fbpx

Stopping a Dangerous Article V Convention

The only way to defend our values against this threat is if ordinary people like us step up to make a difference. Join the fight today.

Now is Not the Time to Rewrite the U.S. Constitution

Guest commentary by Justin Pidot, professor of law and the co-director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

 

In this politically fractured time, some state legislatures have called for a convention to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Article V of the Constitution provides for such a process, but a convention has never before been convened and, and if it occurred, would have no set rules, no predictable outcome. Yet plausible changes, consistent with the passionate views held by a few, could produce catastrophic results for the environment. Here I consider three.

First, what if the Commerce Clause only allowed regulation of the transportation and sale of goods across state lines? Such is the view that Justice Thomas has expressed in dissenting opinions about our current Constitution. Implementing it would radically diminish Congress’s power, and environmental law would be among the causalities, because protecting air, water, soils, and species cannot be accomplished through mere product regulation.

States could not fill the vacuum left by constrained federal power. They could continue to regulate within their boundaries, but environmental problems often cross jurisdictions. Indeed, disputes over transboundary pollution pre-dated modern environmental law by decades. In 1907, Georgia sued a Tennessee copper company, because toxic fumes caused injuries in five counties. Federal common law provided redress then, and the Clean Air Act does so now.

Second, what if the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause required compensation whenever regulation depresses property value? Such a rule is the dream of many libertarians, who argue that it would lead to efficient regulation. Its implications could be even more dramatic than rewriting the Commerce Clause. Virtually every environmental law requires economic actors to spend money to address the harms they cause, and those costs can often be described in terms of depressing the value of regulated businesses. The cost to the federal treasury of enforcing just one environmental law could result in bankruptcy, if every regulated entity could claim compensation.

Rewriting the Takings Clause would likely extend beyond the federal government, because its provisions apply to state and local governments too. We know the likely result, because a few states have experimented with expansive compensation regimes. When Oregon did so, first the state virtually abandoned application of its growth management law, because it could not afford to pay, and then the people voted to abandon the regime. Moreover, this rule would have deeply regressive consequences; wealthy communities might have the funds available to purchase environmental protection, but poorer communities will not.

Third, what if the Property Clause did not allow the United States to retain ownership of public lands? Such is the view of many sagebrush rebels, who believe that public lands should be privatized or turned over to states. Yet America is defined, at least in part, by the national parks, wildlife refuges, monuments, that are the birthright of every American. Our public lands should be for all of us. Yellowstone and Yosemite should not be sold to the highest bidder, destined for use only by the wealthiest among us.

The Constitution has been the foundation of our Democracy for more than two hundred years, serving us in times times of prosperity and crisis. It has been amended from time to time to better serve our nation’s founding principles of liberty, equality, and justice for all. But it has never been subjected to wholesale revision through a convention. Doing so now is wildly risky and wholly unnecessary and, if a convention were to occur, environmental law would be just one among many potential casualties.

Related News

Exposed: The Balanced Budget Amendment Convention Campaign

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, wealthy special interest groups convinced dozens of state legislatures to pass resolutions or “calls” for an Article V convention to propose a balanced budget amendment (BBA). At one point, BBA advocates were just a few states short of reaching the constitutionally required 34 state required to call a convention. However, […]

Read More >

KC Becker: Constitutional convention could spell chaos for democracy

KC Becker, who lives in Boulder and represents District 13, is the now the Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives. She penned this op-ed on September 25, 2018, while majority leader. We deserve a democracy that puts hardworking Coloradans ahead of wealthy special interests and the well-connected. No one can deny the powerful influence […]

Read More >

Exposed: The Convention of States, a Campaign to Undermine 115 Years of Progressivism

This proposal calls for a convention with the broad purpose of limiting the powers of the federal government, imposing fiscal restraints on federal spending, and applying term limits for Members of Congress. Embedded within the legislation of this resolution is vague language lawmakers have intentionally placed – thus illustrating the very real possibility of a […]

Read More >

Republican & Democratic Legislators Agree: An Article V Convention Is A Bad Idea

In their own words, Republican and Democratic state legislators from across the country have warned about the dangers of calling an Article V constitutional convention: “It’s like playing Russian roulette. We kind of think it would work out well. You put a bullet in one chamber, the odds of it working are pretty good. But […]

Read More >

Stay Connected

We need your help before it's too late. Join our mailing list to receive important updates and help us mobilize.