Some on the far right of the political spectrum are seeking to hold a second constitutional convention. I'm not sure what they want, but they're convinced that it will bring the New Jerusalem.

The problem, however, is that the second constitutional convention movement will founder on a host of technical issues that nobody has even bothered to consider:

* who is to be represented in the convention -- persons or states? it was states in 1787, which meant that the smallest state had the same one vote that the largest state had. Nobody would put up with that now.

* who is to choose the delegates and how -- the state legislatures, as in 1787, or popular election? will the parties get involved, and, if so, how?

* how many delegates? each state legislature did its own choosing and electing and sending -- doubtful that anyone would like that approach now, as it tended to favor state political elites.

* will the convention meet in secret, behind closed doors, as it did in 1787? or will it have to meet in public? The right to know was in its infancy in 1787; it has become a shibboleth today. (Look it up.)

* will delegates be able to change their minds and get together for compromises, as in 1787? or will we insist that they keep their campaign promises even if those are obstacles to getting anything done? If we throw compromise over the side, the convention will founder within a week.

* what will the second convention's mandate be -- a specific set of revisions, or the whole thing, as in a runaway convention? Remember that in 1787 we got a runaway convention, which proposed a wholly new constitution. We cannot keep a second convention within bounds, either..So what will be up for grabs -- the Bill of Rights? Religious freedom? The rights of atheists, aliens, women, members of racial minorities, of gender minorities?

* how will the product of the convention's work be adopted? In the 1787 process of a preliminary review by the existing Congress and then in a process using ratification state by state by popular elected conventions, with each state having only one vote? Or by national popular referendum? or by state-by-state referendum?

* will this new process obey Article V's regulations of what such a process should be? or would the new convention elbow its way past the old system to create a new and different system?

In the current system of political tantruming, chaos, and inability to figure out how to get things done, does anyone really think that a second convention can get started? let alone finished? let alone past the task of constitutional re-framing or revision to the task of ratification?