In this long and ongoing discussion regarding the merits or demerits of our state legislatures submitting applications to Congress ordering that body to call for a new Article V Constitutional Convention, we must again reiterate that there are many genuine American patriots in the ranks of that movement, and more than a few scoundrels. Several well-known and well-respected conservative leaders have endorsed this proposal as the only way to “save” our nation from its very long addiction to spending far more money than it ever takes in in the form of tariffs, taxes, fines, fees, etc. Large numbers of everyday Americans have also endorsed this call for a new CON-CON, or as its leading advocate, Mark Meckler, calls it—a “Convention of States”. Just within the past few weeks, a well-respected talk show host on the Upstate’s most popular talk radio station hosted a short discussion on the subject of a “Convention of States”. Mostly it was a one-sided PRO-COS discussion featuring a guest who is a strong proponent of this COS and who works for Jim DeMint who, we should know, is also strongly in favor of a CON-CON, or a COS as they love to call it, as though a COS is somehow “different” than an Article V CON-CON. Well, it is NOT! It’s the same thing deceptively wrapped in glittering ribbons—a wonderful present just waiting for the American people to unwrap and begin to enjoy living under the U.S. Constitution as our Founders wanted us to live. Yeah, sure it is. Unfortunately, the host of this radio show allowed very little “discussion” of this topic and cut short the arguments of the three or four callers who disagreed with his obvious pro-COS stand. Too bad—that show could have been a genuine learning experience, as it usually is.
I’m not going to present a side-by-side comparison of the pro-and anti-CON-CON arguments. You can go to Mark Meckler’s Convention of States website and read about the miracles that await us if another constitutional convention is called for. I remind you that this would be only the SECOND such gathering in our nation’s history—the FIRST being the convention held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, which turned out to be a RUNAWAY convention completely at odds with the original instructions from the several state legislatures to the delegates. I’ve stood twice in that hallowed room in the Pennsylvania State House (now called Independence Hall) in Philadelphia where our present Constitution was hammered out, voted on, and adopted. I only thank God in Heaven that the men who sweltered through that muggy Philadelphia summer to codify the rights that our Creator gives to all free people were men of integrity and honor, mostly devout, Biblically literate Christian men who had significant educations, who had read and studied the writings of educated political philosophers from France and England of their time, who understood the important differences between democracies, republics, oligarchies, and monarchies, and who were able to take the best from each system and craft it into a truly unique form of government unknown to the world then, or since. Would we present-day Americans be able to field a similar group of honorable, devout, and patriotic men (and I assume women) who would fill the ranks of a new CON-CON and be TRUSTED to show the same concerns for the preservation of our liberties that our original Founders did? Sadly, given the disintegrating cultural mores in which far too many Americans have submerged themselves, I THINK NOT! God, in His wisdom, brought our original Founders together in one place in 1787 for our betterment, it turned out. Whether He would do so again is conjectural at best, so I’ll refrain from commenting further on what He might or might not do.
The “Father of our Constitution”, James Madison, warned his countrymen of that time, and our time, well over 200 years ago, that those who have as their surreptitious goal the replacement of our 1787 Constitution will push for a convention under the PRETEXT of getting “amendments” proposed and then passed by the states. Today’s organized activities throughout the various state legislatures, activities that are being strongly pushed by Mark Meckler and his Convention of States, and several related organizations, is NOT, in my considered opinion, about getting a constitutional convention merely to propose amendments to limit federal powers. The TRUE purpose, I fear, and as many of our Framers feared, IS ABOUT GETTING A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WHERE AN ENTIRELY NEW CONSTITUTION CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Meckler and his group constantly deny that this is their intention, but to paraphrase old Will Shakespeare, “Methinks they do protest too much” (with apologies to Hamlet, Act 111, Scene 1).
In a letter to George Turberville, written November 2, 1788, James Madison got right to the heart of this matter. He wrote: “If a General Convention (called by unanimous consent or by Article V) were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution…an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it…would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who…might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric….” In that same letter, Madison goes on to write: “(I)t seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first (1787) Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second (constitutional convention) meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned”.
Is the “present temper” of our body politic more peaceful, more amenable to reason, more dispassioned and willing to compromise, more loathe to resort to violence, than were our countrymen in those turbulent days in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787? The original CON-CON of that year brought much rancor, much argumentation, many hurt feelings, and eventually prayer and lots of compromise from all of the delegates. Would Americans today, influenced as they are by all manner of forces and bigotries and lies and threats and ridicule and misinformation—and BIG MONEY--, be more peaceful—more willing to compromise—less prone to violence--than were our forebears of 1787? I have strong doubts that they would be.
Then there is the matter of some of Mark Meckler’s associates in their struggle to get a CON-CON called by Congress. Meckler and his “Convention of States” have always claimed that nothing could ever come out of an Article V CON CON except whatever amendments have been proposed, and we are also constantly assured that these proposed amendments will “limit the power of the federal government” once and for all time. Meckler, et.al. assure us that it would be impossible, because of the way they have set things up, for a “new” constitution to be written and submitted to the States for approval or rejection. (Tell that to the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787).
Some in the COS movement, however, seem to have “different agendas” than their fellow proponents. Take, for example, a man named Robert P. George, who is (and still remains, I assume) a member of the COS Legal Advisory Board. George has ALREADY co-authored a NEW, ostensibly “conservative” constitution for the U.S., and it is anything but conservative or Americanist. This proposed new constitution grants vast new powers to a brand new federal government and imposes pretty strict gun control. I’ve skimmed over parts of it online, and it scares the daylights out of me. For every “right” or “freedom” it advances, it adds a qualifying “restriction” that governments may activate, “under force of law”, of course.
Incidentally, Robert P. George is currently listed as a MEMBER of the treacherous and treasonous Council on Foreign Relations, a group of powerful globalists who have long sought (at least since 1921) to move the U.S. into a new North American Union and also eliminate the national sovereignty of our nation, thus blending the U.S. into a world government. According to Meckler, Professor Robert George teaches at Princeton University, and he claims that George is “considered the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America….” And who says that he is “the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America”? Apparently, Meckler says so. According to my mentor, Joanna Martin, who writes under the pen name Publius Huldah, herself an eminent retired constitutional law trial attorney and recognized authority on ‘constitutional convention’ legalities, “Robbie George was on the ‘National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project. The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official branch of the federal government.”
“Robbie George and three others have drafted a new Constitution which severely restricts the Right of the People to keep and bear arms. Their new constitution says, in Article 1, Section 12, clause 7:
“Neither the States nor the United States shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms OF THE SORT ORDINARILY USED FOR SELF-DEFENSE OR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, PROVIDED THAT STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES IN PLACES SUBJECT TO ITS GENERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MAY ENACT AND ENFORCE REASONABLE REGULATIONS ON THE BEARING OF ARMS, AND THE KEEPING OF ARMS BY PERSONS DETERMINED, WITH DUE PROCESS, TO BE DANGEROUS TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS.” (Emphasis mine---whl).
Ahah! So one of Mark Meckler’s close associates in the COS movement has already proposed a NEW constitution which:
- Authorizes the state and federal governments to BAN the possession of all arms unless they are “ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes. Who will decide what arms are “ordinarily” used for self-defense or recreation? Why, of course, the GOVERNMENT will decide;
- Authorizes the state governments and the federal government (in those places subject to its ‘general regulatory authority’), to enact and enforce ‘reasonable regulations on the bearing of those arms they permit us to have. What is a “reasonable regulation? Why, of course, the government will decide;
- Authorizes the state and federal governments to strip us of our right to keep even those arms ‘ordinarily used for self-defense’ if someone in the government (presumably a judge from some level of government) decides that you are a danger to yourself or others. And who decides what acts or beliefs you commit or hold are “dangerous”? Well, I think you know the answer.
Do you suppose that Robert George and his associates, working with Mark Meckler and his COS movement, have gone to all of this trouble of writing an entirely new constitution without the reasonable expectations that it would at least be DISCUSSED and probably put to a vote at their COS? Hmmm? Remember well what I say: We are living in a time when Christians who read the Bible—people who read our constitution and urge legislators to uphold it—Moms and Dads who speak out at school board meetings against pornography in our schools—against those ridiculous and useless Covid mask mandates—against the evil teaching of critical race theory in our schools---ARE LABELED AS ‘DOMESTIC TERRORISTS’ by the collectivist/Marxist enemies of free people who CURRENTLY infest our various levels of government! It’s only one short step for “the government” under some new constitutional amendment or an entirely new constitution, to label these citizens “domestic terrorists” who will NOT be allowed to keep and bear any kind of arms. Why? Because a new constitution or some unwise amendment rammed through the existing process will say they are “dangerous” to civic order and peace, hence they must never be allowed to ‘keep and bear arms.’ We’re seeing this unconstitutional aggression against our liberties in some states even NOW.
And that horror, my fellow conservatives, and fellow Americanists, is what could be awaiting us if we succumb to this siren song of a new CON CON. Many of my fellow Americans who support Mark Meckler and his COS movement will think me daffy—a subscriber to “conspiracy theories”-- for bringing up concerns that, they assure us, will never come to fruition. Sorry, but my long study of human nature and fear of the “conspiratorial proclivities” so loved by some of my fellow citizens gives me great cause for concern. It should do the same for you. But if you disagree with me that is your constitutional right (at present). But ONE of us is going to be proved wrong, perhaps in the near future, and it won’t be me!