Don’t be conned: Why a Convention of States would be an unqualified disaster

Article V Convention of States

Editor’s Note: As with all our our articles, the views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. We do not censor, so Sally’s views are welcome here.

Like the return of a cancerous tumor, it’s back.  I am referring to the misguided push by some Tea Party tools for a convention of states to undo the work of James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, William Livingston and other founders.

There are obvious reasons to strenuously oppose this foolish idea.  Most of us have heard them, including the bald fact that we have no statesmen in America today to craft such a document.  If we did, Donald Trump would not be running for President as the Republican nominee.  But some of the reasons are less obvious to those who have not studied this issue for more than a few months.  We should all be aware, first of all, that this effort has been long cherished by the far left.

I hate to puncture the fragile ego of the promoters of this within the Tea Party movement, but first of all, the Tea Party Movement died this summer (in case you didn’t notice).  It no longer is involved with principles, founding or otherwise, and took leave of the actual Constitution this summer when it decided not to support the only man who was running who had any knowledge of the document – Ted Cruz.  And I must further bruise these people’s ego with some information likely unknown to them.

It might surprise you to learn that there has been an alternate Constitution ready and waiting since 1974.  That’s right – a think tank known as The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions went to work at that time to formulate a plan to substitute a dictatorship for our Constitutional Republic form of government.  It was disguised as the “Newstates of America Constitution.”  Its preamble does not mention “tranquility” or “justice,” but substitutes the words “good order” with no intention of considering “justice” (which is what leads to “tranquility”).  It is a fully formed document, the product of work beginning as far back as 1964, and going through at least 10 drafts before a “preliminary” draft was published in 1974.  There are no guarantees such as are provided by our Bill of Rights.  The sovereign states we began as are grouped into 10 “new states” and cities come under federal, not state, jurisdiction.  Senators’ terms are extended and the presidential term is 9 years.

This has been insinuated for some time now, as the regions which delineate the “new states” have been managed thusly under federal policy for some time already.

Such “rights” as we enjoy today under our present Constitution are completely changed – some disappearing completely, with others becoming “conditional” at best.

This configuration of government was well thought out by those interested in diminishing America and allowing it to become more malleable in terms of globalism.  If you saw the movie “Hunger Games,” much of what is outlined in this Newstates Constitution will look very familiar.  It places huge powers in the hands of a very few, destabilizes the government systems we now have, and destroys our sovereign states altogether.  It is the opposite of the plan of the founders.

We are aware that some “conservatives,” such as Mark Levin, have been promoting the idea of a convention of states – which is to say a “constitutional convention.”  Some, with their rose-colored glasses glued on their noses, have made themselves believe that this process could be controlled.  It will be, but not by those who think they are going to fix the little things and tinker with it until it suits themIt will be controlled by the same people who are already in control.

Can you imagine any alternate scenario?  Who will be in charge?  The same puppeteers who have been running Congress, the White House, the bureaucracy, the RNC and the DNC.  It will not be run by Joe Schmoe out in Witchita or Mary Smith in Peoria.  That much we can predict.  It also will not be advised by Mr. Levin, nor by any of the panting activists of the comatose Tea Party movement.

The people who planned this convention of states did so in 1964.  Don’t stroke your own egos with the belief that this is your brilliant solution.  Also, don’t take the existence of Article V in the Constitution as a solution advocated by our founding fathers, either.

The Father of the Constitution was James Madison, perhaps the most intelligent and prescient of the greatest congregation of political intellect ever assembled on earth.  His advice was to stick like glue to the Constitution we have.

Madison stated:

“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the congress . . . It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted b the most violent partisans on both sides . . . [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who,, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts . . . might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. . . . Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America.”

Madison knew what he was talking about here – he had just been through the process, helping to guide it to an eloquent and just set of fundamental principles which gave birth to the law we know as the Constitution.  With all due respect to Mr. Levin, Judge Napolitano and other zealots, it is reasonable to assume that he is the one with the expertise, not they.

We have a myriad of excuses, each with its own champions and factions, armed with the measures they want to see visited in a Constitutional Convention.  Here are a few:

  1. Elimination of the income tax and the IRS
  2. The Right to Life
  3. Term Limits
  4. A balanced budget
  5. Getting rid of the Electoral College
  6. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve Bank

If you have a pet peeve, there is probably a resolution in play for you in this madness.  Here are a few of the other possible consequences:

  1. Elimination of the 2nd Amendment (there is plenty of pressure here from liberals – they don’t regard this as belonging to the conservatives!)
  2. Repeal of presidential term limits
  3. Recognizing International law – or perhaps Sharia – as a part of our jurisprudence
  4. Repealing the 4th Amendment (that which prohibits unwarranted search and seizure)
  5. Repealing the 14th Amendment or re-constituting it to create a right of citizenship to illegals
  6. Repeal of the 10th and 11th Amendments which limit and define federal and state jurisdiction
  7. Environmentalist proposals
  8. Statehood for the District of Columbia
  9. The right to abortion on demand
  10. Special rights for minorities and those with gender issues
  11. Subordination to a world court and world governance such as the UN

If you have a fundamental fear of someone’s program, you can be assured they will be represented in a Constitutional Convention.

If you were a boxing fan, would you feel inclined to take on the current heavy-weight champion in the ring next Saturday night?  No?  Why, then, would you decide, as a weekend Tea Party warrior and rally attendee, that you wanted to take on the people who have been plotting this for half a century just waiting for the moment to strike?

The conspirators who have plotted the Newstates of America Constitution received massive funding from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, to the tune of $25 million – back when that was real money.  The New World Order which has been the boogeyman of many Tea Partiers, can hardly wait – the bait is out there waiting for us to take it.  The trap will then snap shut and our experiment in freedom will have ended very unceremoniously.  Better it were snuffed out in a nuclear holocaust than by a bunch of marks in a con game.

When a Constitutional Convention takes place, who do you think will pick the delegates?  (Hint – it won’t be you or any of your Tea Party buddies.)  What will they take an oath to protect and uphold?  The constitution they have assembled to destroy and rewrite?

Underneath all of this is one fundamental truth.  If we would agree to live under the Constitution our founders created for us in 1787, we would not be in trouble now.  It has been the deviation from that which has created most of our ills.  Now, given that, why – if we are not obeying the laws we have – would writing new ones matter except to those who would personally profit by them in terms of wealth, power, or an ideology foreign to American beliefs?  Answer: it wouldn’t.

What we need to do is to grow a spine and hold our representatives – federal and state – to the law.  When they betray us we need not to re-elect them because the other guy is worse.  That is what got us to where we are now.  We need to vote them OUTIf a “worse” candidate is elected, then we need to resolve to vote them out as well when their term is up.

We need to donate our time and money to those candidates who show us that they mean to live by the Constitution we have.  If we think we must address a new issue in the Constitution – that our other avenues of redress are insufficient – then each item should be taken up individually, preferably through Congress, but if necessary, through our state processes.  We do not need to kill the patient to cure a minor illness.  And a convention of the states would be that – killing the foundation of our republic.

When you hear from your Tea Party friends that they want your support for a petition or a vote for a convention of the states, please don’t just say “no” to them.  Tell them why they must do more research, why they must not just go to their guru, whether it be Levin or Napolitano or any of the others.  Explain to them the value of the gift given to the American people alone – our Constitution – with its many protections and its carefully calibrated checks and balances.  Tell them that we need to insist that it be followed to the letter, not abandoned.  Not re-written by this year’s committee of experts, which will NOT include you or them, but will include the same people you thought to stop with it.  Obama.  Schumer.  Pelosi.  Clinton.  McConnell.  Ryan.  Priebus.  Brazile.  Huma Abedin.

Tell them to read the Constitution again.  Tell them to quit voting for the “lesser of evils” and for those who promise to uphold it – and if they don’t throw them out of office immediately.  Do this at every level, state and federal.  If we do this we will not need the Global Elitists, the Leftists and Liberals to dictate to us.  We need not fall for the trap of a convention of states.

Can you remember any time when conservatives have “crossed the aisle” to “work with” liberals when the conservatives haven’t come out of it wearing a barrel?  Negotiating with them – which is what you are contemplating in a convention of states – is what we are talking about here.  Or, did you think that only conservatives would be doing this?  Do you really think you will come out of this with MORE rights than you have now?

You may have noticed that with all the hub-bub of political amateurs on the right clamoring for this convention of states, you mysteriously do not hear any argument against it from the Left, do you?  Does this seem significant?  Yes?  Let’s just say they are ready for you.

Sally Morris

Sally Morris is a political commentator and writer for The New Americana and the Dakota Beacon. Raised in a very conservative environment where politics were the common topic of discussion at home, she began early to develop critical thinking skills and follow political news and events. At 15 she was drawn to her local Republican headquarters where her typing skills were put to work preparing canvass sheets, poll sheets, maintaining files. She was precinct committeeman in her state district and chaired two committees in a state Republican Convention. The deterioration of Republican Party principles has been a concern throughout her years as a Republican. In 2009 she organized the first tea party event in her city, which spawned a core group of activists. Today Ms Morris defines herself as a “constitutional conservative independent”. She has also written for newspapers under the names “Kathleen McCarty” and “Ellen Jones.” As a property owner she took on the city council’s plan to destroy her historic neighborhood and subsequently authored the first successful nomination to the National Register of Historic Places of a linear resource (Granitoid Pavement) for its engineering and design. It was also placed on the State Registry (North Dakota). She has also seen first-hand the corruption of the eminent domain principle when her Minnesota home was seized for development of a project which never, in fact, materialized, although the home was demolished. This experience brought into sharp focus eminent domain abuse as well as other corrupt practices in local government. (Another reason why she opposes Donald Trump and Haley Barbour). A devotee and performer on Celtic Harp she has also presented discussions on topics of Irish history and music at the Fargo/Moorhead Celtic Festival. She and her late husband, Clyde Morris, homeschooled their three children, now grown and also published authors and musicians.

  1. Your views are typical of everyone that opposes the COS.

    It is in the constitution and it is a convention to consider amendments..NOT a constitutional convention.

    Congress can initiate amendments so why not the states ? Why do you trust the states less than congress in DC which is where the problem is ? DC will not fix itself, only the states can.

    And in the unlikely event that we do get a bad idea suggested as amendment then 37 states have to ratify it so it would only take 14 states to stop a bad amendment from being ratified,

    And if you believe that we are so far gone that we don’t have 14 states that will stop a bad idea then the nation is gone anyways.

    The COS is a terrific idea and the last peaceful way of restoring power to the states. Some great men from George Mason to Eisenhower to Friedman to Reagan and yes now to Levin and Lee and Rubio and Cruz and many others are firmly behind this. We have studied this at length and the potential benefits far outweigh the risks.

    Electing more republicans is not the answer. The COS is and being paranoid and afraid of a runaway convention is cowardice. We already have a runaway convention everyday in DC with no end in sight and they will never do anything in DC to fix the problems.

    Only we the people in the states will and this train is gathering steam nationwide. I am volunteer and firmly support this as the best answer.

    1. I am replying to this message only because it is early in the list. I am not alone in my concern about this. Many highly respected jurists and writers agree with my assessment. Your parsing of words with respect to “constitutional convention” vs. “convention of states” is empty and, I will just say, silly.

      I am offering you another opinion on this matter – from Justice Warren Burger on the problem of controlling the agenda. It is worth reading. Then you can call him names as well. That’s up to you.

      I did not agree with Phyllis Schlafley when she endorsed Trump. I have probably disagreed with a few other things, none of them fundamental, all of them matters of personal preference. On this fundamental and all-important issue, she and many others have given it years of thoughtful consideration. She has written eloquently on this and copiously. You might want to read her comments as well.

      In the meantime, for your further edification:

      Here, for your edification:

          1. 1) Where has this been shown?
            2) No doubt. The speculation may or may not be true, but either way that does not take away from the fact that the Chief Justice was jealous of his elitist power which is in truth can and should
            be trumped by the will of the people, if they are bold enough and intelligent enough to claim their rights. BTW, you don’t strike me as the type that believes in penumbras and emanations.

    2. And your statements are nothing more that tired talking points handed out by the demonstrated liars at COS. Exactly how is a BBA with so many exceptions in it to make it worthless going to save the country? There isn’t one solid proposal that they are proposing that will turn this country around, not one worth opening up the constitution for surgery. Why can’t the COS even be honest about all of the liberals that are going to participate in the process or how many grassroots conservatives are opposing this? Why does COS not talk about Hawaii working on resolutions to repeal the 2nd amendment and to end the electoral college? Stop spreading fairy dust around, and stop acting like you actually give a damn about the constitution and the founders, if you did you wouldn’t think they made so many mistakes that the constitution needs to be fixed.

  2. Electing more Republicans is, of course, NOT the answer, and never really was. I have argued this point for many years against people who worship the letter “R” and vote for anything that runs with that letter after its name. That does not change the fact that it is not our Constitution which is at fault for our problems. It is deviating from that Constitution which has caused the problems. This means, ipso facto, that simply ditching it and writing another won’t fix the problem. Serious people who are learned and know the Constitution and know what they are talking about – and don’t have an axe to grind or a a book to sell – have weighed in with the educated opinion that there is no way to contain such a convention of states. As you well know, or should, the original Constitutional Convention was not intended to scrap the Articles of Confederation but to “amend” them. The rest is history. Only if we did this today we would have none of the public-minded, selfless intellects that were meeting in Philadelphia in 1787. We have been extraordinarily fortunate – we have had the best minds, tested by revolution and reconstruction, tempered by the growing pains of a new nation, forming the basis of our freedom. There is nothing wrong with our Constitution, sir. What is wrong is that people have decided to vote for lessers of evils rather than men and women of character and conviction. Nothing illustrates the problem more concisely than this past election year – where we had one candidate in a field of 17 who actually was conversant with the Constitution and instead voters across the nation took the opportunity to pick from the cafeteria line and we ended up not with the man who cared about our laws and our Constitution, but rather an obscene clown who has been in bed with the Clintons for the entire 30 years he claims she should have been doing things differently.

    We cannot simply get a group of conservatives together to rewrite the Constitution and come out with something better than Madison’s and Hamilton’s and Franklin’s product. We should look at what has been happening of late – right now Barack Obama is still the most popular guy on the block. We are not going to see any such convention of states dominated by conservatives or even see conservatives likely proportionally represented. There is NOTHING “cowardly” about seeking to preserve liberty and the Constitution which is our very best hope going forward of returning to it. There is nothing “cowardly” about not walking into a fire or not walking off the edge of a cliff – that is called “survival skills” and “intelligence”. Those who fight to protect the Constitution must show a great deal more courage than those who seek to hang the blame for people’s failures on the Constitution. The simple fact is we have not been living under the Law of the Land. If we return to living under it we will see a return of freedom and wealth – the same formula that worked in 1787 to launch a great nation will serve to restore it to greatness and provide a model for others willing to follow.

    I have some experience dealing with states as well. Just because something initiates there does not make it necessarily viable for the nation. I believe states should be taking more responsibility for their own state policies and programs. I do not believe they are in a good position to know what is good in another state or in the nation as a whole. This is the whole basic idea of federalism – which I wholeheartedly support: that states are responsible for all policies and practices not related to those set apart in THIS Constitution (ours, written in 1787, that is) for the federal government. So far we have continued to send to Washington people who have abdicated in those areas meant for them to govern – such as the national debt and monetary policy, military programs, borders and national defense – and have forayed into areas where they do NOT belong – such as health care, education, social services, energy, etc. We need to school these congressmen as to their duties and we do this by first telling them and then voting in accordance with what we say and what they do.

    All of this is predicated upon educating our sons and daughters about our Constitution in the first place. This is best done at home, apparently. Parents drop their kids off at the school house door and let others, less capable and dedicated than themselves, “teach” them. Laziness is a far bigger problem in America than any omissions in our Constitution.

    Here’s a deal: we should first try living by the terms of our present Constitution and see how that works before we cook up another one. I think Mike Lee and Ted Cruz and others would agree with this idea.

  3. It is sad to see someone write an article that is so misinformed and so foolish. Think with the great gift of the mind that God gave you!

    How can I be more clear. An Article 5 Convention of the States has nothing to do with a Constitutional Convention. To say otherwise is to present a grave untruth. It is a Constitutional right, granted by the Founding Fathers, as a method to rein in the Federal Government if it oversteps its delegated powers.

    The US Constitution gives us 2 methods to propose amendments to the Constitution: one method is Congress proposing them, the other method is State Legislatures proposing them. After that, the ratification process is identical. What can more simple than that? Why create fear and loathing over such a simple process? Congress is just as free as the State Legislatures to propose dangerous or unwise amendments. And, no matter where they originate, no amendment can become part of the Constitution without the ratification of three-fourths of the States. And that has always been our safeguard.

    Meanwhile, as many others have pointed out, Congress, the Administration, the Courts and the Federal Bureaucracy itself convene a continual Constitutional Convention, creating new powers and authority for themselves, almost on a daily basis, that is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution itself. So where is the check against Federal tyranny? It is with the States, and with the people themselves, through their State Legislators. You say you do not trust your friends and neighbors, but you do trust Washington D.C., with all its corruption and entrenched moneyed interests, who are stealing the life blood of the American people? I pity such a mindset.

    Every day the circle of Liberty around each individual grows smaller and smaller, as the Federal leviathan grows larger and more powerful. Let us not become caught up in distortions and misconceptions, but be sober, and of sound mind. The time is short, and together we must act to offer common sense amendments to help restore the essence of limited government and individual liberty, that go hand in hand with economic prosperity.


    Thomas Cosgrove

    1. Mr. Cosgrove, please post your reference for the following statement, “…granted by the Founding Fathers, as a method to rein in the Federal Government if it oversteps its delegated powers” Provide PROOF of this.

      1. Dear Shawn,

        At first glance it would appear futile to engage myself on your playing field. Nevertheless, I will say this. The Founding Fathers would not have crafted and approved a method for the States to be able to propose amendments to the Constitution if they felt the National government was fully capable of restraining itself from over-stepping its constitutionally restricted bounds. The States delegated certain enumerated powers to the National government. And Article 5 enables the States to act if and when the National government takes unto itself powers that were never delegated to it. Go ahead, and challenge me if you’d like. An honest perusal of the historical record, by even a casual observer, will certainly show the truth. And besides all of that, exactly what is your point? Where do you stand on the issue of encouraging the State Legislatures to offer amendments to the US Constitution? If you are against the Article 5 Convention of the States movement, let us know why, and explain it to us in clear concise terms.


        Thomas Cosgrove

        1. As Thomas Consgrove stated, why else would the writers include the second method, surely not to just use up the ink left in the quill.
          The founders would have stressed the need for section 2 of Article V even more, if they would have anticipated passage of the seventeenth amendment (direct election of Senators) but they recognized section 2 as a being a counter to an oppressive central government, both during the passage at the convention and later at the ratification debates in the states:
          James Madison, in 1787, Madison’s notes of debate at the convention:
          “Col: MASON thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” (See Madison’s notes 15 Sep 1787).

          Alexander Hamilton in 1788 from Federalist 85:
          “In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed. For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account, alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated. I also think there is little weight in it on another account. The intrinsic difficulty of governing THIRTEEN STATES at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”

          James Madison in 1830 in a letter to Edward Everett, after extolling the virtues of the separation of powers in checking the potential of abuse of authority of the Federal Government:
          “Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Government and rights of the States against usurpations (sic) and abuses on the part of the United States the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment of the Constitution according to a process applicable by the States.”

          1. This only applies to fixing defects where the feds refused to allow for amendments. You all are hung up on what Mason WANTED while ignoring what he GOT. Read his proposal from 11 Jun 1787 in Madison’s notes.

            Changes in the Constitution can not in any way control the government. That is clear.

            Once COSP starts telling the truth about the laws surrounding Article V and their dishonest marketing of the idea, we can have a credible debate. However, so long as they distort and lie about the words of the Founders, such debate shall not occur.

            See what they did to Thomas Jefferson:

          2. SM, I’ve read Mason’s proposal from 11 June, 1787 several times. Mason’s proposal of 11 June is even plainer in meaning as to the purpose for the states to have the ability to directly propose amendments to control the federal government that the congress will not propose at cross purpose to their own power. This is certainly plain in Madison’s contention in 1830 that section 2 of article V is the last constitutional means to do so. The fact that Mason did not get everything he wanted (he actually wanted a second general convention prior to ratification) and did not sign the constitution does not take away from the fact that the purpose for section 2 was for the states to independently propose amendments in the event the federal government would not fix controls upon its own powers. You asked for examples of where the founding fathers indicated this intent and there are three state for you above, verifying that intent. This clearly was understood to be the purpose at the time of proposal and ratification if you take the plain meaning of Madison’s and Hamilton’s words.

            You are the one twisting the words of Thomas Jefferson, not Ken Ivory. In his letter of 23 December 1791 Jefferson said this: ” I wish to preserve the line drawn by the federal constitution between the general and particular governments as it stands at present and to take every prudent means of preventing either from stepping over it.” That “line between the general and particular government” has been obliterated by 100 years progressive government incrementally chipping away at that line. Jefferson also said in his letter “Then it is important to strengthen the state governments: and as this cannot be done by any change in the federal constitution, (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for,) it must be done by the states themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the general government.” The change in the constitution, from what was originally conceived, has already taken place and article V is the tool that the states have been given to contend for that preservation.

            The only constitutionally “prudent” way left to us, is as Madison stated, ” Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Government and rights of the States against usurpations (sic) and abuses on the part of the United States the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment of the Constitution according to a process applicable by the States.”

            Here is a link to a full citation of Jefferson’s letter (which I notice you did not provide in your criticism of Mr. Ivory). Let others decide their own opinion upon review of the entire document:

  4. I’d like to see some names of a couple of dozen potential convention deligates. Who will New York and California send? Who would you imagine Minnesota and Illinois might send? We know the sort of people these places have been sending to Washington. If that’s not what I should go by, as I try to imagine who will be attending this assembly, then tell me who you think we should trust with this heaviest of responsibilities.

    Scoundrels aren’t going to propose the amendments you want, yet they will be what someone, (The Chamber of Commerce, The SEIU, etc.) will want.

    Suppose coming out of this convention we behold a number of amendments you and I would rather not see ratified. Who will help us stop the runaway train? Mark Levin? The Christain bakers? The Evangelicals?

    1. Thank you for your wisdom, Mr. Dobbs. You see clearly the dangers that Mr. Cosgrove is blind to. I would suggest that Mr. Cosgrove and others like-minded should google or otherwise research the efforts of the leftists and one-worlders. Read up on the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.

      Take a look at who ran your state conventions. Take a hard look at the national conventions of both parties and their leadership. Take a look at this Congress you dislike, these courts, these bureaucrats. These people will be your “spokesmen” at such a convention. Our Constitution has been seen by them as an impediment. Obama himself said as much. It is not nearly the impediment it could be if we required that our representatives lived by the oath they took to it.

      Our resolve fades every election year – just like Mark Levin’s did this year. THIS IS WHY WE ARE NOT LIVING UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION! If you want to straighten out the mess we are in, then vote against people who will increase the mess as soon as you discover them. If a candidate runs as a “conservative” and then supports Democrat spending, etc., vote against him at the next election. Even if you replace him with a Democrat. The Democrat can’t do worse than support Obama-esque policy, which is what your “conservative” did. ND’s Kevin Cramer is a perfect example of this kind of turncoat. He should have been run out of office in his second bid for election. He wasn’t. The “lesser of evils” rule kicked in. So he will remain until we decide to break that rule. Spending and spending like a drunken Democrat.

      When we vote for a Donald Trump we are voting for someone who has stated that he will double Hillary’s spending on “infrastructure” (read “graft”).

      The people who are looking at the Constitution and seeing an “impediment” or a “restrictive document” are the people who WILL be running any kind of “convention of states”. Look at your city council, your state government. Only you can clean this up and sending THEM to represent you at a “convention of states” will NOT. It will cast in cement the very institutions that have been robbing us – both of our money and of our liberty. It is like taking down a fence that has been neglected and expecting that you can keep the cattle in. You want to strengthen it – not tear it down and start over. We are blessed with a Constitution which, if we insist that it be followed to the letter, will protect us and our liberty and our children. If we throw this out and start over in the climate we see today – of “what can I get from the government?”, not that of 1787 – of “how can we make this work and remain free?” we will institute the same kind of government that anger and greed always do – such as the French Revolution gave us, or the Russian Revolution gave us, or the revolt against the Weimar Republic gave us.

      We all think we could have done everything better. But we WON’T BE doing it – the people who have been clever enough to create spending programs will. The ystupidity and arrogance of those who think they are one up on Washington, Madison and Hamilton is breathtaking.

  5. +1 to Maneesh

    Respectfully Ms. Morris, I think your whole premise is wrong. American liberty isn’t just an ill patient; it’s on life support with vitals clearly dropping. Our struggle is not a “light and transient” cause listed in the Declaration of Independence. Our current course of action will inevitably lead to liberty’s complete demise within one generation.

    Extreme medical intervention might save it but only if we act soon. In the event that the intervention (convention of states) accelerates it’s impending death that was inevitable anyway, that’s where we Christians must place our faith in the resurrection and our hope in a belief that God has a special plan for America.

    And for goodness’ sake if there’s gunna be a fight, let it occur when each of us here is still energetic enough to engage in it; rather than pushing an impossible and lost fight off to our kids.

    In a perfect world, yes, everyone would replace politicians who disregard the constitution and there would be no need for an amendments convention to wrest power from the feds and back to the states where it belongs. But obviously that’s not the world we live in. Based on the trajectory and momentum of the anti-freedom crowd (including some “right-wing” populists), what’s left of unalienable rights won’t last too much longer, and that utopian political solution of voting tyrants and socialists out won’t ever be a reality on a national level.

    Freedom-minded constitutional adherents have already lost the national vote, as evidenced by the fact that near 50% of Americans pay no income tax while receiving government “entitlements”. That’s clearly only going to get worse with time. But at least as for now, freedom-minded folk still have strong majorities in state governments.

    THAT’S the reason liberals are not talking about it. Even if they do have some giant conspiratorial convention of states planned, they realize now would obviously be a losing time for them to try it. But it is likely our last chance to win it.

    In ten years time it will likely be too far gone for even the states to fix. There will have been more federal government overreach, possibly two terms of Hillary, an overwhelmingly liberal Supreme Court stacked with Hillary appointees with lifetime tenure (now that it appears Democrats will take the Senate), and an exponential increase in illegal immigrants entering the country and raising citizen children (future voters) with little understanding of how America’s separation of powers, limited government, and unalienable God-given rights were supposed to work. Heck, even the average multi-generational American youth has no clue why the Declaration of Independence was so special and why our Constitution is unlike anything human history has ever seen.

    We’ve simply run out of time to save liberty through your listed conventional election means. Look at the direction of our country. What do we have to lose with a convention of the states? You can’t lose something that’s already missing.

    Freedom is hanging by a thread. Liberty is on life support. If there’s a supposed liberal globalist cabal that’s ready for a fight, then let them BRING IT! Either the freedom-loving people of the states are ready for that fight too, or the death of the Republic was already a foregone conclusion. Either way, I don’t want to push that battle (that soon may be impossible to win) onto my children.

  6. Article 5 allows for the Congress as well as the States to call for a Convention of States to offer Amendments. I would remind the writer that the bar is high for adoption of amendments and ratification by the States. The Constitution has been amended successfully 27 times via the Congressional Amendment Process. The Courts have had a significant impact on interpretations of the Constitution as well via Judicial activism.

    The assertion that 3/4 of the States would agree, via ratification, removing or limiting existing Constitutional Rights is questionable if not entirely incorrect. The delegates would be selected by the State Legislatures. The State Legislatures elected representatives, being much closer to those they represent, will find themselves more accountable than our entrenched Political Aristocracy in Washington. The assumption that they would buck the “will of the people” in such a way to subjugate the Citizen is also unlikely in my view.

    The mechanism was established by the Founders to allow for the States to consider and address concerns such as a Federal Balanced Budget, a repeal of the 17th Amendment returning a level of Federalism back to the Senate by providing State representation as the Founder’s designed, limiting Federal Spending to a percentage of GDP or limiting tax rates to disallow the Government from confiscatory taxation rates.

    I can see where the Executive with his pen and phone, Congress, the Courts, the unaccountable bureaucracies are leading this Republic and I for one will support an Article V Convention of States. I believe the rewards of action will out perform the latency of sitting back and enduring more soft tyranny and expansion of Federal control.

    If you have a better, lawful and effective way to reign in this all consuming Federal levitation I am all ears. As for the Left being prepared for such an event, my instincts tell me they don’t talk about it since they would be the minority in such an activity. As of 2015 Democrats controlled on 11 of the State Legislatures. Hardly a lion at the State level since 2009 more of a mouse at this juncture.

    1. With all due respect, the states are perfectly able to bring about some very stupid and ill-conceived ideas. You have mentioned the 17th Amendment. This is a very good example. The founders crafted the Constitution to protect the sovereign states’ powers and responsibilities and limit the central government. They understood that state legislatures would be inclined to continue to support states’ functions under federalism. Unfortunately, in another era, another wrong-headed populist movement brought us “popular election of senators”. Sounds great, right? “Popular election”? Who could argue against this? But it gutted federalism. I am all in favor of supporting well thought out amendments – one of which would be to repeal this 17th Amendment, and several others, taken up individually, which were brought in with Progressivism in the late 19th, early 20th Centuries. The states have every right to propose amendments. Just as with immigration, however, they are best taken one at a time, and in the usual way. You have described how states can do this. I do not object to states proposing amendments just as any other laws or policies they wish, to be considered by the other 49 states. I do NOT support a convention of states convening to throw everything including the kitchen sink at the wall to see what they can get to stick.

      And don’t try to beguile yourself into believing that the leftists and globalists will not be the directors of such a convention. Before you get your boots on they will be halfway there. Don’t doubt me on this, as Limbaugh would say. They already have their checklist in hand, with no discussion necessary. They have already held their meetings. They know what they want and they are pursuing it every day. A convention such as this would only put it on steroids. The hubris you express here is an unfortunate condition which will play into the hands of those who also think you have a great idea there – the leftists. Right now, the climate of our country is such that we have many cities implementing Sharia-coompliancy, we have local and state ordinances promoting gender confusion. We have experienced activists on the Left, just as we have naive and innocent “activists” of recent birth on the Right.

      I am perhaps the most conservative and Constitutionally interested person who will ever correspond with you, directly or otherwise. We probably share the same frustration and disappointment with many who should be better representing us. But quite possibly I have read more about this than many who support this folly, and I am in favor of a massive cleanup. But I also recognize what the problem is – people just like Mark Levin, whom you follow, who knows better but will endorse a man who is, if anything, farther left than Hillary Clinton. There! I said it! And I mean it. We do not improve our country or promote our culture by standing behind a man who has already said he would DOUBLE Hillary’s spending on “infrastructure” (which is a great place to build in graft), a man who wants single-payer, universal healthcare. A man who says he believes in man-made global climate change and will subsidize (with our money) every kooky environmentalist con that comes his way – windfarms to corn subsidies. A man who thinks Planned Parenthood has done great work. A man whose idea for job creation is to slap crippling tariffs on everything not made here (which, again, you and I will be paying) while crippling at the same time the employers with mandated daycare and forced payed time off for maternity leave – as well as the many burdens already carried by them, some, like healthcare, expanded by his plans. This is not the solution to our problems. As Reagan once said, government IS the problem, and Trump likes big government and always has, which is why he funded so many far left candidates. Which is probably why he is appealing to such fans as Michael Moore. And, apparently, Mark Levin, who will attack anyone who challenges him like a pitbull. This is your Article V guy. I used to listen to him too. No longer. So keep tuned in. Keep studying this. Maybe you will eventually learn more about organizations such as the Rockefeller foundation and the Ford Foundation.

      In the meantime, until you come to me with a real argument as to why we should take such a risk in such an environment as we have today, rather than throwing liberals and phonies out of office and trying the normal way first, I will maintain that this is a risky, foolish and likely suicidal move for conservatives. Believe, if you don’t believe anything else, that this will be run by globalists and liberals. Not conservatives. Just as always, they will stay home, arguing that someone needs to pay the bills. That’s what my dad used to say. That’s why he influenced NO ONE at the state legislature, or Congress. That is the theme song of Conservatives. So forget the idea that they, unprepared as they are to do battle with these people, will even have an appreciable presence at such a convention.

      I will say it one more time for you: It is not the Constitution that is the problem. If we voted people out or refused to elect people to office who are unwilling to live up to the oath they take to uphold and protect it, the problem is us. No re-do of the Constitution will matter if we don’t follow what we have now. It’s as if we had a speed zone with a limit of 35 mph. If everyone ignores it and we are all at risk, should we enforce that speed limit or set one for 25 mph, or 50 mph instead? I’d say enforce what we have and see how it works that way. In this case that means to quit voting for the lesser of evils. Unless we want a one-party system, we need to hold conservatives to our standards. Not Washington’s. If you look at the career of Kevin Cramer of North Dakota you will find such a Congressman. He talked like a true conservative, had a record of state service that appeared to prove it, then he went to Washington and has received Heritage Action scores in the 40’s. He has become a liberal lapdog. He should be voted out of office but no one is willing to put up with 2 years of a Democrat to clean this up. So we will have a Republican doing Democrats’ work forever. This is the problem – not our Constitution. That can be amended one item at a time. I would work with you anytime on repealing the 17th Amendment and returning state’s responsibilities to the states. I will fight to the death against an Article V convention. We have cell phones and computers. We can communicate our ideas. Let’s be sane and do what we think we must without tearing up our Constitution.

      1. Dear Sally,

        With all due respect, it appears that you have some misconceptions about what an Article 5 Convention of the States really is. The States have no more capability of creating a General Constitutional Convention, opening up the entire Constitution for revision, than Congress itself has. I do not understand why you keep implying that this will happen. The Constitution allows States to offer amendments. It also allows Congress to offer amendments. Other than that, there are really no differences and both methods must be ratified or defeated in the same exact manner, through the State Legislatures. It is not possible, as you keep alluding to, to create a runaway Convention. The runaway Convention is already taking place at the Federal level as I mentioned in an earlier post.

        Also, you mentioned the idea of offering an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment. This is exactly the kind of amendment the States would likely offer, but the Congress with all its entrenched interests would never offer. It is really just that simple. Amendments for term limits for Congress as well as the Supreme Court are very substantial proposals for the purpose of reining in the overreaching power of the Federal Government. Amendments to help restore the concept of limited government, especially those designed to clarify and reinforce the concept of limiting the Federal Government to only those powers that were originally delegated to it by the States, are the very essence of what can be achieved by an Article 5 Convention of the States. Let me repeat: the States can only offer amendments, just as Congress can only offer amendments.

        Don’t worry about all the liberal/progressive/socialist/communist types infiltrating the amendment process—they have already taken over the Federal Government and are crushing the spirit of Liberty more and more every day. That is what we should be very worried about! They could care less about the Constitution. They ignore it as much as they possibly can, or use it in a perverted way when it suits their needs. So what are “We the People” to do about it? Elect better people to the Federal offices? No, we must rein in the power of the Federal Government. And we must do it in a legal, Constitutional manner, through an Article 5 Convention of the States.

        One last thought. It takes three quarters of the States to ratify any amendment. That is a very high bar, and one of the reasons why so few amendments have been successful in the almost 230 years since our Founding Fathers crafted our Constitution. Let us pray for wisdom to guide our Nation, and let us not forget to put our Trust in God. For without the blessings of Heaven, I fear we will not be able to withstand the great challenges that lie ahead.

        With sincere regards,

        Thomas Cosgrove

        1. Mr. Cosgrove, it is you sir that is terribly wrong on many things regarding Article V.

          Please paste the text from the Constitution that reads how Article 5 provides for a, “Convention of the States”

          You write, “The States have no more capability of creating a General Constitutional Convention, opening up the entire Constitution for revision, than Congress itself has.”

          Apparently you have not studied the 1787 precedent. I suggest you read the actual delegate commissions to 1787 and the various journals which describe ratification. 26-27 September 1787, Congress debated censuring the convention delegates for exceeding their authority. It is clearly admitted in Federalist 40 that they did. Ratification required under Article 13 of the AOC was ignored. It will happen again

          You also wrote, “The Constitution allows States to offer amendments.” Please show your reference for this. If you were to actually do your homework, you’d learn that only the convention offers amendments. Pre-written and approved amendments are invalid as they usurp the deliberative nature of the convention. Delegates may not be controlled or recalled by states. They may not be punished. You’ve really been lied to.

    2. 2SLIM, please provide your source reference for this statement, “The mechanism was established by the Founders to allow for the States to consider….”

      You’ll realize that is a lie when you consult George Mason’s comments from 11 Jun 1787 in Madison’s Journal.

  7. Allow me to appologise in advance for weighing in yet again to say essentially the same thing. A year ago these arguments for getting together to propose constitional ammendments would have sounded a whole lot better, and I expect they’ll sound a whole lot worse by Armistice Day. Lets then count how many state legislatures the Republicans will control in January. As it is, I would guess the vast majority of those in favor of convening this assembly would also favor closed as opposed to open primaries. I live in Mississippi. I’m guessing a number of you will have heard something of the story of how Thad Cochran made it back to the Senate for yet another term. If you don’t like the idea of large numbers of Democrats crossing over to help us pick our nominees you have only to take on the Reince Priebus–Mitch McConnell tiny yet apparently all-powerful faction now in charge of the GOP.

    Is that too petty a task for you big thinkers? Or would that be much too great a task? My guess is it’s both. I mean, come on. I feel like we’re all a part of a crowd brought back to fill the chairs they reserve for victims of large scale swindles at the police station. We’ve all been here before and again none of us have the cab fare to ger home so here we sit, waiting for the RNC Detective to deliver us yet another post-election autopsy once he can get over the giggles. Overly ambitious plans at this point, on our part, would eem a little out of place.

    This has been one of the things that’s bothered me about Mark Levin. He comes at everything as an attorney, and this Article five shindig is a lawyer’s project if ever there was one. With him the fact that we’re all sitting here mired in the aftermath of the Trump adventure doesn’t seem to phase him. It’s lik our problem is we haven’t thought big enough.

    1. Mr. Dobbs has an excellent point. Conservatives were unable to even gain control of the Republican Party, and also they flubbed big-time the RNC Convention – they were tied in knots by Priebus. They screwed up the primaries and the state conventions. We ended up, in a year when a perfect storm dictated a conservative landslide victory and a path home to constitutional government, with a nut and lifelong Democrat at the top of the Republican ticket. Anyone who has the amazing and unwarranted optimism to think that an “Article V Convention of States” – in otherwords, a Constitutional Convention – would provide a better outcome – where people who ADMIT to being Democrats and Socialists will have seats at the table – is certifiably insane.

      Yes. I do agree with an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment. So get to work in your state and get it started. I’ll bet you could spend some time educating people in your state legislature and get positive results. People did not and do not understand the pivotal importance of the 17th Amendment. Do these one at a time and forget the Article V convention. It was always a terrible idea. Mark Levin has done some good things. I’ve read several of his books. However, he is not infallible. With his push for the Article V convention he has done a disservice. People have been angry and frustrated, they have been tested beyond normal endurance by the leadership of the Republican Party, which was supposed to be a party of opposition to the Democrats’ ideas – at least the majority of the time, when they are bad ones. They have failed. The question is why.

      The answer to that question is that people – exactly like Mark Levin – have supported people who do not stand up to Democrats but instead make deals with them. If you were a RINO candidate and Levin were lambasting you every day on his show and calling everyone out to oppose you, you would sleep soundly in the knowledge that once it was just between you and the “D” candidate, that “R” would be your magic key – and Levin would call on everyone to get out and support you. This is the basis for our problem. People had to admit that it is them and their fault. It is their fault.

      When you need “term limits” to keep you from re-electing someone you have shown that you are not ready to govern yourselves. You have shown that you need training wheels and bibs and pacifiers. The right way to do this is to work hard to elect someone who will support the values and prinicples you cherish. Get him elected. Watch what he does. Call once or twice a week when there is an important bill before Congress. Then evaluate his peformance on his voting record. If it does not measure up, forget the issue of incumbancy. Get rid of him in a vigorous primary. If you fail to get rid of him there then you must vote him out of office in a general election. That is the painful part. That is what separates the men from the boys. Then spend the entire term of the Democrat you had to elect to get a solid candidate to replace him in the next election. Yes, it is the “hard” way to do things. But remember, self-government is the hardest kind. It is also the best and the most rewarding!

      If you get a good, constitutional, dedicated and selfless member of Congress or the Senate, it would be nothing less than idiotic to have some sledge hammer of “term limits” to force you to get rid of him. We just need to ensure that the right people are elected. And the wrong ones are defeated in elections. We have ALWAYS HAD TERM LIMITS. They are known as “election day”.

      The easy answer is not usually the best one. Term limits have been suggested by people who cannot make themselves do the right thing on their own. Like Mr. Levin. I respect his work for what is good and his courage in speaking out. I deplore his misleading ideas and his failure to recognize when we need to quit worshiping the mighty “R”.

  8. This has to be one of the most misinformed articles ever published on this site. If we are to stand as a conservative party, meaning to conserve the constitution, then we have to have a COS directly after the party is formed. This will right the balance of the states vs. the federal government. Just like we need a new conservative party we need to ensure the states have their voice. The fact that liberals/socialists will try to co-opt it doesn’t matter especially with the overwhelming majority of Red state houses.

    Sally, please educate yourself before making such outlandish claims about something you clearly have no knowledge of.

      1. I will say without reservation that this article has brought out some of the most misinformed and ill-considered comments of any I have written.

        I don’t wish to insult anyone here, but the idea that we can only “fix” things with a massive Article V convention is ludicrous. This kind of gathering will reel out of control immediately. Little time will be devoted on the part of any stray conservatives involved to considering the long-range effects of changes individuals wish to make. It is likely – no – certain to be a populist-driven movement. We saw in the terrible Progressive amendments the dangers of rushing into these things pell-mell. Take the 17th Amendment as a perfect example. There are many others from this era but this one is an excellent example. I am 100% in favor of repealing this amendment on structural grounds. It would serve to strengthen our federalist system, just as putting it in force in the first place weakened it. The popular election of senators was popular among people just like those calling for this convention. It sounded great. “Term limits” SOUND great. “Balanced budget amendments” SOUND great. But in these amendments are long-range and perhaps unintended effects, just as was the case with the popular election of senators. I don’t think the repeal of the 17th Amendment is justified because our state legislatures are any better than the rest of our government, but I support it and it is justified on these structural grounds because we can perhaps motivate our state legislatures to take the responsibility that is rightfully theirs and that this method will encourage state responsibility and state rights.

        The many corrections we can make should be made, of course, but one at a bloody time, not in a free-for-all involving every element that has been dragging us into the mess we are in. I would not say that we had done very well as a “tea party movement” when the apex of this movement seems to have been to nominate a Democrat and a far left one at that to head our national ticket. The Tea Party movement has been married to the Republican Party – a sort of marriage of convenience. It cannot be said to have influenced this party one whit. The Republican Party is no better than before the Tea Party movement existed. It is exactly the same as it was since it attempted to force Gerald Ford on us. Only it is stronger now than it was then relative to conservatives.

        I do not argue the need to clean up the mess that Populists and Progressives made of our Constitution! But the most foolish and uninformed thing we could possibly do is invite the involvement of the people who have been in charge. You will not be able to challenge them for the running of such a convention. Instead of a glorious, dusted-off, polished-up, restoration of our liberty and our fiscal responsibility, you will have the Newstates of America. You will have exactly what the globalilsts WANT you to have. Nothing more. Nothing better. Your hopes of a Constitutional revival and restoration will come to disaster. I probably want many of the same RESULTS you want. I have been campaigning for them likely since you two were in diapers. No kidding. I have read a lot of history. I have read a lot of RECENT history, and a lot of it has not been mainstreamed. A lot of it is work quietly done to undermine our Constitution and our sovereignty and I hate it. I also know that the goal of those who would foist this off on us is to see us call such a convention and they know we cannot keep them out.

        How successful were we in nominating a constitutional conservative this time? Not very. The gray men in the RNC did not order it so. If you could not overcome even those little people, what on earth makes you think that you can overcome them joined by the rest of the RINOs, the one-worlders, the chamber of commerce, the Democrats and Socialists, the Environmentalists, the gender-deviate advocates, the gun-grabbers, the Communists, the Islamists (you can be sure that CAIR will take part), Black Lives Matter and the whole circus of misguided and anti-American activists. You and your tea party neighbors will be powerless. You are, in effect, inviting a biker gang to your daughter’s wedding. If this sounds good to you, check into a mental institution right away and get the care you obviously need. I don’t mean that in a bad way.

        I hope that any more comments will come up with something new. I have already heard your opinion that I am “misinformed”. I am not. I have answered this charge and it is getting boring as one after another of you, all convinced you know something relevant that I don’t, weigh in with the same comment, re-worded slightly. If you have a new idea on this or – here is an idea for you – if you can, answer why we don’t take each amendment we think proper one at a time and do it on our end instead of holding a monster meeting of every Tom, Dick and Harry on the far left to take a hand in formulating them. Tell my why we can’t consider these one at a time, including possible side-effects, desirable and otherwise to it. Are you terminal? Will you die tomorrow? If not, or if you are and you are not the only important American in the world, let’s take our time and do this right. Let’s debate and discuss each resolution and give it its due consideration. Let’s explore its possible ramifications fully. Let’s see how WE want it to read, then propose away. One problem with conservatives is they want instant gratification, while leftists will work on their agenda for decades, generations, even. They keep their focus. This is why they dominate us year after year. If we could maintain our focus past any given election year, we could get this done. Their focus is why they are dangerous, and why they WILL control any such Article V convention. If you can’t even shepherd a simple resolution through to repeal the 17th Amendment, what makes you think you can re-do the Constitution? And you can believe that it will all be on the table when the gavel comes down. So come back with something new to add or don’t bother. I will make a further prediction you won’ t like: unless you can focus on an agenda and do the hard work to get things right, any new party comprised of the instant gratification crowd – including you, apparently, will be doomed to travel the same trail as the Republican Party. It, too, will be taken over by those who have the focus. If you couldn’t even best Reince Priebus you are not going to win the war with the rest of these groups.

        And, no offense, Mr. Levin, but you might have done more for America by championing conservatives who challenged RINOs than by selling your books on up-ending the Constitution. Try to help get a Matt Bevin elected. Quit standing back and being “objective”. I remember you chuckling with glee about Trump’s offensive comments because they were “politically incorrect”, while he was gaining ground with the help of open primaries and leftists to overtake genuine conservative candidates. You should have had no time at all for any candidate other than Cruz, just on the basis of your supposed devotion to the Constitution. You missed many opportunities to help true conservatives. If people act on the proposals in your book you will have done a great deal to damage the republic.

  9. The federal gov’t is the nations largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health care provider, and pension guarantor.
    What it doesn’t own it regulates, like most things in your bathroom, your laundry room, and your kitchen, as well as your home mortgage.
    It designs your automobile and dictates the type fuel it uses. It regulates your baby’s toys, crib, and stroller.
    It plans your children’s school curriculum, lunch menu, and college loans.
    The government in the workplace oversees the racial, gender and age diversity as well as the hours, wages and benefits paid.
    The Federal Gov’t consumes nearly 25% of all the goods and services produced each year by the American people.
    When unfunded liabilities are included, there is not enough money on the planet to make good on the federal governments financial obligations.
    Does anybody think the Fed Gov’t will willingly let go of the power it has claimed?
    Congress’ approval rating is as low as 8%. But re-election rate for last election was 90% for the House and 91% for the Senate.

    We need to realize that the structure of the decision-making process matters. Who decides what the law shall be is even more important than what is decided. The protection of liberty requires a strict adherence to the principle that power is limited and delegated.

    Yes, we need more Constitutional conservatives at all levels of government. But the real solution is not a people solution, but a structure solution.

    It’s been said that Washington, DC changes conservatives far more than conservatives change Washington, DC.

    We must be proactive. The time to act is now. A Convention of Staes is most certainly NOT an unqualified disaster.

    “for proposing amendments” – says nothing about re-writing the Constitution.

  10. More propaganda here found on this site.

    To use the founders names who unanimously approved Article V for the states (We the People) to take action when feds were out of control is heretical and insulting. The first Article V COS applications (Va and NY) forced the feds to provide the Bill of Rights. Why not use your energy to fight for liberty not obstruct it with more status quo. Is it not obvious that major systematic changes are needed. What do you propose to slow the debt, corruption, and explosion in DC? More of the same? Insane. Why would 8 of the most conservative gun loving states already approved the convention of states resolution if they were not assured of the protections included in Article V. 38 states (both houses) are required to ratify. That means 75/76 state houses out of 99 are needed to ratify any PROPOSAL passed by COS. Wake up out of your self serving and arrogant positions and use all of the tools We the People have to protect and restore liberty.

  11. This article starts with a lie, we need to address it:

    “undo the work of James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, William Livingston and other founders.”

    1. I was at a sponsored simulation of a COS – and of the 50 people there, only 1 I felt was a threat to the original document.

      All our energy was devoted to returning to the way it worked, only one one wanted a deviation – he was easily bombarded with criticism.

      1. Yeah. I’m not surprised – it doesn’t take much to criticize. Especially if you’re a crowd. It only took one to tell the Emperor he had no clothes.

      2. You might have done better to listen to everyone – including the one you shouted down. You might have learned something. This is the problem. Same thing happened in France in 1789. It didn’t end that well. But I am sure that a few were shouted down by the many there as well.

    2. There is every possibility that we could lose our Constitution – that the work of the Founders could very well be “undone”. This is a very real possibility. It is no lie. It would be an absolute lie if you said that this could not happen.

      I have one question for all you “patriots” of recent vintage out there – why do you think you need to call out the hornets’ nest in an Article V convention when the mechanics are all available to you to sit down and start to work on your proposal? If you have more than one amendment, take them one at a time anyway. You people – who can’t even prevail against the Republican establishment (and I have been fighting them longer than you have in all likelihood) – think you can take them on at the same time as Planned Parenthood, Cair, Black Lives Matter, the Democrat Party, the Socialist Party, the Environmentalists, the Gay RIghts contingent, and every other globalist, anti-American, anti-sovereignty group that exists. If anyone is delusional, lying or arrogant – it would be those who would desire such an unnecessary confrontation to get your work done.

      You all remind me of Benny Katz.

  12. Sally Morris is totally ignorant of the Convention of States movement and its objectives and limitations, If you stand with the Constitution and with the founders led by George Mason, you would know they purposely added the Article V Amendment process for the states to rein in tyrannical federal government. Sally Morris is truly uninformed of the entire COS project movement and is doing nothing but playing the role of a fear monger. The fact that she hints of the possibility of changes to the Bill of Rights clearly proves she has no idea what she is talking about. She is only playing to the people’s emotions and is dismissing the facts. The scope of the actual Article V Call Resolutions of the State Legislatures cannot rewrite the Constitution. It is not a Constitutional Convention. It is a meeting of states to discuss and propose amendments to strengthen the structure of the existing Constitution the founders designed to impose limits on the federal government. It CANNOT propose any amendments that diminishes the liberties of the American people, or of some of the people. The scope of the Convention is to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.” Nothing can be discussed that is outside that scope. The Bill of Rights is NOT in that scope and CANNOT be amended. To be clear, it is not a constitutional convention. It is a meeting of the states who will propose amendments which they discuss and agree are needed to strengthen the Constitution as structured by the founders. Proposed amendment are voted on by the state commissioners at the Convention and passed by 26 states before they can be presented to the states for ratification by 38 states. The convention is authorized by the Constitution under Article V and must follow the Constitution’s amendment process the same way that Congress follows the amendment process. Congress today has amended the Constitution 27 times, but Congress cannot rewrite the entire Constitution under a constitutional convention. Congress follows the same laws and processes as there is for an Article V Convention of the States. The Convention of States cannot change the Constitution; it can only propose amendments to it. Neither Congress nor the state’s acting under Article V is the same as the original constitutional convention in Philadelphia.

    The out of control Federal Government is a big problem and the Convention of States is a “Solution as big as the problem” and We the People will benefit by supporting it. Decisions affecting, we citizens need to be made at the state and local levels. Federal bureaucrats not elected by the people should not be passing laws dictating how we are to live in our states and towns. The convention of states is to bring the decision-making back to the people at the local levels so we can hold our local state representatives accountable for those decisions. For the full understanding of the movement go to:

    1. Wiser men than you or Mark Levin, and far more experienced have gone on record stating that there would be NO WAY TO LIMIT A CONVENTION OF STATES. It could, and in all likelihood, would, propose and act on anything the delegates decided to act upon. Not all of the delegates will be people like you. Many of the powerful people who will control such a convention will be far different, with far different aims and goals. You are living in a little bubble. I don’t mean to belittle you, but you are seeing everything from your own narrow perspective. We, the People, will NOT profit by a constitutional convention. We will be eternally sorry if we travel down that road.

  13. Sally, to see how the COS will not be a runaway convention, go see the Simulation which took place just last month in Williamsburg, Va. i think you would be proud of the representatives from all 50 states, the vast majority of which were state legislators. Louisiana sent 2 senators and one representative. You can watch the floor debates and votes here: I understand the fear of a runaway, but there are so many mechanisms in place and there are so many of us at the state level who will control this process. And if you fear what Congress will do, then that fear just further justifies that we need a COS. I agree the Constitution does not need amending, but due to the decisions made by the US Supreme Court and actions taken by Congress and Presidents in violation of the Constitutional limitations on federal power, we are no longer living under that Constitution. As Mark Levin says, we are in a post-Constitutional America. This Constitutionally-recognized procedure is a lawful way to reel the feds in. And if they ignore this, i’ll be in the streets with pitchforks right alongside you and everyone else. Peace, Dale

    1. How about the simulation that took place in Ohio last July when patriots including Mike Lee attempted to get that convention to recognize the right of delegates to simply vote their conscience? Now that was an earth shaking idea! They got about as far in that simulation as you would. Whatever hucksters are putting on these “simulations” ought to be ashamed. And you think this isn’t about showmanship?

  14. One if the dumbest articles I have ever read. Ms. Morris seems to base her entire article on old copies of The New American and Robert Welch. She should get out more, instead of holing up in her home. The fact that she uses “constitutional convention” and “convention of states” interchangeably tells us all we need to know about her ignorance on this subject and the JBS’s level of desperation to print something that seems close to it’s former level of journalism and scholarship. So sad.

    1. I am going to just overlook your attempt to insult me here. When you can’t argue a point, the natural course for so many people is to resort to cheap shot insults. So I’ll just leave that. As to the terminology, I don’t know who YOUR guru is, but it is well established and completely understood that an “Article V convention” and a “convention of the states” are one and the same – a constitutional convention. By definition, any convention called to consider amendments to the Constitution IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Don’t let yourself be duped by terminology. If you are going to do something like sign onto a constitutional convention, at least know what it is.

  15. The Founders unanimously provided Article V option for the states to balance the federal government’s overreach. More than 400 such state applications have been filed over the years including the first couple that led to the bill of rights. As with all amendments to the constitution 38 states (both houses) are required for ratification. This is an enormously protective requirement that has only been reached 27 or so times. The COS Project application has already been passed by 8 states and 18 or more state houses. This application is limited to 3 areas:
    (a) Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government.
    (b) Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
    (c) Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.
    Please sign E-Petition. Takes less than 20 seconds. This will encourage your local state rep to become more involved in States’ rights.:

  16. I’ve read a lot of elitist articles in my time, but few as arrogant and duplicitous as this one. There are so many inaccuracies, misconceptions and outright lies that one hardly knows where to start, and having read the comments here by other defenders of The Truth, I see little or no willingness by the author to mend the error of her ways.

    So, I’ll just offer one thought… not with the hope of changing Ms. Morris’ mind, but for the sake of the drive-by eyes who may not know who to believe. For the curious, the facts are out there, available for free, and you can start with the actual text of the actual Article V in the actual Constitution… it’s only 143 words, and not nearly as complicated as Ms. Morris pretends it to be. The bottom line is this:

    Who do you want making decisions for us… Washington, D.C., or your own closer-to-home state representatives?

    That’s what it comes down to. If we do nothing, then we will simply continue on the same course… that’s a given. It causes one to wonder about the motives of anyone who would propose such a predictable catastrophe… not for them, but for conservative values.

    1. There is nothing “duplicitous” here. I have stated an educated opinion and there is also nothing “elitist” nor “arrogant” in my words. I would say, rather, that it is arrogant to think you need to call some big show-stopping “Article V convention” in order to pass resolutions. Your comments are idiotic.

      I am as entitled to my opinion as anyone commenting here. I stand by everything I said.

      Now, if you want to do something and think that an amendment is the best way, why don’t you quit meeting with people at rallies and get down to business. Write a proposal. Get some qualified help to go over it. Consider the ramifications – will it do what you want? Will there be undesirable results? If you are satisfied that you are on the right track get your bones out on the sidewalk and petition your state legislature to adopt your resolution. Do them one at a time, like you would eat a hotdog. Or do you eat those by the fistful as well?

      I do not think our Constitution is in any way “perfect”. I also think you are probably not in any way “perfect”. I am not, and no one I know is. I would strongly support certain amendments – most of them repealing other ill-considered amendments which should NOT have been adopted but were. As I have said previously, unless you have something new to add, why bother yourself with repeating other people’s comments? There is nothing deceptive or untrue in my words and if you don’t share my opinion, fine. But you offer nothing but opinion here. Others are telling me how only one person in a room of 50 people was concerned. That is completely irrelevant.

      Your snotty comments about elitism are also irrelevant and, by the way, totally inappropriate and inaccurate. In my view someone who thinks he knows enough to re-do the Constitution, or thinks that he can get a monster meeting of earnest tea partiers together, exclude all the “bad guys” and get resolutions turned into amendments – rather than taking them one at a time, considering them individually and sticking to it until you get it right – is definitely elitist and arrogant, not to mention very silly.

      Go ahead. Many amendments have been added. I have no objections every, anywhere, to the state legislatures proposing them and, in fact, churning up the support to get them adopted. I see no reason why a group of 50 people couldn’t pick on and sit down together and work on it. And then get 50 more people to help them petition their legislature, or persuade a member of that body to propose it and get it voted on. You want instant gratification, like a two-year-old. You have no respect for the Constitution or you would already have been at work on this. You are all mouth.

  17. Ms. Morris has made my head spin with the ignorance and hypocritical nature of her writings. I can’t possibly remember all of the examples mainly because of the preponderance of evidence. It is clear she will ignore or just doesn’t understand the jewel left by the Framers in Article 5 and the opportunity it provides to bypass the Federalies to amend the Constitution when circumstances dictate. The example I will cite for for her ignorance si the suggestion for “a” (one) state to propose repealing the 17th Amendment, and then have the other 49 States agree. Article 5 clearly states that amendments can be proposed by the legislature or the states when 2/3 of both houses or the States agree to do so.

    Nowhere in the authors article or voluminous comments do I find a cogent argument against an Article 5 COS for proposing amendments. I find a lot against a constitutional convention which has nothing to do with Article 5. There is absolutely no need for another constitutional convention since the Framers were some of the most brilliant and freedom loving men ever to live. However, they lived in a time that could not possibly (I don’t think even Ben Franklin knew) have contemplated what the transportation, knowledge and communication landscapes would have looked like in 2016. I’m not arguing for a living and breathing constitution that can be changed by court decree but rather amended to update to suit the times.

    Her only argument worth addressing is her opposition to term limits. Life expectancy has almost doubled since 1800. When the Framers made appointments to the bench for life, they didn’t expect justices to live to 70+ years. Therefore, a bad judge would have been contemplated to be gone before too much damage could have been done to the Country’s fabric. Justice Scalia was 79 yr 11 mo, Kennedy is 80+ yr, Ginsburg is 83+ yr and Breyer is 78+ yr. The Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 changed the makeup of the two houses to decidely conservative mainly in response to Obamacare and the lawlessness of Obama. I think the results show that neither DC nor the government were fundamentally changed. When our Country was founded, it might take weeks to travel from a Congressman’s home to DC and therefore the time spent in DC was miniscule compared to today when it takes only a little over five hours to fly from CA to DC. I live in CA and this year, the two Senate candidates up for Feinstein’s seat are Dems. Because of the overreach of the Federal Govt. and their laws which affect every State, I don’t have a vote for the Senate or House candidates who will make decisions that affect me.

    Ms. Morris has an impressive resume and has certainly been fighting for conservative causes. However, her blind opposition to an Article 5 COS is plain wrong and does not compute with her resume. If any readers are new to the debate over having an Article 5 COS, ignore Ms. Morris’s writing and learn more at and sign the petition. We don’t have the time to wait for elections to change DC.

    1. It is never a good idea to tell others – especially if you are attempting to lead them in a major enterprise such as this – not to listen to other opinions. You sound like the Wizard of Oz.

  18. Long winded collection of misinformation, name calling and what ifs
    Has not shown one realistic example of how a convention of the states could “runaway ”
    Madison’s quote was in regards to a constitutional convention not a convention of the states

    1. See my long-winded answer above. I have not called anyone names in my article. Justice Warren Burger, in a letter to Phyllis Schlafley gave his own opinion as a Supreme Court Justice, that there would be no way to set limits on such a convention of states. He said it could be called with the intention of considering one or two or three amendments, but that once called to order it would not be legally possible to limit its scope. A lot of very well eduated, well-informed people agree with my point of view. Nothing in my article would discourage any citizen or group of citizens to formulate a proposal and write a resolution for an amendment of any kind. Why do you people have to gather in herds to do anything? No sense of independent action? No sense of self-discipline? No energy? What is it? You would rather call a convention – to which you would be unlikely even to be a delegate, and if you were, would have little to say about the course it took – than to pick up a pen and paper and start writing, or get your butts out the door and carry a petition, or write to your state legislators. It is like Trump-mania. You like the showmanship. You don’t see big headlines in a simple, but effective, resolution submitted by Albany, or Springfield or Austin or Bismarck, to methodically and with due care, propose an amendment. You are like children.

      1. I must say, your language is demeaning. You call people who work to make things better, “you people”. You say we have no self-discipline and no energy. Guess what? I am not a “you people”. I write and call my state and federal legislators and have found that most of them do one or two things to appease the voters and the rest to appease the lobbyists. We are tired of the government legislating our country to its demise and that is why many of us like Trump. It has nothing to do with showmanship and everything to do with a man who is not afraid to call a spade a spade and who is trying to make amends for the wrongs he has made. And, that is also why we stand up for the Convention of States. We know something has to be done, and it may have a chance if we stand and do it together.

        1. Which part of “you people” causes you distress? “You” or “people”? I was unaware that a tough, tea party rallyer would have such tender sensibilities. I didn’t know you required a safe space. Here’s an idea – you can perhaps slip something in the amendments when you convene – make “you people” and other such shocking epithets hate speech and punishable. I have no doubt you would have a lot of support for that. It would go with your allegiance to Donald Trump, who would, if he gets the chance, “loosen up” the libel laws so as to subvert our First Amendment. After all, he wants to sue and stifle any who would offer criticism of him – he’s another snowflake. I am surprised to find quite a lot of you in the “freedom” movement – it would seem a contradiction. As to your writing and calling – that is fine, not enough, of course, but a good practice nonetheless. Have you actually voted against an “R” in order to make the point when he or she betrayed you in Washington? Or do you confine your protest to empty words? Because voting them out, regardless of party affiliation, is the way to have a legislative branch accountable and responsive to “you people”. I have been a part of the problem by calling and writing and then voting for the “lesser of evils” year after year. I will NEVER do this again. And anyone I DO vote for will need to do what he or she said they would do when they asked for my vote the first time. There IS no other way. A convention of states will not fix this. You know this in your heart as well as I do. You know HOW you know? Because they aren’t following the law we already have. Thanks for writing your legislators and thanks for writing to me. It is interesting.

  19. Strange that Ms. Morris mentions Ted Cruz and cites his well known knowledge of the Constitution. Senator Cruz has said that quite a few constitutional amendments are needed to stop the abuses of power in Washington and has supported the possibility of the states proposing amendments through an Article V Convention of States.

    1. I have had great respect for Senator Cruz. I agree with him – we need some amendments to set the Constitution back on its track. I do not agree with everything he has said. I do not agree with his endorsement of Donald Trump and I do not agree with :. I disagree with a number of things he says habitually (for example, “extremist Islamic terrorists”: there are no Islamists who are not terrorists; if they live by their book, they must terrorists). I do not worship any man, even one so distinguished and well-read as Mr. Cruz. He is not infallible either. i do not need to agree with 100% of anyone’s statements or positions.

  20. 1. “…the bald fact [is] that we have no statesmen in America today to craft such a document.” Of course we do. The Founders were great statesmen but there are men and women today of equal stature, and everyone has flaws. The Founders did too, and they often disagreed. But they came together for the good of the nation and unanimously agreed with George Mason about the need for the 2nd means to propose amendments to the Constitution: a Convention of States per Article V.

    2. “….the idea of a convention of states – which is to say a “constitutional convention.” If you don’t know the difference between the two completely different assemblies, your argument is false to begin with.

    3. “….if we are not obeying the laws we have – would writing new ones matter except to those who would personally profit by them in terms of wealth, power, or an ideology foreign to American beliefs?” With properly written amendments, we can move the country to the point where our government would be in substantial compliance with the Constitution as written rather than as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This can be done by proper limitations on the power of the federal judiciary as well as a new methodology of appointing justices. Moreover, replacing broadly worded phrases like “the General Welfare Clause” with precise language that puts clear and proper limits on such powers will make a difference.

    4. “We do not need to kill the patient to cure a minor illness.” The metaphor doesn’t work. We have root rot in many places and it will take root cures to fix them–the antibiotics of anti-constitutionalism: the Constitution itself, Article V in particular.

    Check out the website, sign the online petition that goes to your state legislators, and volunteer to help patriots throughout the nation. There are many legislative districts that still need District Captains within states. Take that on whether you live in a particular district or not. There are wonderful Tuesday evening online training calls (9:00 PM Eastern Time; they’re also recorded for watching at your convenience) that have been enormously helpful to me. They’re informative and inspirational. You’re needed on deck!

    1. l. We do not have anything like sufficient numbers of statesmen to do this. We have something else that the Founders did not have to deal with and that is enemies within. By 1787 most of the issues involving enemies in North America were not well represented within the 13 states. Now we have some very powerful forces which are overwhelming. We did not even have the capability to go the RNC convention and get a resolution passed there allowing delegates to “vote their conscience”! What do you think these “patriots” will do with the mass of malignant forces that abound outside of the RNC? I stand by that statement unequivocally.
      2. An “Article V convention”, a “convention of the state” and a “constitutional convention” are all one and the same. The parsing of these terms is pointless. Any convention held to consider amendments to the Constitution is – by definition – a constitutional convention.
      3. So you will have justices running for office now? Great idea – maybe they can start up “foundations” and go about making deals. You seem to think that amendments will change people. Only people can change themselves. You are trying to do this from the outside in or from the top down. We have an eloquent and competently written Constitution. The problem is no one is following it. What will you do when they don’t follow YOURS? Convene again and rewrite it again? We have problems but it is in the people themselves and their lack of vision and resolution. They need to quit supporting party candidates who betray them. Period.
      4. That’s right. We do not need to kill the patient. And convening a convention of states or an Article V convention or a constitutional convention, whatever term you prefer, will have the end result of severely damaging our Constitution and perhaps killing it. I stand by this 100%. There are many who will take the opportunity of just such an event to go even so far as to end our national sovereignty. This is not an exaggeration. I don’t need to exaggerate. This is simple truth. I take no pleasure in saying “I told you so”. I never say things intended for that. I would much prefer you study this a bit further – if you can’t name at least a dozen very powerful entities who will try to do just that in a convention setting, you are underinformed. I don’t say this to be rude. I truly respect anyone who is trying to find answers. But it is my considered opinion that a convention such as this is not an answer at all – it is a whole new world of problems, and some we won’t be able to undo in our lifetime.
      And finally, there is no way, based on anything offered by way of comment to this article, nor based on anything I have been able to find to read on this issue, nor anything in our history or the history of mankind, so far, that would persuade me to link up with any of these misguided activists. I would like to be kind, but I have been as patient as I can possibly be with the many rude and officious people who deign to tell me I don’t know what I am talking about. Thanks for writing.

    2. Carol Menges you’re terribly misinformed. I’ve seen your husband’s writings before. It is unfortunate.

      #1, Article V was NOT passed unanimously. That means “characterized by or showing complete agreement: a unanimous vote.” It was passed “nem con.” That means no heard objections on that particular vote, not ALL votes. Further, if you actually, honestly, read Madison’s Journal of the Convention, you’d see that you would see that there were SEVEN votes to change Article V once it was amended nem. con. Mr. Sherman objected so strenuously that he himself made three of those motions, each seconded, debated, and voted on.

      George Mason made one of those amendments also and joined in debate of the last of the seven made by Mr. Randolph. It is clearly dishonest or ignorant to state Article V as we now see it was adopted unanimously.

      Article V provides a convention for proposing amendments, not a “convention of states.”

      #2, actually it is you that has the issue. Plenty of learned jurists and Black’s Law dictionary clearly include Article V as a “constitutional convention” Debating that point is a waste of all sides’ time though.

      #3, The Constitution isn’t the problem so changing it isn’t the solution. The wording as is is quite clear when one reads it honestly with an appropriate Websters 1878 handy. The “structural changes” Farris has expressed a passion for are power grabs and legalization of current transgressions. NO WAY

      Your posting a link to COSP propaganda against JBS is not credible and not responsive.

      #4, There is no root rot, only billionaires sending their millions to this corrupt effort to roll our Constitution into the operating room. Not on my watch. Article V was not designed to constrain the feds, nor can it. You need to read about parchment barriers.

      There is no way we are going to let COS get their hands on our Constitution. They just published another lie to all their fake convention attendees. They REVERSED Thomas Jefferson’s message and sent it to state legislators. If they are willing to lie to state legislators, what makes anyone think they won’t lie to We The People.

      I documented the lie clearly here on my website:

  21. You can name the Founders but this doesn’t mean that the Founders are against a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution.

    Actually, the Founders approved Article V of the U.S. Constitution so that the Constitution could be amended.

    Also, we have the 10th Amendment which reserved any power, not given to the federal government, every other power is reserved for the states and to the People.

    What can we do about the federal government taking away power from the states and from the People?

    We can have the state legislatures restore the balance of power by amending the Constitution.

    The Constitution is good, but not perfect. It has been amended to free the slaves and to give women the right to vote.

    In addition to an amendments convention of the states, we can educate people what the Constitution says, and teach that it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

  22. Not one of the 11 amendments mentioned (repeal the 2nd amendment, abolish presidential term limits, etc.) COULD be the result of the convention being proposed by the Convention of States Project. Under the resolutions being passed by the states, every one of them would be ILLEGAL.

    The process IS controlled – it is controlled by the resolutions passed by the states and by the authorization given to the delegates to the convention.

    The ONLY amendments coming out of the convention that would have any legal status are those that:
    (1) create term limits for Congress, the Supreme Court and federal judges;
    (2) impose fiscal responsiblity
    (3) restrain the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

    1. These are only the resolutions YOU would want. Others will be there as well. Rest assured of that. They will have different ideas and you will have no standing to keep them out. None. Your arrogance is breathtaking.

  23. Dear Sally,

    In a strange sort of way, I have to thank you. Although I still stand by my earlier comments that your central fear of a “runaway constitution” presents a grave untruth, the presentation of your article is such a great forum as The New Americana has brought forth a substantial amount of pro Article 5 Convention of the States advocates, so much so that even a casual observer could not help but become well informed on one of the most critical issues of our time.

    My dear 89 year old mother had never heard of an Article 5 Convention of the States before your article, but now, because I told her about your writings and the tremendous response it generated, she is quite well informed on the topic. I think that God often works in strange ways!

    In closing, it is just wonderful that so many people are waking up to the reality of this magnificent tool that the Founding Fathers gave us, which in so many ways is the only safe, sound, Constitutional recourse that “We the People” have to once and for all rein in the “runaway Federal Government”.

    Sally, thank you once again for (perhaps inadvertently) pushing this all important issue to the front and center of so many people’s lives. The exposure was priceless.

    And to all who wrote on behalf of an Article 5 Convention of the States, your genuine efforts have been heard loud and clear, and will never be forgotten.

    Let us pray for the Wisdom and Guidance of God to be with us, one and all.

    Thomas Cosgrove

  24. You are quite incorrect when you wrote this of Madison: “His advice was to stick like glue to the Constitution we have.”.

    This is particularly evident in that the letter to George Tuberville from which you quote this single paragraph without proper context:

    “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the congress . . . It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides . . . [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who,, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts . . . might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. . . . Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America.”

    When you wrote your “glue” comment you were probably unaware that it was written before the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution because you were likely taking it from one of Mrs. Schafly’s works which did not give full context to the quote, either.

    Madison also wrote in the same letter:

    “ I am not of the number if there be any such, who think the Constitution, lately adopted, a faultless work. On the Contrary there are amendments wch. I wished it to have received before it issued from the place in which it was formed. These amendments I still think ought to be made according to the apparent sense of America and some of them at least I presume will be made.”

    Stick like glue was not on Madison’s mind.

    He went on to write of other proposed amendments in the same letter:

    “ There are others, concerning which doubts are entertained by many, and which have both advocates and opponents on each side of the main question. These I think ought to receive the light of actual experiment, before it would be prudent to admit them into the Constitution.”

    In this same letter, Madison clearly differentiates between a general (plenipotentiary) and an amendments convention when he wrote this:

    “A convention cannot be called without the unanimous consent of the parties who are to be bound by it, if first principles are to be recurred to; or without the previous application of ⅔ of the State legislatures, if the forms of the Constitution are to be pursued.”

    “First principles are to be recurred to” would be referring a general convention where open and broad changes could be made whereas “forms of the Constitution are to be pursued” would be the function of an amendments convention, a distinction that Madison recognized but Mrs. Schlafly and many opponents (and maybe you) do not care to make when the refer to an Article V amendments convention as a “Con-Con”.

    Madison quite clearly preferred passing amendments, at least at that time, by way of the first section of Article V, via Congress, vs. by way of the second section, an amendments convention by the states in this instance, because the ink was not dry from the product of the first convention and at that time in his opinion less politically advisable or achievable, not because the convention mode would never be feasible or advisable.
    When he speaks at length in the letter of a second “general convention” he is not speaking of an amendments convention as there has never been a first amendments convention.


    Though Madison preferred proposing amendments to the constitution at that time via congress such a method will not work in the case of proposing amendments to cure an overreaching federal government where there is collusion of all three branches (four if you count the regulatory branch) of the government as well as the leadership of both major parties in Washington DC. This was recognized as a possibility by Madison.
    After extolling the virtues of the separation of power in the constitution in keeping balance for the support of republican government, and in review of nullification, James Madison wrote this in 1830, of section 2 of article V in a letter to Edward Everett:

    “Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Government and rights of the States against usurpations and abuses on the part of the United States the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment to the Constitution according to a process applicable by the States.”

    After “the light of actual experiment” has shown us that the current structure of the Constitution as it is being applied will not protect us from losing our liberty to the march of progressivism we must have the courage of our forebears to use the tools that George Mason and James Madison gave us to bring proper balance back to our republican government.

    You should be more afraid of a run-away activist court with 5 unelected justices consorting with an imperial legislative and executive branch than of the product requiring the agreement of 38 state legislatures (currently 31 state legislatures are controlled in both chambers by Republicans and are split in 9 other states with the Democratic party). It only takes 13 states to block the product of any convention.

  25. There are several steps in place to prevent a runaway convention doing bad things. For smiles though, we’ll assume your concerns as the WORST CASE scenario that could happen.

    Meanwhile, with both parties in DC growing the government and the Supreme Court being free to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, as they have said at least 30 times that the only limit on their power is their own self-restraint, the horrors you mention as a case against COS are the VERY LIKELY scenario that will happen if we don’t try to rein in DC from some other method other than through DC.

    What harm could COS do that an unfettered federal government, without a COS, couldn’t do anyway?

    As for the issue about Trump, I was for Cruz. I am still #NeverTrump. The Tea Party may be weakened but it is NOT dead.

    The reason we push for Convention of States is that our Founders relied on the three branches checking each other. With the 17th Amendment, that began the unraveling of the checks and balances. Now, we have to beg our unscrupulous Congressmen to stop the increasing power abuses of the Presidency and the bureaucracy. And, as they wont’ use their Article III Section 2 powers to limit the power of the Supreme Court and lower courts, we’re stuck with the rulings due to the supremacy clause.

    We HAVE to amend the Constitution to allow some way for the states to check the feds. And as the feds obviously don’t want to check themselves, that leaves Article V Convention of States as our only option.

  26. Outstanding article. Thank you so much. I will be forwarding this article and posting it on Facebook. It is sometimes not easy to take the right position. I will use this in my effort to rescind our call for Con Con here in Louisiana!
    Sandy McDade
    Shreveport, LA

  27. I agree with you except one thing “took leave of the actual Constitution this summer when it decided not to support the only man who was running who had any knowledge of the document – Ted Cruz. ” — he was not eligible no matter if you went the false birth in country or by the actual requirement in the law of nations. I honor the Constitution and I would not be able to vote for him.

  28. Terrible idea, with the likelyhood of a president Hillary stacking the Supreme Court and knowing that if this foolhardy expedition to rewrite the constitution actually gets enough traction by these COS conmen there will be years of lawsuits all the way up to the supreme court why would anyone be supporting a Clinton court to decide the rules for rewriting the constitution?

  29. There is a lot of wisdom in this article. I like that the author asks readers to do research. Most of the replies spamming this comment section are only sourcing the Convention of States Project. Their “social media warriors” initiative has probably been directed here. If the opposition had the money and hype that COSP does there would probably be more comments in support of Ms. Morris’s position. Nevertheless, if one is only using the COSP as their source they will not be getting all the information. COSP is a lobbying organization that is following a marketing plan working to bring an Art V convention to fruition. This blog “Mark Mekcler’s Shadow” reports on some of the leadership’s nasty and leftists tactics. It looks like they are happy to sink to any level to achieve a convention.

    1. Its hard to believe it is possible, but your cited page,, is more full of misinformation, half-truths, distortions, and twisted logic than this article, with a large dose of character assassination thrown in to boot. Good job.

  30. This is really simple. If everything JBS and other opponents claimed were true out of the fears of using our Constitution to address runaway government (AND that is what COS is!) then your fears would have already materialized with a runaway convention. All an Article V convention can do is PROPOSE amendments and those amendments must be ratified. That is what Article V of the Constitution states – that’s it – that’s all a convention held under Article V can do. To claim it states anything more, is to also grant to the left that any other interpretation of other parts of the Constitution is also open beyond what is explicitly stated. Enough of the distortions and word games. What New Americana means when they say “con-con” or “constitutional convention” is a writing of a new government charter. That is not what COS wants or is doing. A convention under Article V of the Constitution is a constitutional convention in the sense it’s a gathering (a convention) dealing with the Constitution, and nothing more. Use some logic and stop the smears. Government has attacked the people and the Constitution far too long. It’s time to use the Constitution to fight back against government. That’s exactly what COS is. Claiming anything else is false and fear. We can lead ourselves and this is the time to do it.

    1. Brandon, I wholeheartedly agree with your points made about the danger of a runaway convention being less dangerous than the runaway legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Federal government that we have, and absent being checked by the states, will continue to spiral to new tyrannys but you and some other people making comments in the commentary section have mistakenly taken the authors point of view as being that of the New Americana. The disclaimer below the title of the opinion piece states: “Editor’s Note: As with all our our articles, the views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. We do not censor, so Sally’s views are welcome here.” TNA has posted pro article V movement pieces as well as this piece by Ms. Morris which is con to the con-con (sorry couldn’t resist). I’ll add this video to the mix:

  31. I agree with nearly everything in this article with the exception of the global comment about Teaparty. As co founder of Montana Shrugged Teaparty Patriots I take exception to putting all of us concerned citizens into one basket. If you follow the money with old national Teaparty leaders you will see they moved over to ConCon for financial reasons. As many local teaparty groups we fight the issues with passion out of our own pocket books. That being said, as JBS reports, The Constitution is the Solution. WE need to hold politicians accountable when they stray from that by voting them out. We the people are the power and the King of America. We need the politicians and government agencies to again serve US. Montana and many other States held Conventions in early 1970’s. In the case of Montana, a progressive clan of Democrats and Republicans throughout the old Constitution and wrote a new Green Constitution with Initiative and Referendum language which goes against all our Constitution of the United States stands for. The Montana Constitution starts with ” Montanans have a right to a clean and healthful environment?. This allowed Environmental groups to sue all good businesses driving them out of Montana and pushing Montana to a rank of #49 average wage. Ugh…$10 per hour is dismal failure of policy.

    initiatives and Referendums allows for special interest groups to make law without protection of the rights of the minority.

    We need to rise up as Americans, proud of our heritage, and get back to the true meaning of the Constitution. This document is the greatest document ever written to allow man to govern his affairs and protect the single individual.

    God Bless America.

    1. Eric is right. I erred in seeming to lump all tea party groups together. The problem is that some organizations have co-opted the tea party name and image in their activities to promote the con-con. Eric’s organization is not part of that. I apologize to any tea party activists who have not jumped on this bandwagon for a con-con. My own experiences as a tea party organizer brought me into contact with many great American patriots who would never think of opening our Constitution for revision at this point in time, although many of us would definitely support certain amendments taken singly. So apologies to Eric and my thanks to him and other tea party activists who are not part of this effort. Aside from this I stand by every word.

  32. Ms. Morris,
    It is obvious from your Bio that you have led a very interesting life, filled with rewarding outcomes and also events which have injured you rationally and maybe physically as well as mentally. I am 70 years old, read constantly and digest all I read with an analytical mind. I have read this work at least three times and stumbled over your poor writing, awkward sentence structure and sloppy or disjointed thought train. I think it is typical of a junior high-schooler and that is being generous. If you want to be accepted as an intellectual, you should learn to write like one.
    When my blood pressure settles, I’ll read it again for comprehension. If my impression changes, I’ll comment again. Have a good day!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana