The Only Reasonable Objection to Convention of States

The following was written by California COS activist Michael Beck.

Convention of States is an organization seeking to facilitate the states’ utilization of the convention provision of Article V of the US Constitution to propose amendments that will limit terms of office for elected officials and bureaucrats, as well as limit federal spending, power, and jurisdiction. They are doing so by working with state legislatures to pass a resolution in the requisite 34 states in order to initiate a convention where such proposals would be discussed.

The product of such a convention would be proposals rather than actual amendments. Pursuant to Article V, such a convention has no power or authority to amend anything—only to submit proposed amendments to the states where the power and authority to ratify are vested, just as when Congress proposes them.

Objections to this resolution that is being introduced in state legislatures nationally and has already passed in 19 states as of the date of this writing fall into one of two categories—content or principle. The first of these categories is reasonable while the other, for a constitutional republic, is not merely unreasonable—it merits grave concern.

A reasonable case can be made for why limiting federal terms of office, federal spending, federal power, and/or federal jurisdiction might not be the best option for our country. I’ve heard some arguments to that effect and, while I don’t find them remotely sufficient or convincing (and neither do a majority of Americans), I can respect the perspective of anyone who objects to the Convention of States resolution based on their opinion of the content of what such state legislation seeks to do.

What I’ve found I cannot respect or find any agreement with whatsoever is the perspective of individuals or organizations who object in principle to states utilizing the convention provision of Article V of the Constitution as drafted by our Framers. Such an objection, posing as historically justified and well-reasoned, betrays feigned fealty to the supreme law of our land and demonstrates an oligarchic impulse to selectively trust, follow, and utilize the constitutional provision allowing states to formally discuss and identify possible improvements to our government only when a certain few say the “time is right.”

And who knows exactly when the “time is right?” They do, of course.

The unifying common thread of the US citizenry is our commitment to the US Constitution—not every well-intentioned idea that originates in the minds of our citizens or the organizations they create, no matter how patriotic or civic-minded they seem. This is imperative to remember.

Respect for and compliance with our US Constitution is our unassailable standard for proper governance.

The mantra of those who object to the Convention of States resolution on so-called “principle” is, “There’s nothing wrong with our Constitution the way it is. The problem is it’s not being followed.” The irony of their self-defeating nonsensical contradiction usually escapes them until someone points out the obvious.

“I agree! So, since there’s nothing wrong with our Constitution the way it is now, one of its provisions in Article V allows states to conduct a convention for discussing and proposing improvements that might make our country even better. Should that be followed?”

Of course, they don’t want to follow that part of the Constitution. It’s only everyone else’s failure to follow it that undermines the Constitution—not their own.

In Article V, our ingenious Framers gave present-day America 51 sources (50 states + Congress) that could initiate the process to propose constitutional amendments, or “useful alterations” as Madison called them in Federalist 43.

Those who want to dismiss using the Framers’ Article V convention provision on “principle” are satisfied with reducing the options available for initiating proposals of useful alterations from 51 to just 1—only 1—Congress.

That eliminates the checks and balances for initiating improvement proposals by giving the national legislature sole discretion and full control—the power to propose and the power to refuse to propose. Those who object to an Article V convention in “principle” effectively endorse a 98% reduction of the sources for initiating proposals of relevant improvements to our government, requiring all such ideas to originate at the will and whim of those immersed in the machinations of the DC beltway.

Such muzzling of the states is antithetical to the balance of power the Framers intended our government to have. It undermines our Constitution.

Every liberty-loving patriot has an obligation to test their ideas about our nation’s self-governance against the sole acknowledged standard of our US Constitution, to which everyone who serves our nation or any state in it must affirm their support and defense, and to which they must pledge to bear true faith and allegiance—without any reservation or purpose of evasion.

Americans committed to our Constitution have an obligation to reject any individual’s or any organization’s ideas that fail to meet this standard. Blindly trusting any well-meaning patriotic citizen or organization is cult-following, not critical thinking.

Merriam-Webster’s definition of the word “subvert” is: to corrupt by an undermining of allegiance. Its definition of the word “sedition” is: incitement of resistance to lawful authority.

While it is clearly within the rights of US citizens to oppose the presence or use of a provision of the US Constitution and to talk and write freely about wanting to make lawful changes to it, undermining allegiance and inciting resistance to the lawful authority of states in a provision of the US Constitution by taking action or encouraging fellow citizens to take action to ignore, nullify or violate a provision of our supreme governing charter is an act of subversion and/or sedition.

Such undermining and resisting of a provision of our Constitution while simultaneously claiming to support and defend the Constitution is rank hypocrisy and quite possibly traitorous deception.

Now why would someone who opposes a provision of the Constitution in “principle” not seek to lawfully propose improving the Constitution by pursuing removal or revision of that provision? Here are a few reasons they don’t want you to realize:

1. Doing so would reveal they don’t actually believe "there’s nothing wrong with our Constitution the way it is.”

2. Our heritage of self-governance has considered their opposition to this constitutional provision to be “political opinion,” failing to acknowledge that neglecting rectification while persistently undermining and resisting it constitutes subversion and/or sedition.

3. They know US citizens across the political spectrum would have no appetite whatsoever to statutorily reduce the options available for initiating proposals of useful improvements of our government from 51 to just 1—that only the federal government should be able to initiate the process of proposing changes to the federal government. Persuading citizens of this would be too much work and, ultimately, unsuccessful.

4. They pride themselves in having risen above what they consider to be the typical citizen’s parochial reverence for the Constitution. They consider themselves to have developed a nuanced, enlightened understanding that enables them to better comprehend what’s best for our country, whether codified by our Framers or not. Their covert oligarchy has satisfactorily manipulated our present system, so they don’t need to fix what isn’t broken. Undermining and resisting Article V’s provision has worked so far, so well enough should be left alone.

To oppose or subvert the Constitution or act in a seditious manner against it consistently while actively neglecting to follow its prescribed remedy for lawfully proposing the amendments claimed to be necessary to remedy one’s opposition to the presence or use of a provision of the Constitution is to openly persist in subversion and/or sedition.

Such a position cannot be considered reasonable in our constitutional republic.

Open and active opposition to any part of the US Constitution while neglecting to openly and actively pursue the lawful process of seeking to rectify opposition by amending the US Constitution to affect changes to the opposed provision effectively demonstrates planned intent and satisfaction in undermining allegiance to and resistance of that part of the Constitution.

If we neglect to call it out for what it is, we will remain under their manipulation of our constitutional republic.

Any candidate for elected office, citizen, or organization that engages or persists in opposing, subverting, or acting in a seditious manner against any part of the US Constitution cannot be trusted to respect, support, and defend the US Constitution or to bear true faith and allegiance to it without reservation or purpose of evasion.

Make no mistake—objecting in principle to states utilizing the convention provision of Article V of the Constitution is a seriously sinister anti-constitutional manipulation in favor of a self-styled oligarchy and erosion of our constitutional republic’s foundation of federalism and liberty.

Sign the petition below to show your support for using Article V to limit federal spending, power, and terms of office!