The following was written by Convention of States Intern Jacob Zanca.
Pennsylvania has taken yet another step in the direction of liberty, allowing volunteers from Convention of States Action, as well as their opponents, to testify before the state legislature in what ended up being another hotly contested debate over the merits of an Article V Convention.
On one side, COS Action President Mark Meckler stood with Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, along with a room full of grassroots volunteers from a variety of political and ideological backgrounds. The other side was lined with powerful, passionate opposition to the idea of using Article V to call a Convention of States.
Despite the length of Wednesday’s hearing, much of what was said was, frankly, predictably, and can very easily be boiled down to one overarching conflict: the timeless battle between boldness and fear. Both sides pointed out the obvious, glaring problems with federal overreach, but they presented different solutions.
One side pled with the committee members, and ultimately with the people watching, imploring them to take the reins and assert their right to stave off federal overreach by the same means which the Founding Fathers intended to be used in the event we ever got here. Its opposition advocated “electing the right people,” fixing the problem from the inside by trusting the alligators to drain the swamp.
The contrast was clear, between those willing only to shudder at a problem and those willing to do something about it.
For instance, compare these two quotes, one from COS Action President Mark Meckler and one from Andy Schlafly, of the Pennsylvania Eagle Forum.
Mr. Meckler
“Today, what we’re here to do, and why we’re attempting to call an Article V Convention of States is because we believe in the original Constitution, with the Bill of Rights. We believe that’s the document that was intended to govern the nation, and we believe that this document has been greatly altered, often to the discredit of the United States Supreme Court and often to the detriment of the rights of the American people over this last, specifically and especially, 115 years.”
Mr. Schlafly
“Things could be better, I don’t doubt that… and we could, all of us, do more in getting engaged in government, and making things better, I think there’s a lot of things that we should appreciate and defend, and the Constitution is one of them.”
What you’ll notice in common about these statements is the clear indication that we, as Americans, are in deep trouble. You’ll notice the clear indication that the Constitution is worth defending and that it is, indeed, under attack.
Mr. Schlafly hinted at how we could protect it, saying that we could all “do more in getting engaged in government and making things better,” but there was no plan of action. The difference between these statements, and the people giving them, is that one has offered a bold solution, while the other has yet to do so.
At a very basic level, everybody testifying on Wednesday agreed on a few important points. They acknowledged that the power to fend off the Federal Hydra rests with the people, but only a few had the courage to suggest really getting engaged in government, thereby really making things better.
Every midterm, we try “electing the right people,” and whether it’s the Gingrich Revolution of 1994, the 2006 midterms, the 2010 Tea Party uprising, or the so-called “Blue Wave” to come in the near future. We’ve seen, over and over, though, that no matter how many alligators we replace, we’ll never get enough to pull the plug.
The solution, then, to our federally recognized 2700-page, ten-pound “Constitution” isn’t to maintain the status quo. We need a solution as big as the problem, and that solution is the invocation of Article V of the United States Constitution to take power away from the federal government and put it in the hands of We, the People.
Want to join the solution? Sign the Convention of States Petition below!
