As I understand it, no matter what is said beforehand on any such “limitations” — there would be “no authority” in existence, which could limit the delegates to a Constitutional Convention from making whatever changes they wanted to. It would only be “self-limiting” and I wouldn’t trust them to be self-limiting.
Follow the link in Post #28, please.
Most Constitutional Scholars agree that the States calling the convention would have the power to limit the scope of the convention. This, if the states, request a convention limited to a certain subject matter, then the convention that is called must be limited in the way the states requested.
The principle is straight-forward. The authority belongs to the convening authority. In the states, that is usually a vote of the people. At the federal level, that is the state legislatures. If the convening authority requires a limited convention, it will be limited, and that limit can be enforced.
The legal myth you state comes from the one error in Bowen's "Miracle in Philadelphia." She wrote that the Convention was called "for the purpose of revising the Articles of Convention." That is false. Each state gave the authority to their own "Commissioners," whom we now call Delegates. All except the three from New York and the three from Massachusetts were given unlimited power to propose changes,
Those authorities are in print in Flexner's now ten-volume set. As Casey Stengle said, "You could look it up."
Congressman Billybob