1) The situation then was completely different. The difference was the national government at the time. The states basically accepted the new constitution, the only betrayal was the Articles Congress dissolved itself perhaps a bit preemptively. The federal government today being so powerful, I doubt it would relent to a new government that formed according to the wishes of a coalition of states. In other words, the Article V convention assumes the supremacy and dominance of the federal government. Whereas the Articles Government was easily dissolvable, the current government will hardly respond to any national convention in this way.
2) The government is abiding the current constitution, just according to its own interpretation of it. Electoral politics have proven ineffective in reversing this interpretation. Constitutional amendments could being a process of reversing that interpretation by: 1 - making certain things too explicit to be misinterpreted and 2 - by restructuring things to make electoral politics more capable of restoring the proper interpretation.
3) The enforcement mechanism is that right now we accept the current interpretation because there is no other constitutionally endogenous means of interpretation. I support nullification, but the establishment does not. The establishment is forced by vagueries and traditional interpretation to live with the way things are. But making other things explicit, it will demolish both that which is vague and that which is traditional. For example, the idea of allowing a Congressional (or state legislatures) veto of Supreme Court rulings. This accepts the current system of judicial review, but then provides an electoral means to change the outcome of the interpretation process.
4)Marxists claim that knowledge is historical, rationalists claim that history is the product of ideas. I contend that it's a little bit of both. If people were angels, we wouldn't need government, but at the same time we could live just fine with total government. If people were smart enough to elect Ron Paul, then constitutional interpretation wouldn't matter. The states could exist as, at best, a loose confederation. In the meantime, the constitution is what protects us from a state of war which is in the case of our present day, nothing but us being subject to an outright fascism. Part of why people don't vote for Ron Paul is because everything from education to media to our financial system and the source of our credit and jobs is tied into the federal power that has been created since the progressive era. Many of us can transcend material constrain and live according to ideas. That's why there are any Paul voters. But many simply will not while they're still subject to the culture of Leviathan. Meaningful political shifts might make a difference. Limiting federal spending might stave off some of these national entitlements, which would affect that nationalist culture.
5)I don't know. What if we end up in that situation? There'd be civil discord, and martial law. How long would that last? If we're heading there anyway, then what's the point? We might as well face it. However, it's not as if the current constitution is helping us all that much. The 2nd amendment does prohibit Congress from mitigating the right to bear arms, but it doesn't guarantee the possession thereof. It all depends who's on the court really.
This is the toughest question philosophically. If the constitution is a true social compact, then we more or less abide it within the philosophical bounds listed by the declaration (not binding, just, in essence). If the constitution is this illegitimate thing we never signed, well, then why are we following it now. I tend to think of it as a football that gets passed back and forth by competing factions and it has little to do with the philosophy of liberty per se. In the context of that ball game, I say we try to amend it.
My ultimate argument against you is that if the bad guys have that much power, why haven't they amended it already? Why hasn't Congress just proposed an amendment and the states accepted it? The argument against a convention is this argument that our liberty is best protected by a permanent stasis. I would agree with the utility of that argument, except that with things like Obamacare and the NSA I foresee the stalemate essentially progressing closer to tyranny regardless. So I feel like, as the strategic losers here, risks are more beneficial to us than to our adversaries.
6) State governments can be pretty bad, but they also can be pretty good. Tom Woods' 3x5 cards of approved opinion MUST be upheld in the national congress. The media will pick up on and demolish anyone who does deviate. On the local level, people can get away with deviating.
Yes, it's susceptible to corruption, but local politics are also free from the opinion police in a way national politics aren't. Again, we're losing, so the risks benefit us.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: