If you want to believe a private letter over the enacted law, that is your problem. But your conclusion remains incorrect.
When the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court says that he's spoken about this many times in the past and speaks about it again, in this letter -- I do not think he abandons his Supreme Court knowledge and the "thinking processes" that he has, which enabled him to make decisions -- sets that all aside -- and pretends to be the "village idiot" making a "personal pronouncement"...
If you believe that, I can tell right now I don't need to consider your opinion in the least.
Sorry, I'll take the experience of the Chief Justice, Warren Burger, of the United States Supreme Court... over a "faux expert" any time... :-)
So, when he says...
Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey.
And you say, that Congress can limit them... I've got to laugh... :-)
Do your d*mned homework and you will find these official actions. Against that you post a letter written by a then-private citizen as a personal favor to Phyllis, who was then a member of the Bicentennial Commission.
If facts and law have no effect on your conclusions, you are own your own. I don't argue with fools.
John / Billybob