The government we have today is not the government outlined in our Constitution; whether we think that is a good thing or a bad thing, does not matter. It is not the government given to us by those who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. Today, we need to ask ourselves several questions:

Should we do anything about it? If not, why not? If so, what? If so, who is on our side? Who is the opposition and why?

First, if you are reading this, it is quite likely you agree with me that the departure from the roadmap given us by our founders has led us to destinations never intended. Our guidance was to liberty, not to control and slavery to a central government. Obviously, there would be a substantial number of US citizens who would not want to return to the originalist view of the constitution.

Clearly, Progressives do not like the constitution as written. They are against us, and always will be. They have historically used both the constitutional method to affect change, and they have pushed for change by each of the three branches of government. We owe the income tax and the decimation of state representation via the 16th and 17th amendments, Social Security, Medicare, abortion on demand and the massive social engineering programs, as a result of Progressive activism.

Progressive does not mean Democrat. Progressivism is deeply embedded in the Republican party, as well.

I essentially see three options. We can vote constitutional conservatives into local, state and federal offices and wait. I think we have been trying this to no avail, and the machine chews good people up and either they change with their environment, or they are too few in number to have any effectiveness. It is almost like climbing a tree by sitting on an acorn and waiting for it to grow.

That leaves us with two options: Nullification and/or Article V of the constitution.  Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.

I bring it up as an option, because there is a significant number of people who believe this is the only possible option. Nullification does not have a very good track record. David Barton has an excellent paper on the history of nullification, “Limiting an Overreaching Federal Government: Is State Nullification the Solution? A Constitutional Analysis”.   Nullification led to secession, and secession to civil war.  I happen to believe that in certain instances, a state could nullify a federal law or regulation.  Now, whether it would stand up in court is another issue, but sometimes you have to draw that line in the sand.

andrew-jacksonTake Obamacare, for instance. Let’s say a state says the federal government has no right to force its citizens and businesses to comply with the healthcare la
w.  Any citizen or business that does not comply, will fall under the power of the IRS, where they may be fined or face another action.  Is the state going to stop the IRS?

On another issue, my state of Kansas passed legislation telling the federal government they had no jurisdiction regarding guns made, sold and kept in Kansas. I support that law, even though it may not pass muster in court.

Since we know voting and waiting has not shown promise and Nullification does not seem to end well when tried, that leaves us with Article V.  The framers knew that in time it was very likely societal changes would require some changes to the Constitution. They also knew there would come a time that government would evolve into a liberty eating monster, and there had to be a method to effect the changes needed for each scenario.

We were given both of those methods in Article V.

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” -Article V US Constitution

I mentioned earlier there are those who fight us to prevent the use of the tools given us. Typically, we assume it is Progressives, but in this case they have help.  Progressives fight any efforts to use Article V because it will lead to them losing not only power, but the progress they have made getting away from the Constitution.  There are “supposed” conservatives, who have joined forces with the progressives to stop efforts by states to pass resolutions calling for an Article V convention.  Imagine that– conservatives who are supposed to be standing for the Constitution and returning to that document, actually pick and choose what parts they want us to follow, and disregard the others.

What sets them apart from Progressives who say other parts should not be followed? NOTHING!  Progressives will lie to you and tell you that departure from the Constitution is in your best interest. These conservatives will lie to you and tell you that an Article V convention, that clearly is only to PROPOSE amendments, is a constitutional convention to change the whole document.

They will lie to you, and tell you the first Constitutional Convention was a “runaway” convention, and that this one could do the same thing.  They will lie to you and tell you the 2nd Amendment will be repealed. I wonder about the motives of these people.

If we cannot reign in the federal government, the republic is lost, and if this effort fails there is nothing short of a revolution that will stop the slide to socialism and communism. Do these people actually prefer a shooting war to a dignified and reasoned approach, the constitutional approach?

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” -9th Amendment US Constitution

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” -10th Amendment US Constitution

truth-telling3The three branches of government have violated the trust and responsibility given them by us, and the Constitution by going beyond the bounds of those powers, or ignoring them. Now, think about this,  Article V and the 9th & 10th Amendments are the Enumerated Powers of the states and the people.  They are important tools in our toolbox.  Imagine a mechanic working on your car, and a famous mechanic, (these leading conservatives), tells you your car must be repaired without using a wrench or screwdriver. You’d think they were nuts.

We have choices. We can decide socialism is okay and adapt. We can ignore the situation and hope it all works out. We can vote and wait. We can have a revolution and hope “our side” wins and rebuilds a Constitutional Republic – and that we and our loved ones survive. Or, we can look in our “toolbox” and pick up the tools given us, and use them to fix the problem.

How do we have any credibility if we berate our elected officials for not following their oath of office and the Constitution, if we do not follow the guidance and powers of the Constitution ourselves?  Full disclosure, I am a volunteer District Captain for the Convention of States Project. I encourage you to search for the answers yourself.  I once was one of those conservatives who was against this. Initially, I decided to research the Convention of States, to show people how wrong they were to consider it, and that education taught me I was wrong, because I was searching for the truth.


Please go to There is a lot of good information and an excellent FAQ section, and find original sources on your own. Don’t trust me, and don’t trust other “opinion writers”.

conventionofstatesI’ll end this with a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Justice William Johnson regarding a Supreme Court that had violated it’s limited powers in taking a case: But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.” -Thomas Jefferson to Justice William Johnson Monticello, June 12, 1823