So you ask what's wrong with the idea of a new Constitutional Convention?

[Jackpine Radical]

I'll tell you what's wrong.

ALEC already has the new Constitution written & ready to go with a few billion to push it through, and you won't like it.

[X_Digger]

1. I do think it funny..

.. that those who decry the undue influence of some small groups nevertheless think that a constitutional convention wouldn't be perverted by those same groups.

It's a special kind of naivety, that.

[Initech]

2. The freepers, teabaggers, and religious nuts would be the ones to change it.

And we would wind up with a totalitarian religious police state. And that would be the opposite of freedom.

[dragonlady]

9. As far as amendments to that new constitution ...

They would write it in such a way that progressive improvements would be impossible forever.

[CanonRay]

3. I think it's a really bad idea at this time

The end product would be a disaster.

[shraby]

5. It's a really bad idea at any time. The constitution has served us well since it was written. Now an

then it needs a tweak, and sometime it gets in in the form of a - difficult to do - amendment. That's the way it should be. The basics of the document are sound, allowing for changes in society and the country.
I would be very much against ever having a constitutional convention. It's a wrong-headed idea.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Ya know, the one we got was written by...

a few old, rich, white guys who used to be British subjects during the Enlightenment and didn't didn't agree on much. And it was for a small, largely homogeneous, population in 13 ex-colonies.

It's really remarkable that they came up with what they did, but it was one of those unique times in history that such things happen.

Today? The country is vastly larger and incredibly diverse. I can't imagine the clarity of purpose being repeated after years of battling with all the population and interest groups getting involved. It's tough enough to get a decent amendment passed.

[hootinholler]

6. No I didn't ask

Mainly because your point is intuitively obvious.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. It requires two-thirds of state legislatures to call one.

Which isn't going to happen. Just like significant amendments won't happen because they require ratification by three-fourths of the states. Which means: You need 34 state legislatures to join a petition for a new constitutional convention, OR you need 38 states to ratify a new amendment. It's pretty clear at this point that the US government, as constituted,is pretty seriously broken, and the tendency to gridlock built into the system has reached a point of severe dysfunction...but there's the question of whether the remedy might not be worse than the disease, since whatever form a new constitution took it probably wouldn't be either fair or equitable (for instance, limiting the power of the Senate relative to the House, proportional representation instead of first-past-the-post elections, abolishing the quasi-monarchical presidency in favour of a parliamentary government are all probably things that would be off the table).

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

8. No, I didn't ask, but since you did,

the system works, no need to change it wholesale. The amendment process has performed reasonably well.