It’s that time of year again when our most vocal detractors come out of the woodworks to “blow the lid off” the globalist, Soros-backed, far-right conspiracy to dismantle the Constitution, establish a one-world government, and — for good measure — seize Native American land.
“Who would do such a thing?” you might be wondering. Our opponents answer resoundingly, “Convention of States!”
Yes, my friends, I regret to inform you that — if we’re to believe our opponents — we are all, quite unknowingly, mere pawns in the grand scheme of... Klaus Schwab? Or perhaps the Koch brothers? Or maybe it’s the Nazis? HYDRA? The far-left, the far-right — honestly, who’s keeping track anymore?
The point is this: even if our opponents’ arguments never quite align, their message is distinct.
CONVENTION OF STATES IS VERY, VERY DANGEROUS.
A recent hit piece from the left-wing publication Mother Jones makes their position on the topic crystal clear. According to “The Big-Money Right-Wing Push to Upend the Constitution—and Kill Birthright Citizenship,” “If Trump’s plan to unilaterally reinterpret the Constitution with the stroke of a pen gets embroiled in or thwarted by protracted litigation—as it most likely will—a convention of states led by conservatives could serve as a fallback or a Hail Mary.”
“‘We’re reaching a point where they’re becoming not unconstitutional, but anti-constitutional,’” the article quotes Stuart Richardson, a research manager at the watchdog group Accountable.US. “‘They have to go so far as to amend the Constitution or completely throw it out and rework it because they can’t achieve their agenda based on even a layman reading of the Constitution.’”
Yes, you read that correctly. Convention of States, an organization dedicated to using the Constitution, is somehow “anti-constitutional.”
Well, excuse me, but — to borrow a phrase — based on even a layman reading of that most blessed document, the true purpose of the Convention of States movement is that “The Congress . . . on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which . . . 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….”
If Trump’s plan to unilaterally reinterpret the Constitution with the stroke of a pen gets embroiled in or thwarted by protracted litigation—as it most likely will—a convention of states led by conservatives could serve as a fallback or a Hail Mary. https://t.co/qQPkdwQn6g
— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) January 24, 2025
The Founding Fathers were meticulous about installing proper checks and balances. They knew that one day if the national government overstepped its bounds and became tyrannical, “We the People” would need a safety mechanism external to the federal authority to correct course. As the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, recorded in his notes at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, George Mason, who introduced the convention process, cautioned that if amending the Constitution depended “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.”
The Framers unanimously agreed to Mason’s motion to adopt an inter-state convention method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton staked his closing argument for ratifying the new national charter in Federalist No. 85 on the efficacy of Article V to “erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” George Washington, among others, urged “the people” to employ Article V to improve the document as needed.
The Founding-era record is unmistakable: the men who wrote the Constitution viewed Article V as a tool for preserving the document’s original intent and preventing federal tyranny — not throwing out the Constitution.
Contrary to what Article V opponents allege against them, our Founders were anything but reckless. They wouldn’t have entrusted our rights and government to a provision vulnerable to manipulation by bad actors. A range of redundant safeguards — including the crucial requirement that any proposal emerging from an Article V convention must be ratified by 38 states — ensure the process remains secure, effective, and ultimately guided by the will of the people.
As Convention of States President Mark Meckler has pointed out, “It’s . . . absurd to think that 38 states would ratify an amendment proposal that expands federal power. After all, the 34 states that called the convention agreed to have a convention to do exactly the opposite.”
In response to the overwhelming evidence in favor of Article V, millions of patriotic, Constitution-loving Americans have joined the Convention of States movement to advocate for limits on federal spending, power, and terms of office. Once 34 states pass our resolution (19 have already done so), we will finally fulfill Hamilton’s dream for the states to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
Unfortunately, a handful of fringe groups on the right, like the John Birch Society, have aligned with left-wing publications like Mother Jones and left-wing organizations like Common Cause, Planned Parenthood, and MoveOn.org to attempt to stall our progress in the state legislatures, slandering our pro-Constitution organization with outrageous (and inconsistent) conspiracy theories about COS being controlled by globalists and George Soros. It’s ludicrous and suspect. But we will let you draw your own conclusions about why they are standing together against COS.
It’s time to set the record straight. The Convention of States grassroots movement has proven its commitment to the Constitution from day one. We’re not anti-constitutional. In fact, we’re one of the few remaining groups willing to use the Constitution to push back against federal overreach. If you’re opposed to that — that is, if you’re opposed to using the one part of the Constitution the Founding Fathers unanimously agreed on — then it’s you who’s against the Constitution, not us.
