[Publius]

Oh yes, it can be restricted. Here is the verbiage I got from a retired professor of constitutional law.

***

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and two implicitly forbidden subjects.

Explicitly forbidden:

1. No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning the slave trade or direct taxes until 1808. We’re well past that deadline.
2. No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

1. The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution;” so the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place.
2. A convention for proposing amendments is limited to the topics authorized by state applications.

Reference work:

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

[xone]

No restrictions on the BoRs revision. While I believe lefties should be enslaved until they pay their debt to America, I'm not interested in slavey.

A convention for proposing amendments is limited to the topics authorized by state applications.

That needs to be in stone. The two subjects mentioned could be done the normal way if there wasn't a testicle shortage in Washington.

[RitaOK]

I could wish the booklet did it for me.

We’ll be blessed if we can shut the back door to an invasion and deport the lot.