It would go better if you asked questions rather than act as if you’re pontificating rule meanings and rule policies. As it is you show you don’t understand the meaning and utility of ‘ad hoc’ and its place in committee.
Ad Hoc means formed for a particular purpose apart from the general convention. It does not mean that such purposes will ever reach the Convention floor nor is it possible. An Ad Hoc meeting could range from addressing the conditions of the Convention facilities restrooms to overturning the Constitution in favor of Sharia Law. The Ad Hoc committee members can discuss whatever they are purposed to discuss but it does not mean the discussion is allowed on the Convention floor.
Committees do not vote for the larger assembly which in this case is the Convention. They ‘report’ to the members (commissioners, delegates) of the Convention. When a vote comes before the Convention of which there is a quorum, any matter that is out of order may be called on a point of order and a motion may be made to strike the matter according to whether the issue is germane to the subject matters that at least 34 States subscribed to and approved. The commissioners are serious legislators who will with probability one ignore any distraction from the subjects their states signed on to.
The President can immediately strike out matters and motions that are not germane without debate and allow a time for appeals. In all cases, the time limits on all members on any matter are limited allowing the Convention to proceed along in a timely and orderly manner.
Rob Natelson, Michael Farris. Mark Meckler, Mark Levin and Randy Barnett aren’t giving an ‘out’ to anyone. The rules restrict both subject matter and set time limits. It is impossible to takeover the Convention for unscheduled purposes under these rules.
I would like to see you come up with one, just one Ad Hoc Committee discussion that is not conforming to the required subject matter and then explain how it would make its way out of committee onto the floor and survive a motion to strike.
I am not dazzled by celebrity lawyers. I've read Natelson’s work. His contention that single subject applications are required is unsupported nonsense.
Four hundred applications and no convention. That isn't what the framers intended for a free people to preserve their freedom.