This has been addressed time and again, but let me do it again. Three-fourth's of the states must ratify any proposed amendment from a convention of the states; the exact threshold required to adopt amendments proposed by Congress. The idea that thirteen red-state legislatures(with just one house controlled by Republicans) would embrace the left's radical agenda, should crazy amendments be proposed at a convention of the states, is absurd. Moreover, far more state legislatures are presently controlled by Republicans than Democrats. Therefore, the convention of the states could not be hijacked by the most liberal Democrat activists. Furthermore, even a cursory understanding of current events related to this subject reveals that state legislators are already putting together processes that would govern the meeting, should such a meeting take place in the future, to prevent anyone from hijacking the process. That said, the situation today is that the federal government re-writes, modifies,usurps, defies, etc. the Constitution virtually at will. As such, the Constitution as written and intended is meaningless in many respects. The purpose of Article V is to restore constitutional government, should that still be possible. And that was and is its purpose.
This is quintessential federalism. It's authorized by Article V. George Mason originally proposed it. George Washington and the other delegates at the Constitutional Convention, including James Madison, voted for it, as did the state ratification conventions. Such modern notables as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, among others, supported it. An aging Madison would later refer to Article V as a way to avoid the growing hostilities between the states. Abraham Lincoln did the same thing, but it was too late to avoid the Civil War. And the reform amendmentsI propose in my book, among other things, empower the legislatures to override or bypass the federal government in matters where the framers intended the states to hold sway. Thus, the issue is not whether the federal government nullifies the amendments. The amendments empower the states to act.
Finally, the writer reveals himself in the first sentence of his article. This is not a constitutional convention. It is a convention of the states. The framers understood the difference. The writer does not; nor does he have any suggested recourse to what is happening to the republic. I guess he believes the federal government will magically abandon its own designs. I don't accept his defeatism, hysteria, or the inevitability of tyranny. Historically, the states would gather to discuss common issues of concern and attempt to resolve them. Article V was proposed in this context. For some reason, those opposed to it claim to oppose abusive federal power and support state authority, yet reject the only constitutional and civil recourse available to blunt federal power and empower the states.