If 2/3 of state legislatures would apply to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments [1], and amendments would be proposed, what would happen next?

Either 3/4 of state legislatures or 3/4 of state conventions could ratify the amendments.

For amendments intended to strengthen the Constitution, as of 2020 the swing state—the state with the next-less-Progressive legislature after Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Vermont, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, and Connecticut—was Oregon, whose least-Democratic legislative house, the senate, was 60% Democratic [2].

The swing vote for the whole nation was whichever Oregon Democratic senator was more Progressive than 17% of Oregon Democratic senators.

If an amendment would be ratified, what would happen next?

Each part of the amendment either would be used to undercut the Constitution, would have no effect, or would be defied in national, state, county, and city governments by the Progressive majority of both parties’ elected representatives.

In Congress as of today, for example, for bills intended to strengthen the Constitution, the swing vote in the House has a Conservative Review Liberty Score of only 20% in favor of liberty, and the swing vote in the Senate (the 50th senator on the Vice President’s side [3]) has a Liberty Score of only 18% in favor of liberty [4]. Such Progressive congresses pass bills, and the bills are signed by Progressive presidents from both parties [5].

Progressive governments like these have, for over a century, systematically defied the Constitution, and would systematically defy any amendments intended to strengthen the Constitution:

• If an amendment balanced budgets, Progressive congresses and presidents would increase taxes or would create emergency borrowing. If there was a temporary line-item veto provision [6], Progressives would frame this as superceding the executive power to allocate budgets [7].
• If an amendment limited taxes, the Progressive Fed would print and debase even more money, and Progressive congresses and presidents would continue to borrow and spend [8]. If there was a sunset provision, at each sunset Progressive congresses and presidents would enact the same legislation again.
• If an amendment claimed to limit spending, Progressive congresses and presidents would frame this as superceding the limit defined by the enumerated powers [9], and also would claim we’re in endless emergencies. The intended maximum spending would become the new minimum spending.
• If an amendment claimed to limit regulations, Progressive congresses and presidents would frame this as superceding the limit prohibiting delegation of legislative power [10]. If the amendment subjected regulations to review by Congress or by state legislatures, Progressive congresses and state legislatures would never review—and by doing so, would passively approve—all regulations. (Congresses already have power over agencies, and state legislatures already have power over all scope not enumerated for Congress. But Progressive congresses and state legislatures already never review—and by doing so, passively approve—all regulations.)
• If an amendment limited congressional terms, each Republican constitutionalist [11] would eventually no longer be allowed to run for reelection, and both parties’ Progressive party bosses [12] would usually succeed at getting Progressive replacements nominated and elected [13].

Other amendments could be proposed and ratified, but the results would be the same. For every new amendment intended to strengthen the Constitution, there would be unanticipated consequences and Progressive workarounds.

Progressives defy the Constitution constantly.