The narrative against the convening of an Article V Convention of States has found its way into progressive media and political circles in recent weeks.
ABC News released a story online on August 31st about a book called “The Constitution in Jeopardy” by former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold and Peter Prindville, a constitutional lawyer.
After reading the short article, I perused through the book. Most of it was events of history around the Constitution and also a detailed description of the many Article V attempts to apply for a convention of the states in the past.
After reading the interview, I was expecting an entire book on the evils of our Convention of States. The prologue is where most of the fear-mongering is against our efforts, but it’s not even against our efforts.
It mostly points out some rhetoric from individuals who support Convention of States and are giving out their own personal opinions about it. Feingold tries to conflate these opinions with the foundation of Convention of States in an attempt to scare the public into believing there’s a group of elitist politicians and lawyers trying to force through a simple majority of red states' applications. An effort to illegally forge amendments and I guess somehow be ratified by the same simple majority of states.
Even more than the book’s prologue, I felt most of the fear-mongering rhetoric came from the ABC interviewer’s leading questions. Even the title is ominous. “Former senator discusses the hushed efforts to change the U.S. Constitution.”
The “hushed efforts?” There’s nothing hushed about it. I found out about Convention of States from a left-wing talking head who was complaining about it just a few weeks ago. I looked it up on the internet and quickly found Convention of States, read about the fundamentals, and became very excited about the work already done by a massive grassroots effort from people all over the United States from all walks of life, backgrounds and cultures, genes from every continent of the world; grounded in exercising the liberties that our nation fights for.
I was particularly excited about term limits. That’s always been my big grumble, that neither party in Congress will ever pass a term limits amendment for themselves. I didn’t know there was another way in plain sight within the U.S. Constitution. I was excited. I signed the petition, signed up to volunteer and the rest is history.
There was no secret password required, no secret society membership for elite ivy leaguers, just a simple search on my phone for Convention of States.
The other claim from both ABC and Feingold is that it’s only a far-right agenda. I say, if it’s only the far right that’s fighting for term limits, fiscal responsibility and limited government then God help the rest of us. I don’t believe that.
This is what I do believe: I hear a lot from conservative commentators, intermingling the terms ‘liberals’, ‘Democrats’, the ‘left’ and ‘progressives’. I agree that the left and progressives have become the same, but it wasn’t always true that most Democrats were progressives and that liberals were progressives.
I’m starting to see more now than ever liberals separating themselves from the term progressive. I think it will be a matter of time before Democrats do the same.
Progressivism didn’t originally only absorb themselves into the Democratic Party but just ten short years ago (and of course, even now) progressivism was deep within the Republican Party.
What we’ve witnessed since Trump announced his candidacy in 2015 was a complete breakup with progressivism. Not because progressivism was a movement professing different values, but I believe because it’s an organized religion that refuses to identify itself to protect its ability to infiltrate the U.S. government and public society without oversight.
This is why Feingold calls Convention of States dangerous. He says in his book “…it is possible that activists might be able to use the amendment mechanism to foist their agenda on an unwitting majority.” An unwitting majority? That's what he thinks of our general population. Feingold also states: “Every contentious political and social issue could be on the table, creating or retiring constitutional rights and freedoms and restricting basic elements of modern government.”
What is this “modern government” he speaks of? An unwitting majority and modern government are the fundamentals of a religion that has plans for our nation.
They fear the citizens who disagree with their religion. The Progressive religion that holds its religious services in federal bureaucracies, public schools and publicly funded universities. It is holding their religious services in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples all over the nation and they don’t have to support their own structure. They get supported by tax money and other religions' monies.
Their modernity of only being about a 100 years old has taught them that they would never declare themselves who they really are because even though they would have protection under the Constitution, they would also have limitations.
The U.S. citizen that refuses to adopt their dogma would be protected from progressivism.
Progressivism has a theology. They have a god…The Universe. They have an Apocalypse. It keeps getting declared and then when we move passed that date, they re-declare a new end times date and frighten a new generation of young people.
Like many denominations of different religions, they worship their living leaders as god-like and unquestionable. They’re famously hypocritical (as the human race tends to be generation after generation). Their religious leaders never hold themselves to the same standards as they hold the rest of the living population.
They disdain other religious groups that disagree with their mores or question their values system.
They pretend that they speak for all people and when anybody breaks with them, the progressive religion attacks them, attacks their character, and ostracizes them from the societies they’re friendly to.
They are escaping the limited power that our Constitution applies to religions.
You can practice any religion, you can build a gathering place for your religion, you can raise tax-free funds for your religion, you can speak openly about your religion in public places and private places, you can write about it passionately, you can read about it, you can buy and sell its values in a free market, you can share it, you can use it as a compass for your political beliefs and lifestyle.... but you cannot enforce it on others against their will and you cannot submit children to it without parental permission.
Many religions have gone to the Supreme Court to defend their religion and many individuals have won court cases against religious overreach. The difference is that progressivism is hiding under the illusion of a “movement” so that it doesn’t have to defend itself as a religion, even though there’s evidence everywhere, in writing and on film, video and audio, submitting its religious properties.
Feingold is afraid. “What’s going to come out of it is a gutting of the ability of this country to protect itself. And it’s going to be a very hard result for the diverse people who live here in the 21st century. That can’t be allowed.” Feingold goes on to say that he’d like to see an amendment passed to eliminate the Electoral College.
So here we have a former senator who’s rhetoric to promote his book declares that he would like to pass an amendment. That’s great. That’s his opinion. It’s also his opinion that Convention of States is a far-right agenda. It’s his opinion that an Article V Convention of States is dangerous if it’s not originated from his righteous hands and the hands of people who agree with him.
Put aside opinion from individuals and look at the reality of our application. It's clear. It is a rock that the waves of conspiracy and fear-mongering break against. You are aware of the climate of overreach, waste, and impotence of advocacy for the needs of the U.S. citizen. Regardless of your individual beliefs, theology and opinions, your liberty from the threat of a tyrannical government is protected by the United States Constitution.
Regardless of the opinions of your fellow citizens, continue to be proud of your efforts to bring a Convention of States out of the horizon, into the present tense, and finally into the rear view mirror where we can enjoy liberty and how we choose to live it.
It can’t always be something to look forward to, we must complete it. For our children, so they can witness that liberty must be fought for in each generation.
Help us call a Convention of States by signing the petition below and volunteering with your state's team.
