If the best thinkers in nine states each came up with a unique improvement idea for an amendment to the Constitution and wanted an opportunity to convince the legislatures of the 13 states, in debate, of the worthiness of their ideas, Article V would not permit this?
Given the rustic wilderness of the times, it was the intention of the Framers to first have these nine unique ideas discussed privately in order to get nine states to submit same subject applications for a CoS, only to have the debate again within the jurisdiction of an Article V convention?
Given the mail of the times and the distances to be traveled, it is unreasonable to assume that the Framers expected the logistics and time necessary to get nine states to coordinate on a single subject convention before calling for one. A pragmatic interpretation would suggest that the Article V convention was for the purpose of determining if there was commonality sufficient to warrant an amendment.
If it was known beforehand and generally agreed that an amendment was needed, the states would simply have told their Congressional members to do it in Congress.
-PJ
Pragmatically speaking, how does one convene a convention about anything, without people first corresponding together to find commonality about proposed subject matter? Especially if great time and distances have to be traversed in order to do this?
On such a basis, I'm fully entitled to call such a thing a "frat party," nothing more.
"Pragmatics" only takes you so far. And then, you have to start looking for the underlying commonality of substance that drove such "pragmatists" together to resolve commonly-perceived problems in the first place.
My sense is Libertarian philosophy does not reach to this level of the problem.
Might you perchance be a Libertarian?
From the clear wording of Article V, followed by comments from The Federalist, the place to discuss amendments is at the convention.
To continue your clear train of thought and placement from 1800, imagine today if 34 states pass 34 distinct, absolutely unrelated applications. The states meet in convention. Suppose further that the states limited their delegations to consider and vote for only those items submitted in their respective applications. Perhaps the other 16 states don't even show up.
The convention would meet, and quickly determine there wasn't enough support to send amendment proposal(s) back to the states.
The convention would adjourn. Delegates go home. What harm done? None.
It is why the states should meet in convention every year. If there is nothing of collective consequence to consider, so be it.
However, an annual convention of the states would have an enormous effect on Sctous, and the Executive, even if it rarely overturned Scotus decisions or regulatory agency diktats. It would also force a nationwide debate on the nature of government, freedom, and so many other fundamentals that the Left so easily gaffs off today.