Nice to see you again, Mark.
Yes, I noticed they aren't able to meet the requirements to actually launch a constitution convention -- which is a good thing.
But they keep trying. This isn't the first time they have tried to get enough support for a constitution convention. They just keep trying.
However, like Gary pointed out, they are already "repudiating" many of its principles in practice.
I had to look up the word "repudiate" as to what exactly it meant, and how it is different from "changing", and "abolishing".
Repudiate means
-- rejecting as having no binding force
-- to separate oneself from, as in divorce
-- to refuse to acknowledge or discharge the duties authorized
-- to deny the truth or validity of something
So to "repudiate" the constitution does not necessarily mean to actually legally change it or literally abolish it. But it does mean to ignore it, refuse to follow it and deny its validity and binding authority.
One way to repudiate it is to "redefine" what it means.
For example the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
instead of realizing it guarantees freedom OF religion, they re-interpretate it as saying "freedom FROM religion".
Thus Christianity finds this re-interpretation as prohibiting them from sharing the gospel and something that needs to be repudiated, if not actually changed.