You cannot modify the Constitution per Article V without concurrent risks that the modifications adopted may be those that others desire rather than those that you desire. More particularly, what would be the point?

Wouldn’t it be even easier for the Federal Government to ignore improperly ratified Constitutional modifications than to ignore properly ratified amendments? But as of today the Federal Government nearly in total ignores the Constitution.

The proper remedy is to follow the Constitution exactly. EXACTLY. By this I mean that for a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) Art V states that Congress will call a Con-Con when asked to by 2/3ds of the States. It also says that proposed amendments are ‘ratified’ when approved by 3/4s of State Conventions or when ratified by 3/4′s of State Legislatures.

Yet the Constitution does not restrain the States from holding a Con-Con, when 2/3′s have asked for one, simply because Congress failed to perform their duty and call for one. Nor does the Constitution otherwise claim that a Constitutional Amendment is invalid after ratification by 3/4′s of the States whatever the method of its proposal.

LESSON 1:
If 2/3s of States want a Con-Con they can hold one regardless of the Federal Government’s desires.

LESSON 2:
If 3/4′s of State Conventions or State Legislatures Ratify certain language as an Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the method of it’s proposal it is for all intents and purposes a valid Amendment.

LESSON 3:
The Constitution is essentially a Special Power of Attorney. This grants certain defined powers from the grantor to the grantee. When those who are employed under such an agreement fail to exercise the terms of their employment, or exercise powers outside of the agreement they can be considered to be pretenders to their employment – meaning not legitimately employed and their act to not be legally binding.

Therefore the proper understanding to have is that a ‘Federal Government’ that ignores significant portions of the Constitution is not lawfully the Federal Government at all. Any actions the Pretenders or their agents perform not pertinent to powers given under the agreement are unlawful, and should be treated exactly as you would treat anyone else who performed those actions…

The people should take up a suggestion by William J. Watkins, Jr., The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Guideposts of Limited Government, http://www.constitution.org/lrev/kentvirg_watkins.htm, that the Constitution be amended to enable states to propose amendments without the hazard of convening a constitutional convention. Then the states could propose an amendment granting them the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal.

Also, I suggest the Constitution is a contract, with mutually dependent conditions. The federal government having failed to defend the states, the states should be excused from the prohibition against state letters of marque and reprisal.

Property seizure, however, is constitutional per Article IV of the Bill of Rights as long as it is not unreasonable and is executed only by Warrant. What defines “Unreasonable” is one question to be asked and is the property (minus the drugs) returned if the person is found not guilty?

I believe Ron Paul brought up the use of letters of marque and reprisal. I did not notice whether our Navy and Coast Guard ship captains who seize drugs, etc. on the high seas are required to have the letters.

I also have heard proposals to revive letters of marque and reprisal as methods of combating piracy (e.g. Somalia and the South China sea) and terrorist groups. We might be surprised how quickly the problem gets solved.