DLCC, your article distorts the facts of the 1787 convention. Here is an excerpt from the Department of Justice Report written in 1987 on limited Article V Conventions:
“It is also somewhat misleading to say that the Philadelphia Convention (of 1787) was a “runaway,” for the “call” for that convention by the Continental Congress did speak in broad terms. There were “defects in the present Confederation,” and “alterations and provisions” seemed necessary. No specific defects were enumerated.”
In other words, this was an OPEN convention, where essentially any solutions were on the table on any topic.
In addition, the Articles of Confederation left ZERO options for amendments to its charter, making it an inflexible and brittle document. By contrast, the Constitution delineates specific amendment powers to Congress and the States in Article V. Comparing calls for a limited Article V Convention for a specific purpose to the open convention of 1787 is apples and oranges.
If you don’t like the balanced budget amendment proposal, then oppose it in democratic fashion. Attend committee hearings on the state level. Speak out against the policy. But please don’t smear the Article V amendment processes with fear-based arguments that don’t even take into account the full breadth of evidence on the subject. The Constitution is a sacred document full of brilliant checks and balances to safeguard from excessive consolidation of power. Let’s treat it as such.