Om,
Yes, a Convention of States might be the only way to address the issue rationally. Also clarify the 2nd Amendment. I believe the drive for it is approaching the necessary number of states and an unfavorable ruling from the SC could be the impetus to get to the number needed.
What a glorious reversal that would be, to wrest power right out of the hands of the ‘swamp’!

— Molly Brown

Yeah, but that’s not how it would probably go. A Convention of the States keeps getting proposed as a cure for our ills, and it’s a ghastly dangerous and terrible idea.

First, there’s the question of the membership of said convention. Enthusiasts always say that it would be chosen by the State Legislatures. Which is technically true. What they ignore is that those State lawmakers are, almost without exception, partisan politicians. Which means that for something this important, they’re going to follow the instructions of the party leadership.

Which means in practice that the convention members will be appointed by the leadership of the national parties. Which means that the blue State delegates will be chosen by Obama, Pelosi, Jeffries, Schumer, etc., de facto if not de jure.

Now, the right wing is not ideologically unified. A big chunk of the red State delegates can be assumed to be representatives of the libertarian and business wings of the party, because those groups have disproportionate influence in the GOP compared to their numbers.

Guess what? The business wing is globalist. They love open borders. They’re hyper-secular and they’re ‘free traders’. A lot of the libertarian types believe in ‘freedom of movement’ as a basic principle, and they might well go along with ‘any willing worker’. Some of them will definitely want to use such an opportunity to try to write Randianism into the Constitution. Libertarians are at least sympathetic to gun ownership, but the business types mostly are not. Both groups detest MAGA and Trump, openly or privately.

Imagine John Cornyn or Thom Tillis or Lindsey Graham as GOP delegates to the Convention. Because that could easily happen, just as easily as Ted Cruz.

American politics has been dominated since the end of the Cold War by an unofficial but very real alliance of GOP corporatist/business types and Dem social liberal world government dreamers. Do you think that same alliance might not team up to hijack such a Convention? If they did, can you imagine what might emerge from it?

We could very easily end up struggling to prevent the new amendments from being ratified!!

There are two basic methods for ratification, Congress would have to pick one, but either way, it’s entirely possible, maybe probable, that the net result of such a Convention would be conservatives fighting to block ratification, with the business wing on the other side!

And even if we succeeded, even if we got exactly the amendments we wanted and got them ratified…we would still have to fight the fight to get judges appointed who would apply them honestly. So it doesn’t even bypass the need to win the political struggle, we’d still have to do that!

The risks of a Convention of the States are high. The payoff, at best, is highly uncertain. It’s not a superweapon to settle the argument, it’s a high-stakes gamble against the house. Worst case, it could end up triggering a civil war rater than preventing one.

Generally speaking, you amend the Constitution to put your desired changes in it as the last stage, after you’ve won the political argument. If you haven’t won the political argument yet, trying to amend the Constitution is usually futile, and when it isn’t futile it’s as risky as crap.

We have to do it the hard way, there just are no shortcuts to success.

Or it may be like the movie Mosul. Look up a few clips on YouTube. It will be the communists and Islam.

Why not? In the 2016 election a Hillary campaign song asked working-class country men to take a stand for Hillary. A good-looking dude in a cowboy hat sings:
_______________________________________

Now it’s 2016 and this time I’m a-thinking guys.
Put your boots on and let’s smash this [glass] ceiling!

–“STAND WITH HILLARY Music Video”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJJoJWY1VFM
_______________________________________

I still find it hilarious. The video was so cringeworthy that it disappeared for years. I’m glad someone brought it back to the web.

The actor, Jason Tobias, who lip-synced the song, apparently still has a career, though the song isn’t mentioned in his IMDB entry:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4021837/

“Becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.”

Even as just a retired physicist with no legal training, I’d be happy to stand before the Supremes, greet them, offer that one sentence as my case, and sit down.

There’s an “argument” against that dose of common sense? All an originalist has to do is ask himself about how the 14th Amendment’s authors (Senator Trumbull et al.) would have reacted to that sentence — the question answers itself.

(My favored sentence doesn’t apply to the whelps of mothers who achieved illegal-alien status by overstaying a visitor’s visa, but I expect the amendment authors would be similarly appalled by the grant of birthright citizenship in such cases.)