If the establishment is violating the Constitution we have, why would they follow a modified one? Enforcement is a prerequisite to amendment.
Is the Constitution defective, or is it being deliberately violated?
Article V is for defects. Enforcement is for deliberate violations.
If you see someone smoking right beside a "No Smoking" sign, is the sign defective, needing modification, or is it that no one is enforcing the sign?
The beauty of constitutional enforcement under the Tenth Amendment is that Texas can unilaterally act to restore liberty against federal oppression in Texas. We don't have to rely on non-Texans to grant liberty to Texans. We just need to persuade our elected officials to honor their oaths and stop federal violations here in Texas.
And, we don't have to wait forever while 33 other states make applications for a convention, for the Congress to call a convention, for the convention to be held (hoping that something constructive, instead of destructive results), and then for 38 states to ratify whatever results, and then for whatever procedural solution that gets enacted to work. (Most of the proposed solutions to federal overreach involve super-majorities of states overturning a Supreme Court opinion, or a law, or a regulation. Each remedy can take years for the states to agree again.)
Our problem is not that the Constitution is defective. It is that it is not being enforced. Let's get our state officials to honor their oaths and defend the Constitution!