An "Article V" Convention is a Constitutional Convention (Con Con)
1. Groups like Eagle Forum and others, which have led the fight against using Article V to amend the the U.S. Constitution, refer to an "Article V" Convention as a Con Con. It's that simple; there are different ways to refer to the type of convention Article V is talking about. Why is there a distinction trying to be made between an "Amendment" Convention and a "Constitutional Convention"? To me, it seems that we want to view the applying to Congress to call a Convention as less serious because it involves only "amendments," yet there is no evidence that it would only involve adopting amendments conservative like, or worse, that our U.S. Constitution would significantly change. (Note: Obama's radio interview about "wealth redistribution" relating to our Constitution, and even though the president wouldn't be involved in the "Article V" Convention according to the Constitution, his views are widely held by the Left in Congress and in our state legislatures.)
2. Using the logic that an "Article V" Convention is not a Constitution Convention would be the same as arguing that the Convention in 1787 that produced our current Constitution was not a Constitutional Convention because it wasn't convened with the intention to be a "constitutional convention."
The original Constitutional Convention itself was a convention called to "improve"--not to completely re-write the Articles of Confederation. In the same vain, an "Article V" convention may be called to merely improve the current Constitution, but there's nothing that stops that body from passing as many amendments as it wants or re-writing the Constitution. There is no difference simply because there is nothing that keeps an application to call an "article V" from convening and resulting in a Constitutional Convention.
Well-intentioned legislators and activists are ready to get radical with the US Constitution before taking other more effective radical steps like sending the federal government's money back to them. It sounds nice to think a new amendment, whether a balanced budget amendment or the repeal amendment, would solve all of our problems, but we must remember, the law can't make people or leaders love freedom and hate debt.
People in America must desire self-government and stop taking money from the government. WE must encourage the state government to send the federal money back or vote them out, even if they are our friends. This is radical.
There's nothing that speaks louder than money.
Major problems barriers to an "Article V" Convention being effective:
1. The fact that Congress would write up the call and set the rules. The rules would highly influence the outcome (like how the delegates are appointed/elected, who would be the temp. chair, who would be on the convention rules committee etc.
2. Our broken court system and whatever happens, there would be disputes that end up being decided by unelected judges.
4. The media would have an influence simply because an "Article V" convention is a big deal! What kinds of ideas to you think the political pundits would think should be passed?
5. If the will of the people isn't present to vote out the bad members of Congress, how will the will of the people be there to stop the states from ratifying whatever comes out of the Constitutional Convention. (I can hear it now, "we've got to ratify or there's be a civil war...and we don't want war...or whatever scary thing that might happen.)
6. Would 3/4th states ever veto Congress? Why work hard for something that sets the bar so high!! Passing the Health Care Freedom Act in Missouri gave Republican candidates lots of ammunition to ousts liberals from office. If 10 or 15 more states pass it, the public momentum is the message. Why push the number up to 38 to have "teeth," when state governments can pass legislation barring federal involvement now. (Oh, wait, because that means giving up federal funding. Why did the states take stimulus money??)
7. The notion that we don't need to worry because 38 states would have to ratify whatever comes out of that convention makes the assumption that bad ideas don't get passed into law every day and that our legislators aren't swayed into passing compromised legislation all the time. Fighting bad ideas takes times, money, and resources.
I can hear it now: "Well, it's the best we could do! If we don't ratify, we don't get federal money! Our schools will lose funding. Our jails won't be able to keep bad people off the streets. Our bridges will fall. We'll have to cut our beloved tax credits!!" And while this might be a great opportunity for courageous legislators to say "no"; in our experience, federal money causes even the best to crumble.
Last note: One of Phyllis Schlafly's Con Law professors believes her most significant work was to stop an "Article V" convention (or sometimes called "Con Con") over all the work she poured into defeating ERA. If you know history, this is a significant statement.