Here's one example taken from page 29:
§ 3.3. Why the Founders Adopted the Proposal Convention in Article V.
An early draft of the Constitution permitted amendments to be proposed and adopted only by interstate convention. Then the Framers added provisions allowing Congress to propose amendments and requiring state ratification. Congress received the power to propose because the Framers believed that Congress’s position would enable it readily to see defects in the system.
However, some delegates—notably George Mason of Virginia—pointed out that Congress might become abusive or exceed its powers. It might therefore refuse to adopt a necessary or desirable amendment, particularly one designed to curb its own authority. Accordingly, the Framers added the convention for proposing amendments as a vehicle for the states to present corrective amendments for ratification while bypassing Congress.40
The superscript "40" above is an important element of the manuscript because it grounds the sources of the summary above to historical records, case law or other publications that are also sourced. Therefore, the manuscript becomes a document that grounds discussions in historical precedent.
After skimming over the document I am not seeing sentiment wildly different than my own but the legwork for referencing and sourcing saves countless hours of research. Also the organization and 'mind's eye' of the author makes it valuable to have as a reference.
I am not surprised at the focus on a single topic convention but I am not persuaded to that which the COS group has stipulated to be curbing the overreach and jurisdiction of federal government power even though it seems logical, necessary and 'natural' that this topic should be the order of the day. I think we need to peel the onion layers back a little more to the crux issue which is States Rights and Control of States Rights. The difference in framing may be subtle but of enormous consequence.
We have to use psychology here. Framing the single topic as curbing federal overreach, jurisdiction we 'invite' the neighborhood and the legal community of courts to participate in an unremitting debate that saps energy of the originators and risks a 'fizzling out'. Changing the terms of the single topic to States Rights and Control of States Rights we focus on amending the Constitution in a way that we retain title to the amendment.
In lay terms, an example that most can understand is one where a Peeping Tom neighbor is constructing a monstrous elevation addition to his property that is completely out of character with the original neighborhood and that has structures that look right into the rooms of our homes invading our privacy forcing us to shutter our windows or place curtains all of which rob us of much needed sunlight.
The first reaction would be for neighbors to take it up with City Hall and petition for a work stoppage and redesign of the Peeping Tom home but the building codes may very well be ambiguous as to a legal basis to stop the Peeping Tom neighbor not to mention that neighbors (think MSM) in other enclaves might possibly skew council discussion that such blanket interpretations of codes would lead to whatever monsters in the attic they saw fit to dream up. In any event prepare for a long drawn out a fight over public opinion and a litigating war of attrition.
A better approach would be for a property owner to fall back on existing code that allows for a property owner to plant a hedge of Leyland Cypress trees (they grow fast and tall) to block the Peeping Tom from his privacy encroachment. Now the property owner is solving his problem on his turf in a way that he controls. That's the way we need to be ... in the beginning. We must control the argument from the vantage point that "it's not about them, it's about us and our comfort level". The neighborhood enclaves (MSM, public) will not object to our approach and the onus is put on the Peeping Tom (Federal Government) to figure a legal way around our hedge which he won't be able to do as long as we are in control.
These matters of how we frame the issue are important. Professor Natelson and others of the COS Project need only a little adjustment of view and the COS template will be much stronger tactically. Battles fought defensively rather than offensively sway public opinion greater to support a cause.
The second point where we must use psychology is to limit the single topic to one and only one amendment at the beginning. This is a single shot opportunity. We miss and we lose the war. We hit and we get to shoot again. The one amendment can have several sections closely related to each other. For example, related sections of "term limits, state/voter recall, state quash" would be related to States Rights and Control of States Rights whereas amendments to repeal the 17th, to balance the budget, to curb abuses of the Commerce Clause would be waiting in the wings, why?
This is a 'new thing'. If we hit the target and life is better as a result, then we are trusted to bring in other amendments. We build trust with one great and symbolic amendment, then we have a track record that gives us license to bring in more amendments.
Will an amendment focused on States Rights and Control of States Rights weaken the federal government? Yes, it will. With the proposal of this one amendment I will point my finger direct at the 'Washington Cartel' and tell them straight to their faces that the Progressive Era in the history of the United States is on its way out; it's going to be over. The question is not what makes the Federal Government stronger, the question is what makes the United States of America stronger.
I really don't see how applications from the several States to the U.S. Congress for the calling of a Constitutional Convention to Propose Amendments could advance on the basis of such squishy logical grounds as "curbing the overreach and jurisdiction of federal government power."
That looks to me like a prescription for a "runaway Convention," assuming Congress would even accept any State Application like that, which is highly dubious.
Given the above reflections/considerations, dear Hostage, I must tell you that I find great merit in your proposal that the Applications from the several States to Congress for the mandatory "calling" of a Convention of the States for the Purpose of Proposing Amendments should be organized in terms of the language of "States Rights and Control of States Rights." And not just because of the tactical, or "psychological" advantages of winning an early victory, on which to build later ones.
As a practical matter, in order for a Constitutional Convention for the Proposing of Amendments to become reality, 34 States must make Applications to Congress that are sufficiently similar in language and scope that Congress may "aggregate" them for the purpose of determining whether the "two-thirds of the States" criterion has been met. Once that threshold has been reached, Congress MUST issue a "call" for such a Convention. At that point, its only discretion in the matter is to indicate the time and place of its convocation.
BTW, not ALL States need to be there. Some might boycott such a convention. But for the purpose of proposing Amendments to the Constitution, only 34 States are needed to constitute an Article V constitutional quorum. Subsequent ratification requires 38 States. We can worry about that later; let the Convention do its business first.
The beauty of your suggestion is the language you propose: The "applying" States, if they want to get anything done, should be requesting a Convention dedicated to the subject of "States Rights and Control of States Rights."
Because I am reasonably certain that not only 34 states, but all 50 states, have "issues" with federal usurpations of their Tenth Amendment retained powers — covering everything from fiscal to healthcare to cultural (e.g., marriage, abortion) to management of public lands issues, etc., etc. — it should be fairly easy to convene a "quorum" of the States necessary to force Congress to call a Convention of the States. That is to say, 34 States.
But your proposed language is also a safeguard against a "runaway convention." Any proposal issued by the Convention must pertain to the "mission" of the Convention. Which is: "States Rights and Control of States Rights."
May I note here that such a Convention might end up producing not one, but several proposed amendments? Each to be separately ratified by the several States, three-fourths of which must concur before the proposed Amendment becomes part of the federal Constitution — according to whatever ratification method Congress selects?
If we were to use the language you suggest, dear Hostage, then repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment would clearly fall within the intentional meaning of a Convention devoted to realizing the overarching theme of "States Rights and Control of States Rights."
Thank you for your amazingly fertile insight, dear Hostage!