Some Musings About Article V Convention Silliness That Will Surely Occur In Pierre in January 2019

Last month, Bloomberg writer Noah Smith posted a tweetstorm that demonstrated the risks an Article V constitutional convention poses. Smith opined that one of those risks was an end to birthright citizenship. This week Michael Anton of Hillsdale College proved Smith prescient when he wrote a Washington Post opinion piece arguing for the end of birthright citizenship. 

Last year, the South Dakota Legislature debated two conflicting Article V resolutions. Thankfully, Senate Joint Resolution 3 died with 16 senators voting in favor and 18 opposing. House Resolution 1003 which which would have rescinded a 2015 resolution for an Article V convention to consider a balanced budget amendment was deferred to the 41st legislative day. There will no doubt be a 2019 Article V Resolution, so let's deal with the dangerous silliness now.

In addition to Smith's fear about the elimination of birthright citizenship, numerous reasons exist to oppose an Article V convention.

First, with all due respect to the 330 million people residing in the United States, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin won't be there. If one wants to charge me with doubting my fellow citizens' ability to use their reason to govern their passions, I plead guilty.

Second, history proves it's impossible to prevent a runaway convention. The convention that Madison euphemistically called "the business of May next" was called to revise the Articles of Confederation not produce the current Constitution. (I willingly cheer the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation; however, I refer readers to my first objection.)

Third, once the Article V convention gets out of hand, as it surely will, its targets will include the equal protection clause, long a project of 14th Amendment deniers, the 17th Amendment because Americans allegedly "have never had the right to elect their senators." and the 22nd Amendment because Donald Trump wants more than two terms. Of course, birthright citizenship will be a target as well.

Finally, both former Associate Justice Anton Scalia and former Chief Justice Warren Berger opposed an Article V convention. If two jurists who had diametrically opposed views of the limits of the Constitution could agree on that issue, then perhaps it's a really horrendous idea.

It's summer and the legislative election season, like baseball's pennant races, won't get serious until September. The resolutions won't be in the hopper until January, but voters should always be vigilant to protect themselves from dangerous ideas.