When Congress determined in 1992 that the 27th Amendment, written by James Madison as part of the Bill of Rights, was now ratified and part of the Constitution, it also regularized the amendment proposal process. Only ratifications of amendments, or calls for a Constitutional Convention, that are "contemporaneous," meaning within a seven-year window, would count as valid.
The essay assumes that any such Convention would be a general one, at which the Delegates could propose whatever amendments they wanted to. This ignores the fact that the States control such a Convention. If the States call for a Convention limited to a particular subject, then Congress determines if 2/3rds of the States have also called on that subject. If so, Congress calls the Convention dedicated to that subject, and can refuse to submit for ratification anything which goes outside the legitimate subject matter of the Convention.
For decades now, some tin-foil hat folks have been using the lie that any Convention must be a general Convention to raise money from people fool enough to believe that. It is false, and I have now fought that false belief in hearings before committees of 26 state legislatures.
The fact that the same false belief has cropped up in this essay is unfortunate. If the subject is still live after the election, and I have more time, I'll join in this discussion again.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "2nd Report on the Campaign for the NC 11th District"
This essay probably needs another iteration.