Beware the "Convention of States" Scam

For those out there who are still fervently pushing for an Article V Convention of States to amend the Constitution, as framer George Mason unambiguously observed, "the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution"--NOT to re-rewrite the Constitution--a dangerous undertaking to which too many, inclusive of Mark Levin, are wittingly or unwittingly fostering.

Also this quote from deceased Justice Scalia: "I certainly would not want an [Article V] Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa! Who knows what would come of that?"

Comprised of delegates from the several States and enjoined by their respective State leaders to only revise the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 didn't revise the Articles; in secret proceedings the delegates literally created an entirely new Constitution. OK, so we dodged the bullet that time and the Constitution these disobedient delegates created well-served the nation--well until the War Between the States in 1861 which turned the Constitution on its head.(But that's another story. for another time.)

Thus, given the terribly divisive ideological divide and powerfully influential interest groups plaguing this republic today, dare we jeopardize the Constitution with another Convention to "amend the Constitution"? Or would these State delegates do what some of the Art V Convention of States disciples have already demonstrated they would be willing to do, that being to re-write the Constitution and, in the process, even legalize federal usurpations against which we've all been resisting? Rather than cutting the feds down to Constitutional size and crafting amendments with that single purpose in mind, some of the COS-proposed amendments I've reviewed demonstrably enshrine violations of the existing Constitution! Frankly, I was incredulous. Check it out.( Also, for starters please check out Publius Huldah blog and CAAVC sites for some erudite discussions on this issue.) Even among patriotic originalists there are gaping disagreements about the desirability and efficacy of an Art V Convention of States whose product could well end up doing us more harm than good. Would love to have you weigh in.