AMAC - The Conservative Alternative to AARP

Need more info? Call Us: 1-888-262-2006
Join Today

Already a member?

Login to my account

Government Power and Article V

constitutionSubmitted by AMAC Member Mike Kapic –

In recent months the Article V conversation has been accelerating as the movement to implement it grows. Only a few Americans are satisfied with the way the Washington DC juggernaut is functioning and running the country. But many more, in fact a majority according to polls, fear and detest what’s going on in DC.

The corruption began years ago, but accelerated in the ‘90’s with Congress’s notion that everyone should own a house whether they could afford one or not. Fanny and Freddy then proceeded to lead us into the housing bubble and finally, collapse. That was followed by the investment banking and auto industry collapses. America took a fist blow to the midsection creating the Great Recession, which arguably could be called a depression. It’s been five years since it ended, and yet it still feels, to most Americans, like we’re in a recession.

Then the corruption and scandals began: Fast & Furious, the GAO extravagance, the State Dept and the Benghazi deaths, the DOJ harassment of reporters, the IRS discrimination against certain groups, Congress taxing and the Executive spending us into huge debt, our credit rating downgraded, Snowden and the NAS spying, the costly failure of TARP, threats of Executive Orders usurping the law of the land, the green energy crony network failures, and now the collapsing healthcare industry. Polls show that Americans are fed up with failed government policies and the inability of the Executive, Congress, or Judicial to normalize any of it.

After the 2012 elections, small citizen groups began forming and joining others already established, with the purpose of ending the dysfunction in the small city of DC. They each had different plans on how to accomplish this monumental task. Some wanted to evoke the often tried, but historically less successful nullification. More states are talking of nullifying obamacare today. Others felt that we just needed to send better people to manage DC. Still others looked deeper into America’s heart for the answer. And they found the solution in the Constitution.

They found that Article V contained the phrase, “…or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…” The Framers had given the people and states a tool with which to fight against tyranny, should it come up. Depending on your interpretation of tyranny, we may or may not be at that point yet, but if we’re not, we’re awfully close.

The Framers idea, according to books, letters, and transcripts of the time, was to utilize the commonly used convention or gatherings for resolving issues. The convention origins go back to 1689 England with the bloodless Glorious Revolution. The convention process was used by early colonists to govern themselves. One formed the Mayflower Compact and was used up to and well beyond the dates of the Declaration and Constitution.

Over 400 conventions of states have been called since 1787 since Virginia called for the Bill of Rights. In fact, the last convention of states was called by New Hampshire on May 16, 2012, proposing a balanced budget.

There are several Article V groups today with different plans, but all with the same purpose: reining in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government through reforms like term limits and a balanced budget.

As we enter 2014, state legislatures across the country are debating and passing laws to strengthen their positions for the upcoming convention. Some have written laws guiding their delegates. Thirty-two states and 97 representatives met last December 7, to discuss the administrative rules for a convention. Since January 2, 2014, eight of the thirty-four states necessary to call for a convention have signed identical applications.

There are, however, some naysayers in the galleries. Folks who call this a Constitutional Convention and contend that opening up the Constitution will rip out the heart of it and reinsert bad replacements. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, this is a convention of states and is under the authority of the Constitution. It’s not a Constitutional Convention or Con Con, which works outside of the Constitution.

Next, the convention can only propose amendments to the Constitution after debate by the states delegates. Then, three-quarters of the states must approve or ratify any agreed to by the convention. It only takes 13 states to say no.

The argument that the convention can run away is obviously incorrect as 38 states have to approve it. The naysayers also seem to neglect the good things that have been suggested coming from such a convention. Even the things that they support: Congressional term limits, limits on Executive Orders, a restraint on the federal bureaucracy, limits on taxing and spending, returning of state sovereignty, term limits on the Supreme Court, plus other suggestions. Most Americans believe that these are good and would return the power to them and their states.

Before passing judgment, we should all research the subject and educate ourselves on the facts as this is critically important in matters that concern our country. Studying the history of the convention process, our country, the Constitution, and how the Founders and Framers intended our government to run or not run, is critical to our and our children’s future.

Study, study, study. Read books such as Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments and the many others available. Attend webinar’s on Article V. For more information on how Article V works, go to conventionofstates.com. Join the expanding movement to return our country to its roots.

***

“Never believe that a few caring people can’t change the world. For indeed that’s all who ever have.”  – Margaret Mead

Join Today!

Become an AMAC Member

Don't miss out on all the benefits and offers you get for becoming an AMAC member.

Comments (78)

  1. Tom Bozikis says:

    I’m a supporter of the COS, and I’ve participated on the three webinars that they hosted. In Indiana, the delegates are required to present the view of the state and vote in accordance with those desires, balanced budget, term limits, etc. This is a limited convention, and can only address specific amendments presented in the application. To repeal the 2nd Amendment, for example, it must be part of the application presented to the states, and two-thirds of the states must agree in order for the proposal to be discussed by the convention.

    Here’s the thing, if our country is headed towards tyranny, then the time to stop it is now. Can we really trust elected officials to do the right in every instance? How many of the people we elected who said they were for limited government, have turned and voted to increase the debt, increase spending, increase taxes, and fully fund Obamacare? We need to have more confidence in each other, and not those we send to Washington. Perhaps the gathering of states may strike enough fear into the hearts of Congress that they just might propose some of these amendments and pass them by the required two-thirds majority in each house to present to the states. But I think many in Congress are so arrogant that they believe that the citizens of America can be manipulated into moving away from an Article V. convention of states.

    I want to see a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the United States from entering into any foreign treaty that diminishes the sovereignty of the United States and its citizens. This would mean, no small arms treaty, non-participation in climate change cap and trade, and no Agenda 21.

  2. Ivan Berry says:

    Thank you Lynn M for referencing mine and Nelson’s comments.
    I would wish that everyone would also read all comments by Paul E and Tom C as well as those by Doug D and Rik as well before jumping on the Art. V bandwagon.

    Some time ago I wrote in comments that contained ex Supreme Justices and Law professors that stated much of what has been addressed here. I caught a lot of flack from a couple of members. The biggest objection had to do with what we called a Convention of States to Amend vs the term ConCon. Many have voiced the fact that it doesn’t matter what you call it, the Art. V process will work the way the rules are promulgated. The convention will decide. All they would have to do is do what Art. V states. Given the nature of the beast. I’m not even confident they could restrain themselves to do that, no more than our Congress fails to do so.

    Add Paul E Add Tom C Add DougD Add Rik comments to your reading b/4 you decide which side makes the most sense to you who are not already convenced. And please use critical thinking in the process.

  3. Socrates says:

    Excellent discussion! My conclusion: The enemies of freedom will win if we have a ConCon. It is not worth the risk. Let’s promote any good Amendments (like the Right to Refuse Amendment) one at a time, on their own merits. AMAC, please reverse what seems to be your position of favoring a ConCon. Most of us are here to escape the socialist AARP, not just to be fooled again.

    • American Muse says:

      Socrates, this isn’t a ConCon, this is a Constitutionally supported Convention of States for a specific purpose, where multiple Amendments will be debated and proposed, then sent to the States one at a time for ratification. Please research this subject yourself so no one fools you.

  4. Helen S says:

    The people who will either be the delegates, or chose the delegates, are the state politicians that were elected by the voters, the same voters who elected Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the wimpy Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) !
    Why would you think a CONstitutional CONvention composed of such types would do us any good?
    They would gleefully tear down the last restraints our Constitution still places on their worst excesses….

    Folks, this is an election year! If we will just get every one of our good liberty-minded people out to vote (and a bunch of them to volunteer to be poll watchers too), we can throw out the spendthrifts, gun-grabbers, and grafters.
    That is how “term limits” are really effective!

  5. Lynn M says:

    Thank you Ivan Berry. I sent “Government Power and Article V” – plus your and Nelson’s eye-opening comments to my list, many of whom are eligible to vote, but not old enough to become members of AMAC Voice of American’s 50 +

    Hoping common-sense voices will prevail over mainstream biased manipulated ideologies.

    • Nelson says:

      I am humbled by your recognition of my comments on this subject. Please note that in re-reading what I wrote, I discovered a typo error. The sentence that reads: “So there is no difference between a “constitution of the states” and a Constitutional Convention.” should actually say: So there is no difference between a “convention of the states” and a Constitutional Convention.

  6. Ivan Berry says:

    and by all means read the comment by Nelson way down the list. Not only has he repeated some of my comments months about Art V, he has also added some really needed points besides. Some of them I had heard, but forgot; others new to me but believable.

    See: Nelsons comment way below.

  7. Ivan Berry says:

    I have spent a long time reading posting to the current time and commenting too much, but I gotta continue.

    To Allen, Sandra, Wayn, Dean, but not to Bill Butler who is on the same page as me: a balanced budget amendment would only ensure raising taxes or cutting services. Which do you propose they do? Even Social Security has been ruled not sacrisanct and can be cut or eliminated at the whim of the government. You think they would dis-band SS or the EPA first. Even if they balanced the budget, what happens when the interests servicing our current debt rises. Do you remember how much we already owe the Fed and other nations? It takes tens of billions at the current low interest. What happens when interest seeks market levals? Trillion or more?
    Term limits are worthless so long as ex-legislators can join the army of appointees and lobbies that are “inside-the-beltway.” These insiders and their ilk already run things through their contributions and their cushy jobs offers. Money doesn’t just buy votes from those on welfare.

    And to Glen E. Arnold: an Art V convention that failed might just precipitate that war you fear.

    Fixing the government ain’t no slot machine & hoping for a jack-pot. You can just as easily go broke.
    Before deciding what course to take, at least read posts by Doug D and PaulE.

    • PaulE says:

      Ivan,

      I fear too many people are viewing the concept of an Article V convention as some sort of quick fix, magic bullet where nothing possible could go disastrously wrong. There is a reason why this is viewed as a last resort option. Certainly not something to be rushed into for the sake of “doing something”. I get many people are getting desperate for a way to stop an increasingly lawless federal bureaucracy, that is intent on pushing us towards becoming yet another failed, bankrupt socialist democracy. But they also have to think about all potential pitfalls 5, 10 and 20 steps down the road. Not just what sounds good at the moment. When I read comments about term limits, balanced budgets and a whole host of other topics being tossed around for inclusion in such an Article V convention, it’s pretty clear this process would spin out of control very quickly and we would end up in far worse shape than we are right now.

      Does anyone seriously think the progressive (socialist) movement would just sit quietly on the sidelines, while we went about making all these proposed changes to reverse the last 100 years of progressive gains in this country? Of course not! They’ve wanted this opportunity to potentially shred a lot of the constraints on federal government powers for decades. They would be in there fighting tooth and nail to gut as much of the Constitution as they could get away with and many spineless politicians would be working right beside them in the “spirit of compromise”.

      You laid out some important long-term points people need to be focused on, before they jump on this Article V bandwagon. Once you start monkeying around with the Constitution, the concept of “unintended consequences” takes on a exponentially larger meaning. People really need to take the time to think this process through.

      • American Muse says:

        So you don’t think things are spinning out of control right now? There are risks in any venture to right the wrongs that are currently taking place. Shouldn’t we do everything in our Constitutional power to reign in Government? There is no silver bullet, or quick fix, however any actions taken that could restrain the federal overreach underway at this very moment shouldn’t be disregarded out of hand because it’s “risky.” The American Experiment was and continues to be risky. And we’ve “monkeyed around” with the Constitution 17 times since the Bill of Rights. You seem to proffer that those who are acting within the Constitutional framework are somehow jumping on some wild bandwagon. Nothing could be farther from the truth–we’re concerned citizens just like you, utilizing a lawful process to redress our grievances. Will the Left sit quietly by, no, but they haven’t been doing that for quite some time now, don’t you think?

        • PaulE says:

          My point is that it is pretty clear from reading a lot of the comments posted, that most people think an Article V convention is some sort of grab bag of ideas to just throw something against the wall and see what sticks. That is NOT what the Article V process was ever designed to be. It was designed to be the last resort to preserve our rights and freedoms of a basically united people against a tyrannical government. Today we are NOT a united people. Nearly half the country is in favor of the lawlessness coming out of Washington, so long as the “free stuff” keeps coming. That is NOT an environment where you want to open up the Constitution to modification.

          Am I happy with what is going on in Washington? Hell NO! However, holding an Article V convention in an environment where nearly half the people in this country think the

          There is nothing currently broken in the Constitution. What we have are a number of politicians who are ignoring it and two other branches of government sitting by silently while this is going on. That is NOT a flaw in the Constitution. That is a failure of those who took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution from doing their jobs.

        • PaulE says:

          My point is that it is pretty clear from reading a lot of the comments posted, that most people think an Article V convention is some sort of grab bag of ideas to just throw something against the wall and see what sticks. That is NOT what the Article V process was ever designed to be. It was designed to be the last resort to preserve our rights and freedoms of a basically united people against a tyrannical government. Today we are NOT a united people. Nearly half the country is in favor of the lawlessness coming out of Washington, so long as the “free stuff” keeps coming. That is NOT an environment where you want to open up the Constitution to modification.

          Am I happy with what is going on in Washington? Hell NO! However, holding an Article V convention in an environment where nearly half the people in this country think the role of the federal government is to be Santa Claus, would be suicidal for the form of government our Founding Fathers struggled so hard to give us.

          There is nothing currently broken in the Constitution. What we have are a number of politicians who are ignoring it and two other branches of government sitting by silently while this is going on. That is NOT a flaw in the Constitution. That is a failure of those who took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution from doing their jobs. You remove those men and women by voting them out of office or by other means not tied to modifying the Constitution. If you’re saying that we can no longer accomplish the task of changing out the people who occupy positions in Washington, then the country is already lost and an Article V convention won’t solve that problem for you.

          Once the Constitution has been shredded, there is no putting it back together again. Then we will be truly at the mercy of a federal government with no checks and balances or restrictions on what it can do to every citizen in this country. That is what I meant by we have to think this process through beforehand. There is no reset button to push, if we end up doing more harm than good.

  8. Ann E Denny says:

    This seems to offer some hope. There is no hope only disaster if we continue on the path the recent administrations have set us on. The trend has been from both the major parties. The blame game solves nothing and adds to the problem. It is time we had legislators and administration officials who are mature enough to operate beyond the blaming
    game as a solution to anything.

  9. Jim R 41 says:

    Our framers of the constitution never envisioned a time when so many Americans would surrender his rights as well as all others citizens rights, for their ,”Free S—“, from a promising politician. They never envisioned a time when so many politicians would purchase the votes, with tax dollars, nor a time when non contributing freeloaders and foreigners
    would be allowed to vote, not only once but multiple times , ie: No ID, Absentee ballots. Absentee voting should be reserved for Military, foreign, workers, and the incapacitated only.
    The politicians are salivating now over a immigration bill, at a time when we can’t produce enough jobs for our citizens, nor can we get them to work what is available. They think they are too valuable to waste time doing the menial jobs. plus they get enough “Free S—” from the Gov’t. They don’t have to work. hell ! we don’t need immigration, we need control of our politicians and our money. If we soon don’t get a return to the Constitutional Republic we were formed under, the future is grim, whether we keep what is forced upon us, or we fight for the freedoms we were guaranteed under our constitution.

  10. Janette OConnor says:

    The majority will now vote for the candidate that promises them the most entitlements.

    • Alfred L. Kreps says:

      Amen!!! The takers usurping the hard work and taxes from the makers. What a sad commentary on so many of the people today. The good book says that a person should make their living by the sweat of their brow, not by the sweat of another person.

  11. Alfred L. Kreps says:

    Five of six states have the power to elect the President based upon population and the number of representatives to the electoral college. These same states like to use the resources from states like Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico etc. By having the power to elect the President of the United States these same states control the use of these resources. Thus the manner of election either by popular vote or electoral college is discriminatory to nearly 90% of the states. I propose that there be a Constitutional amendment for three issues. First, the electoral college should have two representatives from each state. This would require a candidate to have to win 51% of the members of the electoral college giving every state the same representation. Second, all elected persons should be limited to a maximum of 12 years combined service in the house of representatives and/ or senate. Third, no able bodied person, unless mentally or physically incapacitated, should receive any retirement pay until they are the same age as those who receive social security, now about 67 years of age. Taxpayer cost for early retirements where most then double dip by a. keeping the same job they had before retirement or b. by taking another position thereby receiving double wages is a strain. Also, limitations should apply to all former members of the house and senate and to any retired President of the United States. Harry Truman got zero. Why should someone elected to be a representative of the people obtain a lifetime benefit for a couple of years in Washington as an elected official?

    • Alfred L. Kreps says:

      By the way, it only takes 2/3 majority of the states to amend the constitution. Thus, 34 states would be the number that could ratify an amendment to the constitution. It would seem as if there are that many states that would favor the suggested amendments.

      • Paul Anthony says:

        It takes 2/3 to propose an amendment, but 3/4 to ratify it.

        • Doug D says:

          Doesn’t matter. The original constitutional convention simply changed the rules of ratification. They went from 100% to two-thirds. Why should we expect any new convention to adhere to any preset rules?

          • American Muse says:

            The change to the rules of ratification were approved by the states as the method of final ratification. You seem to be indicating that the original Convention dictated this method as opposed to proposing it. You’re leaving out the action of the states that were involved in calling their ratifying conventions and then approving the Constitution.

    • Jandt Barlow says:

      I totally agree that not only should there be term limits, but that the retirement, if any, should be based on the time they have served and be greatly reduced from what they currently receive. When I retired, as most of the citizens with a retirement package, my amount was decided on my age, length of employment, and wage amount. I do get a small amount of help on my supplemental medical based on how long I had worked, but I pay a large amount out of my pocket as well. My retirement income is also taxed at the same rate as my wages were. I also had to be vested with 5 years before I could collect retirement otherwise I would have just been able to take the cash with interest when I retired or left before those 5 years. Their retirement should be based on the same formula as should that of the President. The payment to politicians from the public dole in wages and retirement are out of hand for people that volunteer to serve if elected. I don’t see their positions as anything other than voluntary like many things that the rest of us do in life and since it is not mandatory a stipend might be appropriate to offset expenses, but most of these people are wealthy when they do “volunteer” to be elected. Something does need to happen with the Electorial College to give smaller states equality.

  12. BARBARA says:

    Edmund Burke once said (paraphrasing), “All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” We have done nothing far too long. We sit comfortably in front of the boob tube, drink our beer and eat our grub. There is an attitude of “If it does not affect me, I do not care.” Now our country is run by Marxists eager to destroy our way of life and indoctrinate our children to communism; thus, Common Core. Where are the Americans? Where are those who remember when John Kennedy said in his inaugural speech, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?” Where are those people who were willing to help others enhance their lives? Remember the Job Corps? We taught people skills so they could have a job for life. We did not teach them how to get into the system so they could get all the social programs free without having to work one day in their lives. We have raised two generations of children who feel they are entitled to everything just because they exist. They want, they want, they want, without contributing one thing.

    One of the first things that must be done is to get people off the dole and get them back working. We need to revert to the old rules of unemployment. It should go back to 26 weeks, and people should be made to look for jobs. Until this administration, if you were on unemployment, you had to show proof that you went out to look for a job every week! If you did not go out to look for a job, you lost your benefits. Now you get 99 weeks of unemployment and you do not have to prove that you went looking for a job! This needs to stop now! Next, parents need to pay attention to what their children are learning in school. Of course AMAC have older members, so our education level was the basic threes – reading, writing and ‘rithmetic. We learned phonics, humanities, reading and grammar. Have you ever read other posts on other sites and noticed the poor grammar and poor punctuation? People do not even know how to write a sentence! Our children are being “dumbed down” by the government. This is part of the Communist indoctrination. This is real, and it is happening here! Do not let Khrushev be right, my fellow Americans! Parents need to take these books and have a burning party! We do not need Common Core!

    My friends, please do not fear to do nothing. We must take action without fear. Once the establishment realizes that we are aware of the power we actually have to change the laws, they will back down. They will realize that we are not all gullible sheep being led to slaughter. We will not let fear stop us from saving our country.

    First They Came by
    Pastor Martin Niemolle

    First they came for the Communists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Communist
    Then they came for the Socialists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Socialist
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a trade unionist
    Then they came for the Jews
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Jew
    Then they came for me
    And there was no one left
    To speak out for me.

  13. Paulette C says:

    Yes, Doug D, I know that the statement came from FDR and I am no fan of his. But he said it at a time when our country needed to hear those words and we went out along with our allies to save the world. Now our own country needs saving and we must not fear to act. I agree with Paul that we all need to vote this November and I will do so, as always. BUT, I am not convinced that it will be enough to turn the tide of our government’s wrong direction. Some other action by the citizenry is surely necessary. Yes, to term limits and a veto proof congress. But, we won’t get those in this election and meanwhile the Obama/Alinski juggernaut rolls on.

    • DrZ says:

      While I agree that Dr. Carson and many others are honorable men and would do a better job in D.C. than the current crop of power brokers, I also believe there is something in the drinking water that addles the minds of people who end up serving (themselves) in D.C.

      Many a person has gone to the capitol city to change it to something that does not intrude in our lives at great cost. However, after a matter of months, they have converted and morphed into the men we thought we were getting rid of in the first place.

      Besides, there are a lot of politicians who need to be “retired” and no matter how noble our intent is at the voting booth, there are simply too many of them who promise free stuff and tell others they cannot attain the American Dream because they are oppressed by the white man, the 1% or name your favorite oppressor here. These politicians have effectively squashed the notion of the melting pot and “you can be whatever you aspire to be” with determination and hard work.

      I hate being so pessimistic, but it is hard to be otherwise.

      • Doug D says:

        Dr Z,

        It’s not the drinking water. It’s the $$$. Take a look at recent book by Peter Schweizer. The title is “Extortion” and that is exactly what the career politicians are doing to us. Schweizer calls them the “permanent political class”.

        Voting them out of office is our best, peaceful way to get this mess turned around. There are a few of the most recent elected that have not been corrupted. We need more of them.

    • SteveD says:

      FDR lifted the statement from Francis Bacon.

    • Ivan Berry says:

      It’s a never ending struggle, but we are still trying to save the world, nation building, spreading democracy around the world while at the same time we are destroying ourselves. When will it end?
      What democracy we originally had was at the local, county, area or region, state, not at national except in the House. We were a Federated Republic made up of Soverign States and a limited central government that at the time legitamatly be called Federal. It is no longer federal because the States’ Soverignity has been diluted to near non-existance. Our original form was for the purpose of individual liberty, proscribed by a moral populace. Liberty was not so we could create a democracy. Even Plato had indicated that a pure democracy would lead to totalitarian government. Pure Democracy is what has been recently proposed. The purpose is by all indications in order for us to eventually have a tyrant at the helm.
      We should all try to get our own house in order before going after the world order. We should get our towns, counties, our Congressmen and women and our States in order before risking all to try and get our central government in order. Smaller bites are always easier to swallow.

  14. Paulette C says:

    What ever happened to “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!”? If we do nothing we are doomed. I believe that there are still enough patriots in America that could come together for the good of the Republic. There are leaders who would arise to guide us in taking our country back and preserving the Constitution, Dr. BEN CARSON comes to mind.

    • Doug D says:

      Well, for one thing, the man who made that “fear” statement created some of the most fearful and unconstitutional agencies that now populate our incredibly bloated federal government.

      You are right that there are many good patriots still around but how to put just their like in a single convention is the problem. And I agree that Dr. Carson is someone who would garner the respect of the great majority. There lies the answer. We must vote out all the big government progressives – republican and democrat and we must vote in the likes of Dr. Carson and those other patriots you mention.

    • PaulE says:

      The argument isn’t between “doing something” and “doing nothing”. It’s between doing what has a high probability of success (getting out and voting this November in force) and doing something with a low probability of success simply to for the sake of “doing something”. You don’t fix a complex machine (our broken federal government) by randomly flipping switches and turning dials, hoping you blindly hit the right sequence to get it operating correctly again. You take deliberate, well thought out action to achieve the desired results (voting to end Democrat control of the Senate and ensuring a Republican majority remains in the House).

  15. Doug D says:

    Tom C has it right!! The Article V convention or Convention of States or whatever it is called is a huge risk. The first and only convention of this kind happened in 1787. The result of that convention was a divine blessing. I’m afraid that it is likely that such a blessing would not occur in a convention called at this time in our history.

    Just take a look at the quality of the men and minds that participated in the 1787 convention. It was lead by George Washington, the most respected person alive at the time. And then there were Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Morris etc.

    These men, brilliant as they were, had difficulty making an agreement. They took a break for a day of prayer and then came back to finish the job. Where would we find such men today?

    This sort of convention is a power unto itself. It will write its own rules including the rules of ratification. How will the delegates be selected? The Congress determines that issue. Given our present Congress, I would bet that the delegates would be apportioned by state population numbers.

    Our only real answer to the problems that we find ourselves in now is to go back to the original constitution and actually follow it. Remember, that if we are not now following our original Constitution, why would we expect that any “new and improved” constitution or amendments would be followed?

    • Al Siegwald says:

      We need a Nation that is not afraid to PRAY and without it we are doomed. Our forefathers knew this and they took time to pray during their time of making LAWs. Look around you are you still proud of our way of life?we have forsaken our savior for self gradification and commiting our ways to satan. We need a good ole fashion REVIVAL…And VOTING in godly MEN to LEAD OUR COUNTRY…

  16. Glen E. Arnold says:

    I am for saving our nation. The U.S. federal government has become top heavy and is bound to fall, it is our duty too stop this catastrophe from happening; as a veteran I took an oath too defend the country and the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I believe a convention of States called to reign in this oppressor Federal government we have today is far better than civil war.

  17. Paulette C says:

    What other choice do thinking and caring Americans have? If we don’t try something like this to preserve our once great country for our grandchildren, then the only remedies remaining to us would be a new revolution or civil war. And if the hard working people of this land don’t unite to turn this situation around there may not be an America to save.I for one am going to study and find a way to help the country that has blessed me with the freedom to do so. I will also pray to God that clear headed educated people of all states will join the effort to preserve our beloved nation before it is too late!

  18. Mark O. says:

    I feel it is safe to say that if TERM LIMITS were in effect for all elected positions, there’s a better than 50:50 chance
    that 90% of our nation’s current problems would not exist. The lack of TERM LIMITS has spawned an aristocratic
    form of government in both DC and elsewhere that brazenly flaunts the fundamental precepts of our Constitution. This default form of government must be seriously addressed and eliminated if we are to have any chance of permanently restoring the hopes and dreams of our founding fathers for this, the greatest nation on God’s green earth.

  19. BobL. says:

    If the “Convention of States degenerates into a Constitutional Convention and the entire Document comes under revision, I foresee the nation splitting in two with one part retaining and abiding by the original Document and the other following a path to becoming nothing more than a member state of the New World Order with no Bill of Rights protections of freedoms.

  20. Barbara Martin says:

    I feel that the common man (most of us!) no longer has any political representation. I know lobbies and special interest groups have been around for a long time to influence Congress, but, at least we maintained the appearance of representation. Mr. Obama’s misuse of his presidential powers makes me feel we are living in a Socialist tyranny, rather than a democracy. The Founders must be spinning in their graves! We need to return to the precepts that our nation was founded on. It will be difficult, especially when so many are used to support from government programs. I don’t see it happening quickly! But maybe changes in leadership could start the process.

  21. Bill Butler says:

    As I understand it, a constitutional convention isn’t called for a single amendment. The entire document is open to change. With 49% of this country gobbling up free cell phones and 99 weeks of “I don’t have to work for a living” Americans falsely so called, this would be a very bad idea.

  22. Allen tharp says:

    A conversation on Article V is the most important conversation in America today because it truly is a way to fix this broken system. I read some concerns that we could never succeed because there may be at least 13 statesCalifornia that could stand in the way. Well, there are some things we might want to change that could not get past 38 states, however, there are some that could. A balanced budeget/debt relief amendment is a good example of something that could be ratified by 38 states. The reason is that while Washington may debate endlessly whether or not it is wise and prudent to live within one’s means, most of America (both conservative and liberal) understand that this is a law of nature that is as immutable as gravity. Spending more than you take in can only be justified as sound fiscal practice in Washington. I assure you that at least 38 states, however, will understand the folly of our current course. Term limits may well be another item that can be ratified by 38 states. I believe we cannot get everything we want, but we can get some very important changes ratified.

    Remember we can override Washiington with this incredible tool the founders gave us because we can bypass Congress and the other two branches of the Federal government on anything that 38 states can agree upon. The states have the power; It was given to us in the Constitution. We just have to have the guts to be the first to use it.

    • Sandra Lambert says:

      Well said. I am one of Obama’s throw aways … 79 years old and I am so sad to see what has become of this once wonderful country. If Obama has his way, all the elderly will be left to die … just get out of the way seems to be their creed. There once was a time when the wisdom of the elderly was revered.

      • Wayne Ollick says:

        Thank you Sandra! I’ll be 73 in a few days and, like you, I know that with age, comes experience and with experience comes wisdom. To ignore this great resource (or get rid of it as Obama’s regime wants) would be the loss of vital information and advice that no school can teach. As a senior, saying this may seem self serving to younger Americans, but I assure you it is not. when you are in the 11th hour of your stay here on earth, you have no selfish desires as they would be short lived and meaningless. We seniors only want to help set the country straight for our children and grand children and we are passionate about that. The book, The Overviewer, explains how we got on the wrong track just after WWII with the permissive rearing of the Baby Boomers (not all, but most) instead of the more restrictive upbringing that created the ‘Greatest Generation’ who fought the war. It is written by a senior who lived it all. ; I am all for a “Con Stat” and against a “Con Con” for the obvious reasons already stated in the article.Good luck America! We seniors are behind you till the good Lord calls us home.

    • Dean Bartlett says:

      I am deathly afraid that people do not understand the depth to which this country has sunken The call for a Constitutional Convention first probably will never get out the gate but it will give the powers that be a codified
      list of the people they will want to eliminate in the future. Second again negative we can not even get a amendment
      through the process.
      Last it is to late we the people have allowed the minority the right to rule by our inaction and they are not going to give it up. Words on paper mean nothing to the progressives.

    • Howard Last says:

      A balanced Budget Amendment is not the answer. The crooks and/or mental midgets in Washington do not follow the Constitution now, why would they follow an additional amendment? If the budget is not balanced, will the Supremes order a tax increase? Betetr than 90% of the budget is not authorized by the Constitution, how would a Balanced Budget Amendment change this?

  23. Tom Lavin says:

    Reducing the power of the Federal Government will never be easy but it could be bloodless.
    Compare Article V alternatives with the Arab Spring (esp. Egypt), Syria and Ukraine uprisings
    to understand the options we will have if we do not follow Mark Levin’s advice.

  24. Tom C. says:

    I agree that we are in dire straits, but this idea needs to be approached with great caution. The original Constitutional Convention – which is the only precedent we have – was convened to simply revise the Articles of Confederation. The Convention went way beyond its mandate. Another danger is that such a convention could change the rules. Much of the current pro-convention arguments are based on the current requirement that any amendment must be ratified by three-quarters of the States. However, the Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent of the States for amending. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention changed the rules, and there is no guarantee that a new convention would not do the same. Finally, can we really be sure what sort of delegates would be sent to such a convention? What if, between “red” states sending some RINO delegates, and “blue” states sending liberal / “progressive” delegates? We’d end up with a convention that would probably “recommend” (impose) changes that would legalize what the U.S. government is now doing illegally. This idea needs to be approached with the greatest of caution.

    • PaulE says:

      Agreed.

    • Terrylee Dembowski says:

      Nay nay, do you think that there are enough states who would allow the destruction of our Constitution?? this is a convention to AMEND, once again AMEND in order to change the existing CONSTITUTION it would take 38 states
      do you think that is possible to ratify this if there is something added or deleted that is detrimental to our freedoms??

    • Ivan Berry says:

      I made some of your points in a earlier posting and got slautered by Earl, I believe. You are right and I appreciate you having spoken up. Same page (see my earlier post below).

      • Ivan Berry says:

        That post was for Tom C and slaughtered is the correct spelling for what Earl was doing. Sorry for my inattention. You got my attention and I couldn’t redirect to my typing,

  25. LarryK says:

    If it is so doomed to fail why would the founding fathers put Article V in the Constitution. If not really sure I would suggest folks investigate the webinar series offered by Hillsdale College starting next week about all aspects of the Constitution.

    If you want things to change you owe it to yourself to understand options available to you since politicians can’t seem to do it and sticking head in the sand won’t fix anything.

    • PaulE says:

      Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a time when so many Americans would willingly surrender their God given freedoms in exchange for a free cell phone, a SNAP card, Section 8 housing or a myriad of other “entitlements” or expect to be “taken care of” from cradle to grave as a “right”. An Article V approach would have be been a very viable option in the 1950s, 1960s or even early 1970s, as the modern version of liberalism was contained to only a handful of states. In short, the Founding Fathers never anticipated a time when nearly 50 percent of the population would willingly abandon the principles this country was founded on in exchange for some “free stuff”.

      I completely agree with you, that the Hillsdale College course on the Constitution is an excellent course. Well presented and the follow-up dialogs with the instructors and other class attendees are wonderful. Truly a very well structured and thought-provoking series that everyone should sign up for. I thought the course was great. I particularly like the fact that Hillsdale College is actually sending the entire course series to every member of Congress, as well as doing follow-up in Washington with these people. God knows many of them could use it. For some of our Congressional representatives, it would probably be the first time they actually were exposed to a real course explaining all the aspects of the Constitution. Clearly a lot of them today have no clue what is constitutional or not as they craft legislation or argue their points in public.

      • Ivan Berry says:

        And please do not forget, Art. V was also proposed as a last resort should the central government begin to do what the Brittish did before the Revolution. It was to be used if, ,over time changes in our existing Constitution had resulted in enough evil that it behooved the people to completely re-write it or make changes to bring it back in line with individual liberty.
        After 1913, that evil year, when the 16th Amendment opened us up for an income tax, and the legislation (unconstitutional, by the way) to re-establish a central bank, the cartel known as the Federal Reserve, which is neither federal nor a reserve, and the final straw of the 17th Amendment that changed the U.S. Senate from being selected by the several States’ Legislatures into an at large election of the people who could be more readily deceived than could the States’ Legislatures…after all that, there might have been hope that an Art. V could have sucessfully been accomplished once enough States realized how wrong those changes were and the damage that they did to our form of government.
        We do not all have to agree on any particular point, but critical thinking (no longer taught in our schools) is necessary to determining possible right courses to take.
        Studies that take surveys and determine that the active elderly live longer and more healthy lives versus those inactive and sedentary elderly make sense to those lacking in critical thinking. But it also
        makes sense that the more healthy would likely be more active in the first place. Such surveys do not take in the idea of first causes.
        What is the first cause as regards the problems of our present government? Is it Oath-breaking or our form? Is it voter apathy or ignorance, or lying and mendacity on the part of our leaders? Is it the massive size and scope of our administrative state or the result of an intentional conspiracy to take away from the people what representative republican government was meant to provide in order to establish rulers over the people by putting all power in the hands of an elite? You decide, from these or your own ideas, and let us then act accordingly. When we are on the same page, we can accomplish some improvement. When we differ, we do not need become enemies, but work together when we can, much like the different Tea Party groups. We don’t have the same interests nor skills, but when areas we have in common arise, we can and should strive together to what we can to improve the situation.

        Our founders intended for our form to instill Liberty, not Liberty to instill our form.

        • PaulE says:

          Well said Ivan. Too many people advocating for an Article V convention, just want to “do something”, because they are frustrated by the general lawlessness of the current administration and its push to transform us into a socialist democracy. They’re not thinking the process through and how such a move, when nearly 50 percent of the population loves the progressive agenda, will likely result in far more lasting and permanent damage to our country. The answer isn’t to change the Constitution, but to change the inhabitants in Washington, D.C. who refuse to abide by it.

  26. Ella says:

    When a country is run like the tail wagging the dog it is corrupted and will eventually implode. The true good and moral Americans are now rising up against this tyranny. It is called the Tea Party.

  27. D.A. says:

    Yeah, ok, it’s hopeless. Even Levin in his book says several times that he doesn’t doubt the difficultys. His tone in the book is along the lines of ‘ hey, we’ve got to try something’. First, there is never a guarantee of success in any endeavor, except perhaps becoming a parasite. Secondly, to me, it’s no longer about winning, at least for people in our age group, in our lifetimes. It’s now a question of doing the right thing, of leaving behind a foundation, however skeletal, that people not born yet may notice. There were people in the gulags that even Stalin couldn’t completely silence. They scribbled their thoughts on shards of paper, or memorized poems they composed, works that spread like a drought and wind driven wildfire. Mostly, the authors were ground to dust, but their thoughts survived, at least sometimes. They had little hope of surviving, let alone prospering. They left monuments to truth, that were smuggled out and published. Are the majority willing to sell their soul for a scrap of bread, or a mass of pottage? Yes, then and now. They will jostle in line to do it. The millions will always be drawn to the hypnotic and are pleased to live their lives in a trance. You can’t wake people who turn back to sleep when shaken. Many of our best died in the mud to preserve our right to live oblivious lives. I believe we can and will repay them by at least waking ourselves up and doing whatever is within our means to help. The movie called Monumental really helped me refine my thinking and if haven’t seen it please do.

    • Ivan Berry says:

      The soviets were one of two so called great powers. They had the U.S. and its allies to help defend the writers and poets with public opinion world wide. Who in the world is left to defend Amereca’s patriots? Have you looked at our allies recently? Most of the claiments are already socialist or leaning socialists. The majority of nations are enemies who oppose the U. S. on just about every issue. The UN? They seem satisfied to let the U.S. police the world for their policies or excuses. This always weakens us at home while creating greater animosity abroad.

      Again, the Constitution ain’t broken; what’s broken is the oath of office that each representive in the central government took before taking office. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Let’s fix what is broke. Let’s fix the representives who violate their oaths.
      The foundation has already been laid. It is the Constitution that lays out the operational process to accomplish what was addressed in The Declaration of Independance. I would rather keep trying to replace the representives in government than take a chance in destroying what is left of our national charter.

      If the number needed to ratify good amendments exist, why are their not enough oath-keepers in our Congress(House and Senate)? This is not a moot question, but central to the argument against opening up the Constitution to changes that may or may not by chance make things worse. We have only been here once before. In 1787.

      • Paul Anthony says:

        Power corrupts. Congress will not surrender its power willingly. Congress will not propose a balanced budget amendment, so we must.
        A Convention of States almost succeeded in ending prohibition! The states were only short one state when the Congress saw the writing on the wall and proposed the amendment themselves (to save face and get re-elected) and prohibition ended. It might not have happened if the states had not started the process.

      • D.A. says:

        Many good points. Tyrants do pay attention and crave good press, so if our sun sets, whose opinion will they worry about. Not sure, as the masses are stupefied by bread and circuses. I think of the Irish monks who hand copied classical texts to preserve them. Many centuries passed before our founders had the chance to digest same. As to cos, much depends on how late it is. I would agree it’s vastly preferable to elect the right people and there is some reason for optimism on that front but I am doubtfully that the disease process in our country can be arrested in slow increments. With every day the shadow grows, and more orcs are produced. We are literally on the edge of the cliff. Another ten to twenty mil. lib. voters( amnesty), and there’s no way out that I can see. If the cos seems likely, the commies will spend time and energy first to stop it, then to pervert it. That could buy time to get new blood into congress.

  28. Pmshe says:

    Perhaps this wouldn’t work; however, it is a good possibility and that’s better than sleep walking our way into tyranny.

  29. James L. Dalton says:

    You wont know for sure until you try. It’s best to try every option before you think about the last resort.

  30. KurtS says:

    The problem is not a “left” or “right” argument. It is an American problem. We have a congress with a less than 4% approval rating the constitutes enough people to potentially have all 50 states sign off on the most fundamental proposals.
    Remember only about one third of the population was in favor of totally separating from England at the time of our revolution. Never underestimate the power of the few determined and unafraid. ALL of us need to scream from the mountain tops. I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT!!!
    I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!
    I AM AN AMERICAN!!!
    AND I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!
    The people need to get back to basic civics, our constitution allows us to do that, but it can not happen unless WE do it.

    God bless America

  31. Patty says:

    What’s wrong with you? There are 50 states from which to draw the 13. Just because the Eastern states are predominantly dumbocrat doesn’t mean the others are…

    • PaulE says:

      You need 37 states to agree, not merely 13. It takes only 13 states saying no to stop the whole process Patty.

  32. Rik says:

    I was beginning to get excited until I read where only 13 states were needed to say “no” … Let’s see now: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and, of course, California, etc, etc, etc. Just these 13 states and you lose! Nah! Won’t work!

    Sorry, but you’ll need “divine intervention” or in this case … Annie, Get Your Gun!

    • PaulE says:

      You’ve correctly identified why this strategy won’t work anymore. The states you’ve mentioned, and even a one or two more, are now solidly Democrat strongholds at this point. So they would never go along with anything that would reverse the Progressive trend in this country.

      • vesuvius1313 says:

        Half the states Rik list are not solid democrat and it will take discussion and convincing people which is what the state convention is about. We don’t lose unless we don’t try. Yes it may be an uphill fight but anything worthwhile takes a lot of effort to achieve.

        • Paul Anthony says:

          Even the states that vote Democrat require their state legislatures to balance their own budgets. I don’t think it would be difficult to pass a balanced budget amendment.

    • Ivan Berry says:

      …and that island in the Pacific and that state named after our first president, and that neighbor to Tx. on the west side above El Passo, oh, and Origon and Reed’s state, you know where they gamble and consort with, well you know.

      I don’t care what you call it. An Art. V convention will address the Constitution whether it’s call Con Con or not. Anything that opens up the Constitution to be changed may be a danger that we have never faced before. No one can predict what will happen. It’s like man made global warming, it ain’t never happened before, so computer models of estimates are at best, best guesses. Until we have representives in the central government who continually abide by their oaths to the Constitution, I don’t have any confidence that politicians at the state level nor the national level should be trusted to tamper with a document that served us pretty well until the progresives on both sides of the isle began to just ignore established law.
      The Constitution ain’t broke. The Constitutional tenants (by acts of our governing bodies) have been broken.
      Let us fix what is broken and not fix what is not broken. Let us fix the governing bodies.

    • Nelson says:

      There are many problems with the idea of a “convention of the states” as proposed in this article. First, is the futility of the good guys in making useful changes because they won’t have the 3/4 majority to adopt the changes, as Rik pointed out, because of the liberal states whose delegates would likely oppose them. But another, larger problem is, if there is such fultility then why are so many deep pocket leftists like George Soros, spending money to promote such a convention. It is obvious that money behind the scenes will be used to sway the votes.

      Noted Constitutional experts have warned about the danger of such a convention. If you read the words of Article V carefully, you will see that it is written to lay out two methods of changing the Constitution by modifying existing sections or writing new amendments. So there is no difference between a “constitution of the states” and a Constitutional Convention. They are the same thing.

      It must also be noted that when such a convention is called the state legislators will be the ones appointing the delegates. In doing so they will be granting to the delegates the right to vote in their behalf. This reality is contained in the part of the phrase following the word “or”: ” when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof “.

      Chuck Baldwin, presidential candidate for the Constitution Party said “If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, ‘There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.'”

      What is the greatest threat to all of us if such a convention were convened? The delegates would have the authority to completely rewrite the present Constitution and eliminate the Bill of Rights, for one thing. Quite literally this would mean the end of the United States of America as we know it.

      Remember, the first order of business will be for the assembled delegates to establish the rules of how they will function. And the big money will surely be felt among the group. We need to get our heads out of the clouds and face this reality.

      • American Muse says:

        Wow, I’m surprised that the Constitution survived all the previous conventions and over 27 Amendments that have been ratified. While any action is risky, so is inaction. To leave a lawful Constitutional tool unused in this current situation would be negligent in the least. If our nation is so rife with those who mean to destroy us that we are afraid to use any and all lawful means to stop them, we deserve the government we appear to be inexorably moving toward.

        • Ivan Berry says:

          What other conventions? Check your history. The other amentments were done by the Congress and then ratified. The only Convention on record was in 1887.

What's Your Opinion

We welcome your comments. Join the discussion and let your voice be heard. All fields are required.