Read your article. Much better than the one posted above. Just two errors. You assume that the Convention would adopt amendments by a two-thirds vote. The margin of adoption will be up to the Convention itself, under its own Rules. Keep in mind that the Rule in the Philadelphia Convention was unanimity. All eleven states (Rhode Island never participated, and New York had bailed out) had to vote for the document. You approach a little bit the difference between a general Convention, and a limited one, but not accurately. Since the power to call a Convention rests with the states, and Congress MUST act if 34 states issue calls, it is up to the states whether to seek a general Convention (everything on the table), or a limited one (permitting proposal only of amendment(s) on specified subjects). In 1992, Congress recognized the difference between these, and provided for a limited Convention, if that is what the states demand.
Only three times in American history have any states ever sought a general Convention. All were in the 1787-89 period, when some people thought the product of the Philadelphia Convention was fatally flawed, and that another one should be held.
Get in touch with me if you are still pursuing this subject, and want to discuss it.
Lastly, even if everything was on the table, Article V would be an exception. There is a case concerning the Alabama Constitution where the proposal was to amend the ratification procedures as well. The court held -- and I think the Supreme Court would decide the same -- that the ratification clause could be amended, but the change would have to be ratified under the existing ratification clause in order to become effective.
John / Billybob