The centerpiece of the Economic Bill of Rights, the policy initiative we launch today, is a long-overdue constitutional amendment to require the Federal Government to do what every family in America must do, and that is live within its means and balance its budget. I will again ask Congress to submit a balanced budget amendment to the States. And if the Congress will not act, I'll have no choice but to take my case directly to the States. Ronald Reagan July 3, 1987
The John Birch Society (JBS) was founded in 1958 as an organization committed to combating communism. Since communism is anathema to a free America and a failed concept wherever instituted, JBS started off, it seems, with good intentions.
In recent years, however, JBS has devoted significant energies to slandering Convention of States (COS) Article V efforts. We have two organizations founded on preserving American freedoms at odds over the legitimacy of exercising a process granted by the Constitution. If, as quoted above, Ronald Reagan was willing (paragraph 19) to go to the states to seek a Constitutional amendment, the question JBS must answer is why their resistance?
Civil Disobedience versus Article V Convention of States
JBS promotes the idea of nullification "civil disobedience" (section: “State Governments Must Man Up…” and section: “Disarming the American People”) of federal overreach as the proper course of action for states and individuals to take. By contrast COS advances correction of the central government through a focused Article V convention of states limited to three topics: budgetary reform, term limits and regulatory reform. 
COS works with state legislatures to ensure standardization and compliance among those states submitting applications. Failure of representatives to comply with their state’s scope will result in felony charges from their respective governments. Florida has already passed such legislation.
This difference, nullification versus Article V, seems to fuel the divide and the antipathy displayed by JBS towards COS. Since both organizations believe the federal government has grown to monstrous size and tendencies, the most reasonable cause for the JBS animosity (paragraph 10) is the method used to enact restraint.
When is Civil Disobedience Effective?
In fairness to JBS, civil disobedience can be highly effective for enacting changes to the federal government. But, the acts of mass civil disobedience that have been successful catalysts for change are entirely restricted to government infringement on one or more amendments listed in the Bill of Rights. Think of the Civil Rights demonstrations of the 1960’s, the Women Suffragette’s Movement or current day resistance in various states towards infringement on the 2nd Amendment and you get the idea.
Encouraging civil disobedience (section: Don’t Submit to Unconstitutional Laws) with regards to duly passed law outside of the Bill of Rights is a sketchy proposition. Do JBS and its membership propose withholding their tax payments? Do JBS business owners ignore EPA, SEC, OSHA, etc. rules?
The civil disobedience approach to federal correction is not practical outside of Bill of Rights infringements.
What is the Remedy for Non-Bill of Rights Overreach?
While JBS and COS both agree that Washington DC needs reigning in, the
methods for doing so are at odds. Since civil disobedience towards non-Bill of Rights issues are highly unlikely to succeed that leaves Article V COS as our Constitutional recourse. It is our best and last opportunity.
Why the Fear and Divide?
The methods endorsed to bring about federal government reform are a main division between JBS and COS. The question of why JBS fears an Article V COS is ostensibly due to the worry that it will become a runaway convention. A cursory examination of JBS articles and blogs indicates some “speculative” (paragraph 12) explanations for their opposition.
An examination of Article V by the Federalist Society in 2018 (section VIII. Conclusion) considered unlimited applications and limited subject applications (aggregation) relative to a balanced budget amendment.
The Federalist Society embraced aggregation bringing the total, at that time, to 33 states in favor of a balanced budget. Needless to say the convention has yet to be called.
Without focused conformity to convention applications (agendas) the JBS fear of a runaway gathering has no chance to be called.
Is Rapprochement Possible?
JBS endorsement of COS does not appear to be realistic. Perhaps the main reason is JBS distrust of the founding fathers. Joanna Martin, aka “Publius Huldah,” writing for JBS, states that they ignored the instructions from their states (section 6, paragraph 2) and drafted a new Constitution rather than revising the Articles of Confederation. This is patently false.
The convention was called by Virginia (December 1786) to address the urgent issues before the Union and propose any “Provisions as may be necessary.” Only after the Virginia call to create an “adequate” political system were the states willing to convene. Only two states (Massachusetts and New York) limited debate to the Articles of Confederation.
Simply put: The 1786 convention of states recommended that a new convention of states be held in 1787 to construct a stronger union. The new convention was called by Virginia and only two states were willing to restrict debate to Articles of Confederation amendments. The end result of a duly called “convention of states” (Hugh Brackenridge summary) was the Constitution of the United States.
JBS’ alternating adoration of the Constitution and distrust of its creators fuels their resistance and makes peace with them unlikely.
COS embraces restraint of the federal government through Constitutional amendment conducted by a convention of the states as allowed under Article V. Please help secure our freedoms by encouraging your local representatives to resist COS rescission efforts by JBS.
Florida is a Passed State. Let’s keep it that way.
