I am not fearful of an Article V COS. Indeed, I deeply, deeply desire one.
What I AM fearful of is Congress finding reasons not to CALL one. And the easiest excuse for them not to do so is to declare that there are not 34 state applications that can be aggregated together to reach the Article V threshold of 34 states on the basis of similar or identical subject matter.
Here's an historical list of Article V petitions from the states, for the calling of a COS by subject matter, in historical order. As to subject matter, these petitions are all over the lot. I haven't been through the entire list; but suspect there are not 34 petitions sufficiently "alike" as to subject matter to be recognized by Congress as "aggregatable" for the purpose of establishing the 34-state threshold — without which Congress will not issue a CALL.
Even though Article V is silent about the details of the qualification criteria of state applications, there is ample historical and legal precedent WRT the aggregation rule. It also conforms with plain common sense.
You ask, "why must applications be single topic?" A single topic can be remarkably broad in its effect. For instance, the "single topic," "Recovering and Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Powers of the Several States" would cover most if not all of Mark Levin's list of amendment desiderata in one swell foop. Each of Levin's items would be completely valid at the COS, because each is within the meaning and scope of the controlling "single topic." Each would be referred to the relevant committee for debate, to be voted on separately in that committee by a simple majority of that committee's commissioners. If passed out of committee, then each state delegation, each having one vote, yea or nay, will vote the measure. If it passes, it is eligible as a stand-alone proposed Amendment that can then be submitted for ratification.
So, a "single topic" doesn't necessarily mean only a single amendment can result. A "single topic" can result in multiple proposed Amendments, each of which would be subject to ratification separately.
If you want to call a convention just for the purpose of having one, without any structure or common purpose, you will likely end up with a three-ring circus that produces nothing. But Congress would likely never CALL such a convention. We need to be realistic about our prospects, which, as a practical matter, means never letting Congress use the excuse that the 34-state threshold has not been met. If there were 34 state applications using more or less identical language, Congress MUST aggregate them, and therefore could not find any constitutional or legal pretext to refuse to CALL the Article V COS.
The best idea I heard today was from the link that Hostage gave in his last to me. I do not have the name of the person who proposed this, but he said that what was needed is a "pre-convention of the States" to flesh out the issues, define the mission, and try to get everybody on the same page. Indeed, the ALEC Conference which developed proposed COS rules was actually a kind of "pre-convention convention" already. What ALEC did (so brilliantly, IMHO) with the rules should be the model of another "pre-convention convention," convened to flesh out the question, "What will be the subject matter of the COS?" and to articulate the state applications language in as uniform language as possible.
Then, I do believe, we will have our best chance to convene an Article V COS.
Just some thoughts, FWTW.
Thanks so much for writing, Jacquerie!
The second thing is that there are now 4 states applying for a convention to address Mark Levin's and ALEC's concerns. Georgia was the first to apply, and the other three states have copied Georgia's language. Research Georgia's language to see how the states are framing their applications.
The third thing is that the ALEC-sponsored pre-conventions are doing precisely what you wish with respect to agreeing on application language and internal rules of procedure. This is to occupy legal ground before Congress can claim it and try to impose its own rules.
Everybody in the ALEC effort is doing his part to set up the precedents that will apply not only for the first convention, but for all subsequent conventions. It's a way of finessing Congress, the political parties and the Beltway power brokers. This effort is cautious and careful in defining the legal playing field.
Delegates will be strictly controlled by state commissions. If a majority can't be found to agree on one or more amendments to send home, the convention will adjourn. No problem, right? But with our country headed into the arms of a police state, I doubt that would happen.
Avoid static analysis. What is all-important is the change in national attitudes a convention will bring about. The mindset of the nation will change, knowing that a regular convention of the sovereign states on behalf of the people exists to look over the shoulders of the Uniparty. Knowing that a periodic convention will be held will lift the morale of the American people, as well as serve as a warning to all statists in DC.
If Article V truly represents a societal right of the nation, (it does) there should be no reluctance to conduct annual conventions.
The American people will not sell themselves into slavery.