You are correct in that "they" won't pass it. It will be "we" who have to pass it.
And, Joe, I'm really trying to understand. You keep trying to poke holes in this idea, but you aren't proposing anything else. Like I've said before, doing nothing is not an option.
My, my, you keep pushing me toward a corner.
Here it is:
You either fix it, or you scrap it and build back what was supposed to be there. To advocate overthrow of what is there would be seditious and I won't do that, especially here.
While I believe the core of the Republic was solid, with the exception of the slavery issue, it is some of the add-ons past the first ten Amendments which are the problem. You will have one hell of a hard time eliminating 150 years plus worth of statutory and interpretative add-ons with a few paragraphs. In fact, it would be miraculous if the concepts originally intended could be returned to in one or two generations, partly because of the nature of those add-ons, most notably Social Security, but interpretations of the Commerce Clause and "general welfare" and others.
There are, as I have said, herds of sacred cows which have been generated as a result. Entire Cabinet level Departments and all their programs, and the grant money from those programs, and hundreds of thousands of cushy government jobs will not be relinquished without a fight.
I am trying to take a realistic view of the battlefield, here. Just diddy-bopping in will get you slaughtered, politically, and the whole idea of an Article V Convention of States will be done for another hundred years or more.
If you think Article V is the answer, then go ahead, but know the 'battlespace', know what you are really up against. Keep in mind that you aren't just fighting over principle, but for those you will be fighting against, this is worth trillions of dollars a year, in wages, benefits, grants, contracts, and the like. They will not go quietly into that night.
Out of the TEA Party movement we got what, less than ten Congress people who would fight the good fight even after the dirty tricks, etc., and only a fraction of those kept the faith in the face of peer pressure, 'beltway fever' and K-Street. It is unlikely we will remove enough of the quislings from the Congress through the electoral process in time to do much good.
As for more Amendments, consider that the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS
rewrote a law to call a fee the Congress had insisted was a "penalty" a "tax"--which then even, should have voided the law because that revenue measure (a tax) originated not in the House of Representatives, but the Senate, and that is proscribed by the Constitution, as is the act of writing or rewriting legislation denied the Court. Despite that 'double whammy', the law was
upheld, and our health care system is a wreck and getting worse. My doctor quit, and my insurance carrier with whom I had health insurance for over twenty years stopped writing health insurance policies. Twice was the Constitution violated, by the very people who are supposed to uphold it (actually, they all are--they took an oath to do so)
At that point, hypothetically speaking, the solution becomes a question of how much do you break before you rebuild, or do you tear it down to bedrock, pick up that original document (having already hashed out what it was supposed to mean and what does not fit), add in the few changes which worked, drop a couple which are particularly onerous (16th and 17th Amendments), and run with it, taking time only to clarify the language. Keep in mind, this is a process even more dangerous in even theory, because once the dogs of war are unleashed, no telling who they will bite. It would be all the excuse needed for an already overbearing government to go full totalitarian. At any rate, win, lose, or draw, it would be messy and give our enemies ample opportunity for mischief, not to mention our 'friends'.
Where do you get the people with the education and the integrity to put things aright? to keep them that way?--likely not from the most revered institutions of higher learning which have been seriously, if not completely compromised in their interpretation of the words "Right" and "fair", just for starters. Those currently in the system have become inured to those concepts for the most part, and their resignations would be called for. Consider the mayhem the Clintons left (and the things they didn't leave behind) when they vacated the White House, and multiply that by a few hundred thousand disgruntled former employees, many of whom were issued sidearms and body armour.
Oh, and pass out pink slips to the hundreds of thousands of former Federal Employees who worked for or were funded by the now defunct departments of Education, the EPA (necessary function rolled into interior) and all the other agencies which make up the alphabet soup we call the 'government'. Better cut a new deal with the cartel known as the Federal Reserve, too, because we're in pretty deep. (a little more than GDP).
So, I'm not sure there is a solution, which is why I am not against an Article V Convention of States
per se. I am, however full of caution, and there are reasons here I have attempted to articulate for that caution. Sun Tsu said you (paraphrasing) have to know the enemy and yourself if you are to be likely to have victory, and I'm probing the potential problems. There are many, not insurmountable, but significant.
First, they won't go by the rules they had, why go by new ones?
Second, will the process be hijacked and have we reached the critical mass of parasites which will guarantee the outcome is more Socialist than intended?
Third, remember, there are not only the parasites, but the employees, and then every employee, investor, business, and person who has a stake in the contracts let and grant money distributed who will fight against this, too. I am reminded that where I grew up 50 miles from DC, the government is seen as an employer, a provider of contracts and business, a consumer of supplies, whereas out west, it is seen not as a family pet/watchdog/sheepdog, but as a ravening wolf come to eat our substance. Not all the taxpayers will fight to rein in the very spending which makes them a living in every profession and trade, doing work for the government, despite the taxes they may pay or rules they have become inured to.
Fourth: Understand that the American People will have to be, by and large reeducated as to not only what Liberty is, but to learn to like the self actualization that comes with it, and to bear the responsibility that walks hand in hand with freedom. Many will not go down that road. They prefer having their decisions made for them, and will fight being pulled form that comfort zone.
There is more than just getting a Convention involved, you have to have people in all the states (well, 38, anyway) who will push to ratify the measures you pass, and that means having a populace which is ready on a widespread basis to accept or desire those changes. With every onerous edict from Washington D.C. we get closer, as more people get frustrated, but timing will be important.
Fifth, on timing: If Trump gets elected, expect complacency from his supporters, who will lull into the somnolence that accompanies electing a "champion" to set things right. I do not share their faith, but that post election 100 days lets a lot get by an otherwise attentive populace, and if he pushed for measures and rulemakings which conservatives found onerous, after all, there is a chance they would meet with minimal resistance unless the Democrats sweep the Congress while those who would get over their normalcy bias realize that things aren't what they had assumed they would be. This would be a period of low enthusiasm for such a convention.
If Hillary gets in, expect conservatives to be more willing to fight because her first 100 days would have that part of the electorate ready to do battle in the political space at a minimum.
So I still haven't given you an answer, but I didn't tie the Gordian Knot, and am restrained from suggesting the stroke to undo it by prudence and the desire to not have Federal Agents knocking at my door.