Slide 3
“Of all the liars in the world, sometimes the worst are our own fears.”― Rudyard Kipling.
Article V delineates two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution and two modes to ratify those proposed amendments.
Proposing Amendments:
- Method 1 “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,”
- Method 2 “On the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,”
Ratifying Amendments:
- Mode 1 ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States or
- Mode 2 by Conventions in three-fourths thereof
“Article V is the only constitutional method of amending the US Constitution.” Barker v. Hazeltine, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (D.S.D. 1998)
Opponents
Opponents are correct when they point out that all 27 existing amendments to date have been proposed by method one: two-thirds of Congress agreeing to the amendment's language.
Remember, what has been left out of the opposition's intentional misrepresentation is the fact that many of these amendments were preceded by a grassroots movement to call a Convention of States. Some of the more famous examples:
- 1788 - the adoption of the “Bill of Rights.”
- 1832 - clarification of the 10th Amendment
- 1861 - final resolution of slavery
- 1901 through 1909 - direct election of Senators
- 1925 through 1931 - Anti-prohibition
- 1943 - Presidential term limits
But when it comes to the second method, calling an Article V convention of states for proposing amendments, opponents essentially argue the old proverb - "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't,"
They swallow the taradiddle that the second method the Framers provided for in the Constitution is untested, the rules are unclear, the commissioners can’t be controlled, and the entire Constitution is put at risk. Thus, the process is unsafe.
The opponents offer no solution to remedy the current crisis - progressives have been amending the Constitution by judicial fiat for over 100 years.
Both sides agree…on something.
Both sides agree that Constitutional Amendments are necessary to restore our written Constitution's erased checks and balances. They also agree that Article V is one of two methods by which the Constitution may be amended. They also agree that Congress will never do it.
The conflict and debate arise when discussing which method to propose said amendments.
There are five camps in the debate:
- Proponents of using the convention method
- Well-meaning Americans who know something is wrong in D.C. are actively looking for solutions that haven’t yet heard of COSA.
- Well-meaning Americans who are on the fence and don’t know who is right
- Well-meaning Americans opposed to using the convention method who believe the misinformation because they haven't taken the time necessary to seek the truth properly
- A small cadre of progressives pushing the lies to keep big government in place
(The nefarious small group of Marxists working to undermine the entire Article V movement is in a group all its own).
Based on polling:
- Camps 1, 2, and 3 comprise 66% of the country's citizens.
- Camp 4 is 17% on the far right (John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, Firearm Owners Against Crime, etc.…).
- Camp 5 is 17% on the far left (Socialists, Anarchists, and power-hungry Elitists).
COSA PA understands the unlikely success of convincing the last two of these camps. They are in lockstep, their minds made up.
This educational series was created to reach the open minds in camps 2 and 3 before they are corrupted by the misinformation campaigns camps 4 and 5 employ.
Opponents think they know better. Come, now. The Framers did not create a risky, untenable second option to amending the Constitution. They created a failsafe.
Inaction is the greatest threat to our freedoms; it is time for bold, determined leadership and to trust in the wisdom of our founders, who knew tyranny firsthand.
They fought the Revolutionary War to free themselves from a powerful centralized government; they wrote Method 2 into Article V so we wouldn’t have to.
