, is that the bad guys, the collectivist, the Monarchs, the One World Government, the Monopoly Legal Money, the Dictators, those who will enslave, and without mincing words, the criminals, are legitimately committing crimes, because they get to say what IS means, and they get to constructively interpret any word written on any paper at any time, and when they want to define the meaning of words the opposite way the next minute, that is legitimate too, because they say so, and those under such "laws" have to obey without question.
If that is what you are saying, then say it.
If that isn't what you are saying then confirm otherwise.
There are two sides, this is not new, one side claims absolute dictatorial authority, because they say so, and the other side figures out how to separate fact from fiction in a reliable, scientific, method, such as a democratic federated republic with trial by jury based upon sortition, and limited constitutional self government, with examples to help improve the workability of the methodology.
Which side are you on?
"So the challenge is this. OTHER than refusing to obey Article V and call the convention as mandated, show any other action of the government which is either not authorized by the Constitution or in which the text of the Constitutions says the government shall do "X" and it has done "Y". Not your opinion, but a factual statement in writing by use of the public record."
There is no "government" that does anything, or thinks anything, so if you want to know who is accountable for anything, there has to be an accused person. So why does anyone hold things to account for the actions of people?
"I'll give you a hint. You'll have to go back to Lincoln to find examples."
Here is factual records of current events worthy of note at the time, and relevant to today, as to the topic subject matter, and your challenge in particular:
"I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government."
If anyone wishes to speak of dictatorial criminal government as if such a thing were legitimate, then do so, and please know that you are doing so, lending it support, or speaking against it.
"It's funny how many so-called conservatives hold they "love" the Constitution and support it and then when it comes to obeying provisions they do not agree with suddenly see no problem in urging that provision not be obeyed."
And those who are doing this "loving" can raise their hands. For me there is a moral agreement at work among moral human beings, and it does not have to be in writing, but when things are in writing, or recorded in some way, the fellow Friends of Liberty have a harder time forgetting those moral agreements, so what is wrong with having a limited constitutional government at all?
"Now consider: you're an undecided voter who has to choose between a president who many say have violated the Constitution but who cannot provide written proof of this, only opinion and supposition, versus a candidate who declares He WILL veto the Constitution if elected. Who do you choose?"
The people, or the productive people whose POWER finances self-government WILL stop providing those provisions to said government when said government (a list of names of actual people), when those people turn to deception, threats, and violence, or criminal acts, while in office. That is the limit on government. Those people who use "government" to make their crimes legal for them, alone, and against the law if anyone else commits the same crimes, LIMIT their victims in that way.
So which is it?
Productive people limiting the power of government to be only moral government.
Criminals who take over government and then enslave their victims with it.
Where is the contradiction when things are spelled out rationally in English?
"Maybe, just maybe you should consider your position regarding a convention. Unless you want to keep losing elections until there is no republican party or perhaps not even a conservative movement, let alone a Ron Paul position."
Maybe you should read at least one book on what actually happened at the first "convention"?
The criminals tend to fix their problems by making their crimes only legal for them, not legal for their victims.
If you don't understand that then who is contradictory?
"Oh, by the way, Mr. Paul has expressed privately in the past support for an Article V Convention provided operational questions regarding it, not constitutional, can be resolved. Upon learning of these answers, he supported it because he believes in obeying and supporting the entire Constitution, not just parts of it. Too bad his so-called followers don't believe as he does."
A major problem with the constitution is the plausible dependability, or wiggle room, or it constructively interpretable language, as pointed out by many of the original opponents, but that does not make IT bad, that fluid nature of the supposed "law" power can turn out to be bad, when a Clinton or Bush is in POWER, while a self-government, free market, competitive, voluntary, moral person, like Ron Paul, may find IT to be good, as good as Gold, or as good as the Golden Rule.
Who is in POWER?
The answer aught to be accurate, not ambiguous.
"If you think I'm making this up, why don't ask him?"
I think that you aught to answer the challenge returned back to you.
Who is contradictory, exactly?