Would you grant that the delegates to a CoS would know this, and take pains to not forward to the states any amendment that is not solid in its structure?I can't grant you anything anymore than you can grant me anything on what someone else would do or know.
To do so, something much more substantive than a clarification on a rewrite (not repeal) would be expected?An amendment can't be rewritten (wording clarified) without repealing the previous amendment... I thought you being an Article V advocate would at least know that.
That's why they're calling for THE REPEAL of the 17th amendment. It can't be repealed without a new amendment.
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. The 18th amendment didn't just get erased off the page, it's still there.
Prior to the 21st amendment, all amendments rewrote sections of Articles in the Constitution, or they granted new rights. The 13th and 18th banned behavior (slavery and manufacture/sale of liquor). The 21st is the only repeal, of the 18th.
To the point of contention with an Article V convention, the question is proposing an amendment that is strong enough to withstand (and hopefully discourage) challenge or outright ignoring. I said that a repeal amendment that restores prior structural state processes is hard to avoid; where a writing of new rights is much easier to ignore. A CoS that focuses on structural power of the states is more likely to be successful.
-PJ