The solution is a better philosophy throughout the culture. That is what made the founding of America possible and is all that can save it. An appeal to more "states rights" is more statism centered in more places. The states are already up to their necks in statism and with current intellectual trends will not defend our rights.

As a mechanism within the current framework, the state amendment process advocated especially by Mark Levin is a constitutionally valid approach but has no more chance of leading to individual freedom than anything else in this culture. Levin is right that the Federal government is not going to reform itself, turning to the politicized courts is no solution, and that voting is not enough, but he overlooks the intellectual requirements for any mechanism to work. A convention of the states is not exempt. With the right cultural reforms a convention of the states is a mechanism to try for implementation, but otherwise it is just as hopeless as anything else.

The proposed amendments supported by the state convention movement have already been watered down to the level of no more than another attempt at a balanced budget amendment. If that much passes in this climate it will mean higher taxes to balance the budget, while ignoring all the other structural reforms he identifies.

Well, I respectfully suggest you revisit the drawing board. The John Birchers and others have been at this issue for decades and have successfully fended off efforts at a Constitutional Convention to date. But lately, those calling for an Article V convention have been well meaning – as in Mark Levin’s book, “The Liberty Amendments” and the people at the Convention of States. I follow and get updates from COS regularly to stay abreast of developments. At heart is the issue of whether there is any difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention. Article V provides for both procedurally, but the process, once begun, remains essentially the same.

However, I have carefully listened to both sides and would encourage everybody to do the same.

The following is the JBS review of Mark Levins book.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/bo...

As to the lack of George Soros lacking a hand or any success with this matter, consider the following:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...

I’d like to quote Tom DeWeese, a long time constitutionalist, with his comments on the Article V/Conn-con proponents. The following link is to his full article for those interested.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/op...

Jumping in to Tom Deweese:

Second, as I listen to Article V proponents make their arguments about how they're going to bring about change — that they are going to bring all of these states together, hold a convention, and pass their amendments, they seem to ignore the very existence of the Progressive movement that today controls nearly every aspect of our governing process. What do Article V proponents think these forces are going to do while the convention process is going on? Here's what my research has found. Progressive groups such as the Open Society Institute, the Center for American Progress, and the American Constitutional Society, to name a few — all groups funded by George Soros — are behind a movement for a more "Progressive Constitution." They are simply not going to let conservatives have the playing field to themselves. They will use every trick, spending every dollar in their bulging war chests, to assure they control the process. Tim Baldwin has written with great vigor in support of the Article V Convention. But I think it is interesting to note that his father, Chuck Baldwin, former Constitution Party presidential candidate, author, columnist, and a personal friend of mine, was quoted in a World Net Daily column in 2009 entitled "Globalists 'Salivating' over Collapse of America" where he said, "The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C., and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially dismantle America's independence and national sovereignty, and establish North American Union — in much the same way that globalists created the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they need to cement their sinister scheme into law." Yes, Chuck was talking about a Con Con, but what will be different in an Article V Convention of the States if the Progressives get into the process?

Third, I have a great concern over how the Article V Convention is being promoted. I have been an activist all of my life. I have seen pretty much every tactic used by powerful forces who are trying to railroad the people. The tactics always seem to be the same. Use the facilitation process to bring people into the fold, control the debate, and attack the opposition with accusations of deceit and fringe ideas. I have many times been awarded a tin foil hat by such forces for advocating ideas contrary to their vision for America. So, I'm a little sensitive to such tactics when I see them. And I know that the Tea Party is well aware of such tactics. That, in fact, is one of the things that motivates true Tea Party patriots to take action against rich, powerful, D.C.-based groups that try to usurp or control the Tea Party. Yet, these are exactly the tactics I see being employed today by Article V proponents. Some of my associates have attempted to speak out at meetings where Article V is being promoted, and are not allowed the floor. That should sound familiar to Ron Paul supporters who have had microphones yanked out of their hands or turned off at state conventions. A couple of my friends have even been asked to represent the anti-Article V position. But, while the Article V proponent is given all the time he wants, the opposition is usually allowed only a few minutes to make their case. If the TeaParty is opposed to such tactics by County Commissioners, legislative committees, or Republican leadership at state conventions, then why don't they question it at their own meetings? A full, open debate is always healthy in a free society. A deliberate attempt to silence opposition should cause people to question the motives of the perpetrators.

Finally, the proponents of Article V take great comfort in reciting the powerful names of those supporting their efforts. As I said, many are very respected leaders of the Conservative movement. But, how dare they deride in such nasty fashion those who oppose them? They've called Phyllis Schlafly an old lady and out of touch. Phyllis was fighting for the Constitution when most of these Article V proponents were still in school. She risked everything she had to stop the Progressives' Equal Rights Amendment. Homeschool advocate Mike Farris has called the John Birch Society evil. JBS has been unwavering in its dedication to the Constitution through the dark days of Communist infiltration of the 1950s to today's fight against Agenda 21. The fact is, I was forced to part ways with Mike Farris and his tactics in the 1990s. At the time I was heavily engaged in a three-year war to stop the destruction of our public school system through the "reforms" known as Goals 2000, School-to-Work, and The Workforce Investment Act. Today, these "reforms" have morphed onto Common Core. When we had a chance to stop them in the 1990s, Mike Farris refused to support my efforts against the Workforce Investment Boards, saying they didn't affect homeschoolers! I considered that a betrayal to every student in the nation.

It is with great pain that I acknowledge that some people I really respect have joined the Article V effort. But I can’t join them because, to me, something really smells about this Article V movement. Its arguments don’t past scrutiny. Its tactics are underhanded. Its source of funding is not in the open. I think honest Tea Party members and dedicated freedom activists should ask a lot of questions before risking our precious Constitution to their lot.

Thanks, Tom for calling for cooler heads to prevail.

The Article V/Con-Con folks also seem to not acknowledge the States role in allowing the feds to grow unchecked and with that, expect the same entities to behave properly at a Con-Con?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...

I have found the JBS position to be much more fully researched and expressed rationally, maturely, and without the snide attacks made upon someone with a different opinion.

And as for the emotional accusation that somehow questioning the wisdom of an Article V/Con-Con would be saying that We the People should do nothing, I refer the readers to an alternative to the risks of changing the Constitution: Nullification. It has worked before, I have seen it.

The following link is to The Tenth Amendment Center and has some great material about the remedies available to the States. In short, don’t amend the Constitution – enforce it.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/...

ah ok. interesting coincidence!