There were half a dozen or so before the 1787 convention. Conventions of states/colonies were nothing new.
The threat to an Article V amendment convention would emerge from a congressional attempt to appease the states. Our first ten amendments were proposed by congress in order to head off an Article V convention lead by anti-federalists still smarting from their loss.
Your necessary and proper clause use is creative, but not applicable to controlling a convention.
Uh, congress SHALL call a convention when two thirds of the states apply.
There is no Article I Section 8 power to control a convention.
Nothing in the record of the constitutional convention or state ratifying conventions supports your premises.
“Nothing in the record of the constitutional convention or state ratifying conventions supports your premises. “
By the same token, there is nothing in the last 100 yrs of federal governance that supports your premise that Washington would keep their hands off a Con-Con.
There is much to support the supposition that all three branches of the fedgov would move heaven and earth to cram down any attempt by the States to intervene with their unification of powers.
You say that can’t happen because the Constitution says so. I’ve seen many things the Constitution constrains happen. When the convention is a runaway of federal involvement DESPITE the fact that can’t happen, then what?
When all three branches agree and the media backs them, then what do you do?
To me, it’s a non sequitur that we’re going to call a con-con to end federal blasphemy of the Constitution and by doing so, the fedgov is going to follow the rules and allow that to happen. The sentiment so certainly expressed by proponents of a con-con that the fedgov is going to follow the Constitution as we try to stop and reverse them from a long history of not doing so - that scares me. Be careful for what you wish.