You are wrong here. A constitutional convention is not required for consideration of a proposed amendment. In fact, the reason why constitutional conventions have not been used is the reality, as you pointed out, "when [a constitutional convention] takes place all bets are off as far as what will and won't be changed." Such a convention is how we transitioned from the Articles of Confederation to our present day Constitution. Initially, the delegates claimed they only wanted to fix the Articles of Confederation. They did far more.

The problem with this one is that you woudn't just be making it hard for the inferior federal courts to declare laws unconstitutional, but you would abolish the inferior federal courts. With how backlogged the dockets are now, this probably wouldn't be a good idea. lol

What changes would I like to see? Well, I would use the opportunity to clear up a few things, such as:

1- There is no such thing as a privacy right under the 5th and 14th Amendments. The contention that within the substantive due process clause exists such a "right" is pure fiction. Due process requires only that (1) the laws be properly enacted and that (2) the person aggrieved by the law have an opportunity to challenge the law in court. So, we, as a nation should decide if we want a privacy guarantee in the constitution and, if so, we should add an amendment protecting that right.

This would, once and for all, let the American people decide if we want to allow so-called privacy rights like abortion to be legal and what the parameters would be.

2- We should also do something about the 2nd amendment. Reasonable people on both sides of the gun issue can point to the 2nd amendment and claim that they view has constitutional support. I am one of those who believe that the amendment was enacted in a time when a person tending his farm might have to put down his farming implements and pick up his musket to defend the new country. In my view, the part of the amendment that the NRA highlights (i.e. the right for people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) is conditioned by the first two clauses (i.e. [a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state). And since most people are not in the militia, if one even exists anymore, then the 2nd amendment does not apply to a person who wants to own a gun.

But I have a really intelligent friend who points out the word "security" and believes that the framers were concerned that the government might become corrupt and the people might need guns to protect themselves from the government (if there were no guns, there would is a possibility that the state would not stay "free.")

Well, I have to admit that I can't explain exactly what is protected by the 2nd amendment and neither can anyone else. We would also have to scrap the word "arms" and get specific because when you consider what "arms" can mean today (the "arms race between russia and the US," for example) guaranteeing that people can "keep and bear arms" could make us very nervous. After all, if the 2nd amendment protects "arms" and assault weapons are covered, then why aren't nuclear warheads?

3- We would also have to fix the 1st amendment. The way the Supreme Court has interpreted the 1st amendment has turned from a guarantee to a "helpful suggestion." For example,

a- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

If Congress shall make no law, then I have a few questions:

Q1 - Why did Roy Moore have to take down his 10 Commandments? After all, he isn't a member of congress (or any part of any legislature) and doesn't he has a "free exercise right" to celebrate his faith? When he think of the word "establishment" when applied to religion, isn't it clear that we are talking about (1) laws requiring church attendance, or (2) laws that set up an official state religion, or (3) laws that prefer one religion to another?
If we don't want the Roy Moores of the world to put up his 10 commandments, we have 2 choices: (1) don't vote for him, or (2) change the language to something like:

No government worker may promote religion....

But if the language were changed to that, then we would have have a de facto secular society (although one that is tolerate toward religion).

If we didn't want to go that far, we could be a little more verbose and specifically list what is allowed and what is not:

No government worker may promote religion by:

Q2: Why can't students, on their own accord, institute a moment of prayer before the school day? They certainly are not members of congress and aren't they being denied their free exercise right by being denied the opportunity to pray?

For the record, I am not in favor of posting religious memorabilia or school prayer, but I don't agree that they are prohibited by the first amendment. I think that people who throw religion in everyone's faces are often the most corrupt people, but the first amendment says what it says. We should change society to reflect the laws or change the laws to reflect society.

b- Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech

Congress has enacted many laws abridging the freedom of speech. Instead of artificially creating "exceptions" to the categorical labguage of the 1st amendment, we should rewrite it.

c- Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Ok, then why are their laws requiring permits before a parade can be organized? Why were protestors dispersed from the democratic and republican conventions? Why are protestors not allowed near the president?

The fact is that the 1st amendment speaks in absolute terms and no one has ever taken those absolute terms seriously.

Trust me, I could go on and on about I would needs to be changed, let alone what I would like to see changed. One thing I would like to see added would be:

The right to die with dignity is a personal and private decision. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of a person to end his or her life on his or her own terms.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller