Another week, and another United Nations shocking revelation. Supposedly, the United Nations was founded to facilitate peace between nations; however, it will be known by the fruit of its works and not its stated mission.
We’ll expose the latest revelation of the United Nations, and explain how this affects you. We’ll even offer solutions based on constitutional principles. So, please join us for today’s Analysis Behind the News.
If you’re concerned about American independence and freedom, then please watch and take the recommended actions. Also, be sure to like, subscribe, and share, so we can break through Big Tech censorship and reach many others.
Take Action:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Another week, and another United Nations shocking revelation. Supposedly, the United Nations was founded to facilitate peace between nations; however, it will be known by the fruit of its works and not its stated mission.
We’ll expose the latest revelation of the United Nations, and explain how this affects you. We’ll even offer solutions based on constitutional principles. So, please join us for today’s Analysis Behind the News.
If you’re concerned about American independence and freedom, then please watch and take the recommended actions. Also, be sure to like, subscribe, and share, so we can break through Big Tech censorship and reach many others.
Take Action:
An Article V convention is like a gun, it is neither good nor bad. It is just an extremely powerful tool.
A gun in the right hands can be used for good. In the wrong hands, it can do terrible destruction.
An Article V convention in the wrong hands can destroy what we have left of our liberty, hastening our demise.
Whose are the wrong hands?
People who are ignorant of what the Constitution already says. People who do not understand the principles upon which our constitution was formed, nor the world history which gave the Framers the wisdom to form it. People who are driven by partisan agendas or the influence of lobbyists. People who are trying to make their mark in the history books.
In other words, the vast majority of people involved in politics today.
No wonder the late Supreme Court Justice Scalia warned, “This is not a good century to write a constitution.”
I can identify with Madison, who “trembled” at the thought of a convention “in the present temper of America” and “in the present ferment of parties”.
Only a fool would place such a powerful weapon into such hands.
Learn more about Article V and the amendment process by visiting JBS.org.
For decades Article V Convention promoters have long held that all of the applications applying for a convention have to be the same or worded very similar, in order for Congress to call a convention intended for that purpose. This means that there is one track or list for a specific convention. No single track has reached the required number of states, 34, for Congress to call a convention. This has made some longtime convention promoters very impatient, and they want to dispense with tradition.
At the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)’s 2020 annual summit, former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker unveiled a plan. It would have states to sue Congress in order to utilize outdated state applications and unrelated Con-Con applications all for the express purpose of Congress calling a constitutional convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment.
David Biddulph, the co-founder of Let Us Vote for a BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment), also promoted the same scheme at the 2020 ALEC gathering. Biddulph proposed taking the then-28 active state resolutions seeking a Balanced Budget Amendment and combining them with six non-BBA Con-Con applications.
These extremely old Article V Convention applications, include:
Biddulph also recommended litigation to force Congress to call a convention. His plan proposes recruiting state attorneys general to file lawsuits demanding that Congress recognize that such a convention is long overdue, based on this dubious aggregation of different Con-Con applications. He stated,
“We think that the shortest path to actually getting a date for an Article V convention is through the Supreme Court,” he said. “That is definitely not through Congress.”
On March 14, 2023, Representative Jodey Arrington of Texas introduced House Concurrent Resolution 24 (of the 118th Congress). In which “Congress hereby calls a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States for a date and place to be determined on calling the Convention.”
These convention advocates claim the minimum number of states required for Congress to call a constitutional convention was already met.
According to the bill, “congressional and State records of plenary applications for amendments on any subject and applications for the single subject of Inflation-fighting Fiscal Responsibility Amendments compiled by the Article V Library counts Nevada’s “continuing” application, reported February 8, 1979, in the Congressional Record, as the 34th thus achieving the “two thirds” congressional mandate to call the Convention for proposing amendments; congressional records reported 39 applications by the end of 1979, 40 in 1983, and 42 total applications over time.”
Once again, they are inflating the numbers with unrelated/non-BBA Con-Con applications. Applications intended for a specific purpose ought not to be combined with applications for a general convention or unrelated purpose.
It’s imperative that we recognize these deceptive schemes and warn others about them in order to protect our Constitution and keep our Republic!
Learn more about Article V and the amendment process by visiting JBS.org.
The debate between Convention of States Project leaders and The John Birch Society regarding the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and whether or not it was a “runaway convention” has been going on for years.
In an interview with Bill Walton in October of 2022, Mark Meckler, president, and co-founder of COS said:
“There’s never been a runaway convention in American history”
This is wrong. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in fact a runaway convention. The delegates to the Convention of 1787 exceeded the authority of their sending state’s commissions for the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution – the Articles of Confederation and the Federal System – “adequate to the exigences of Government.” The end result was an entirely new Constitution, with a more a federal government possessed of powers that were to denied to them under the previous Federal Constitution.
That is the undeniable historical truth and COS leadership knows it. If an Article V constitutional convention were to be held in the 21st century, America would likely see the same result: the current Constitution replaced by an entirely one, with a federal government possessed of powers currently denied to it.
In the same interview, Meckler also said:
“There are no scholars on the right of national renown who believe there can be a runaway convention. And that’s a pretty audacious statement to make. But it’s a fact. There are none.”
Again, this is wrong. Many well-known constitutional scholars on both the right and the left have explained that the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 indeed was a runaway convention and that a second amendments convention would likely result in one as well. Watch our video about what historians and legal scholars say about holding another Constitutional Convention.
And finally, Meckler said:
“Professor Rob Natelson was the first person ever to pull from the National Archives the commissions of the men sent to convention. They actually came with documents that said what their authority was and what their power was. Imagine being the first open that drawer, pull those documents out. And what the commission say on seven of nine of them is that-“
“Who wrote the commissions?”
“The states themselves, state legislatures. So they’re saying to their delegates to convention, ‘here’s what you may and may not do.’ Seven out of nine of the states said that the commissioner has any and all authority necessary to render the federal constitution adequate for the exigencies of the union. There is no limitation on their power.”
On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress passed a resolution expressing its opinion that it is expedient that a Convention of delegates appointed by the several states be held in Philadelphia beginning in May 1787 for:
“The sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.”
Notice the language: “sole and express” and “reporting … alterations and provisions” to the “federal constitution.” Again, it cannot be stressed strenuously enough that the Articles of Confederation was the Constitution in 1787! Despite what you were taught in social studies class, that “weak” document saw us through a victorious war with one of the world’s most powerful empires.
As soon as a quorum of states was present at the Convention of 1787, Edmund Randolph of Virginia introduced what we call the “Virginia Plan,” a proposal that created an entirely new constitution, wherein was created an entirely new form of government, one that would be ratified by an entirely new process than the one required by the Articles of Confederation – the federal constitution that was then the law of the land.
Not only did the delegates at the Convention of 1787 violate the limits placed on their authority by Congress and the states, and not only did they break the rules established by Congress and the states before the convention began, but they produced a new constitution and a new form of government, completely tossing the then-Constitution and form of government onto the scrapheap of history.
If COS and other Article V Convention advocates are willing to deceive Americans into believing that the 1787 Convention was not a runaway convention in order to peddle a new one today, one must ask: what else are they not telling us?
Learn more about Article V and the amendment process by visiting JBS.org.
Most politicians would say we live in a Democracy. But in the Pledge of Allegiance, we say, “and to the Republic for which it stands”. Democracy, Republic, what’s the difference? You may be surprised. Today we’ll find out in this episode of Activate America.
Take Action:
1.) Like and Share this video with others.
2.) Learn more about the differences between Republics and Democracies.
3.) Apply for Membership with The John Birch Society and get involved.
