Why do you say, you'll? You don't agree that if 34 states should agree on anything that the Constitution should be amended? Many things you are for have been dictated by a federal judge, or in the case or Obama care, nine unelected Supreme Court Justices. I fail to see the reason for the disjunction. You types seem to be happy when the judiciary, by edict alters the Constitution, a document your type deems as living and breathing. On the other hand if the states attempt to have a Convention of States in order to amend the document, you call them You'll. Do you care to or can you even explain your position?