The Call for a Convention of States Is a Secret Plot to Expand the Federal Government and Strip You of Your Constitutional Rights

The Convention of States movement is a deep state strategy to expand the power of the federal government and strip you of the constitutional protections of your God-given rights. It is being secretly funded and supported by the far left, including, but not limited to, the Young Turks, and Wolf Pac.

Socialist schemers have entered into a strategy of infiltrating and co-opting conservative political groups to gain support among conservatives for a constitutional convention of the states. Well-meaning conservatives have no idea that they are being used to subvert the freedoms of Americans. It is part of the plan that the convention of the states will become a runaway constitutional convention. At that runaway convention, votes will be rigged to vote for amendments that will create a stronger federal government, neutered state governments, and a populace stripped of God-given rights.

The schemers behind the call for a constitutional convention cite statements made by Antonin Scalia in 1979 indicating that he favored a constitutional convention. That was before his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Apparently, Justice Scalia changed his view on a convention. In 2014 he adamantly stated: “I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?”

The stated objective of the convention is to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.” That nebulous statement is simply a list of platitudes designed to persuade people to support a convention of the states where the proposed amendments (or even an entirely new Constitution) will emerge that go far beyond (and even contrary) to those objectives.

The Jefferson Statement is the seminal document for the Convention of States movement. It encapsulates in two pages the philosophy and leadership behind the movement. There are eleven (11) luminaries from academia, media, and politics who put their names to the document.

According to the Convention of States Action organization, “[Robert] George is a signer of the Jefferson Statement, which became the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

That list of luminaries seems to be the guiding intellects behind the Convention of States movement. Indeed, they are described as the “Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

Let us explore what kind of changes board member Robert P. George would advocate. He took part in the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting project. He was the principal co-author of a model constitution titled “The Conservative Constitution.”

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

George proposed to change it to say:

“All persons have the inalienable right to the free exercise of religion in accordance with conscience.”

Did you notice the slight change? The First Amendment has been changed from recognizing an assumed God-given right to the right flowing from George’s constitution itself. The authentic First Amendment assumes that the people have the God-given right to the free exercise of religion and places a limit on the government. Whereas, under the George variation, his constitution has become the source of a person’s rights. “All persons have the inalienable right …” Under George’s rubric, the right to the free exercise of religion is granted to the people (making it a privilege).

Once the inalienable God-given right has been transformed into a supposed “inalienable” privilege, the limitations on that right can be instituted. And George proceeds to do just that. For example, in the George revision, the supposed inalienable right to freedom of religion can be prohibited, impeded, or penalized when it is “necessary to secure public peace and order or comparably compelling public ends.” That does not sound so inalienable to me.

The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently provides:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Robert George does not much like that language, so he changed it. George’s “Conservative Constitution” states:

“Neither the States nor the United State 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.”

Notice that the only right protected is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or recreational purposes. And it is only those arms ordinarily used for those purposes that are protected. Any arms deemed not in ordinary use for self-defense or recreation are not protected. But protection of the right to bear self-defense and recreational arms was not the primary reason for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is for the purpose of giving the people the ability to resist a tyrannical government that would seek to infringe on their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. The Second Amendment is the enforcement provision in the Constitution. The people must have the right to resist tyranny. That is why it says that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The militia is not necessary for the security of a tyrannical state; it is necessary to ensure the security of a “free” state.

George was not finished stripping the people of their right to resist tyranny. He then adds a limitation on the right to self-defense by saying that the right to bear arms for that purpose is subject to the general regulatory authority of the state and federal governments. He enumerates that the state and federal governments “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.” That language is sufficient to seize virtually all weapons from the people. The vaccine mandates should wake people up to what the federal and state governments think of due process protections.

The Ninth Amendment presently states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

What that means is that the Bill of Rights is only a partial list of your God-given rights. You are not granted rights in the Bill of Rights. The rights are granted by God, and the Bill of Rights merely enumerates (lists) some of the important ones. All other God-given rights are retained by the people.

George does not much like the Ninth Amendment either, and so he provided the following change:

“The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed, by negative implication, to deny or abrogate rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law, which shall be retained by the People; or to enlarge the powers of the state or federal governments.”

Notice that he takes away the concept of God-given rights. He changes the remaining rights of the people to only those “rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law.” That means that there must be some legal source that recognizes the asserted right. For example, it would not be enough to cite to the Bible to argue that the unborn child has a God-given right to life. Under George’s new construct, there must be some “legal source.”.

The Tenth Amendment currently provides:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

What that means is that the federal government is a government of specifically enumerated powers. All powers not specifically granted in the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. George eviscerates that limitation by deleting the Tenth Amendment from his “Conservative Constitution.” That opens up the Constitution to be interpreted to allow for certain implied powers of the federal government.

The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was intended by the founders as a limit only on the federal government. After the civil war and the resulting 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has selectively incorporated many of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and applied them to the states. But George has taken that a step further. Every limiting provision in George’s “Conservative Constitution” is a limit on both the federal and state governments. But the states already have their own constitutions with their own Bills of Rights. George’s constitution applies a uniform Bill of Rights to the federal and state governments. That undermines the federalism of the U.S. Constitution. That uniform Bill of Rights would clear the way for the amalgamation and absorption of the states under an all-powerful national government.

Alex Newman in a February 21, 2022 post on the New American, explains:

The dark money-funded “Convention of States” movement to open up the U.S. Constitution to amendments in a constitutional convention appears to be a Deep State plot to put the final nails into the coffin of America’s constitutional republic, warns The New American magazine’s Alex Newman in this episode of Behind The Deep State. Of course, Deep State operatives have long been hoping to overthrow the Constitution and the limits on government it establishes, but they have always failed while trying to use liberals. Now, they are buying prominent conservatives and Republican legislators with shadowy, anonymous money, and obviously deceptive arguments. And they are making much more progress than ever before. Deep State moneyman George Soros, meanwhile, is funding left-wing efforts to call an Article V Convention. On the Convention of States side, one of chief Mark Meckler’s board members and close associates in the effort is actually a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Share this episode widely before it’s too late! 



False Claims of Convention Promoters from The John Birch Society on Vimeo.



For more information, go to Stop a Constitutional Convention.

A far left-wing organization called “Move to Amend” has the objective of creating a “real democracy …  through amending the United States Constitution”

Check out the radical left-wing organizations in “Move to Amend” that are working alongside “conservatives” in the convention of states movement to amend the U.S. Constitution.

You will see such left-wing liberal organizations in “Move to Amend” working toward amending the Constitution as Move On, National Lawyers Guild, New Progressive Alliance, Americans for Democratic Action, Wolf Pac, and the American Humanist Association.

Indeed, Wolf Pac was founded by left-wing radical Cenk Uygur, who is the leader of the Young Turks. Wolf Pac is pushing hard for an Article 5 convention of the states toward the end of radically changing the U.S. Constitution.

How can conservative and socialist groups find common ground in amending the U.S. Constitution? The conservative groups are simply useful idiots being used by clever sociopaths.

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3.


17 thoughts on “The Call for a Convention of States Is a Secret Plot to Expand the Federal Government and Strip You of Your Constitutional Rights

  1. Can you please provide some hard facts as to the Soros connection other than he said/she said? Your whole article seems to be based on that premise and if you are going to write about it, I think you need to provide the information as not to sully your reputation.
    I also need to know who the legislators are the COS bought?
    These are all baseless lies and it is sad to see them being regurgitated without hard facts from a Christian, of which I witness to be also.

  2. This so called “deep state strategy” Convention of States was co-founded over 9 years ago by two noble men, one of whom was co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots and the other of whom, another attorney himself who homeschooled his children and fought the battle all the way to the Supreme Court so that everyone over the past several decades who has home schooled their children would not be dragged to jail. Your comments that the “Socialist schemers have entered into a strategy of infiltrating and co-opting conservative political groups to gain support among conservatives for a constitutional convention of the states. Well-meaning conservatives have no idea that they are being used to subvert the freedoms of Americans. It is part of the plan that the convention of the states will become a runaway constitutional convention. At that runaway convention, votes will be rigged to vote for amendments that will create a stronger federal government, neutered state governments, and a populace stripped of God-given rights” shows your lack of knowledge of Article V which is clearly defined as an amending convention. In addition, to think that somehow any a suggestion that would come from a meeting could be called a runaway convention is fear mongering at its’ best. Since when was a suggestion made at a meeting a cause for panic? This meeting, a convention, would simply be the forum for the states to discuss proposing amendments. With only one vote per state, tell me how that would happen? In addition, it would take 3/4 or 34 states to pass any of the suggested amendments that would come from a convention. NO this is not a secret plot to expand the Federal Government in fact it is just the opposite! It is a very public and well known by every leading conservative intellectual in America that this could possibly be the only hope America has for restraining the Federal Government. Congress will never fix itself. The runaway spending, the overreaching mandates of masks and vaccines, and the growing size and scope of IRS agents with guns, FBI raids on political opponents. Now there’s a deep state for you. Dig in and get your facts straight and come over to the right side. Your stance is with the left – it is they who want to dismantle the Convention of States. The line has been drawn in the sand and it’s time to take a stand.

    • The Jefferson Statement is the seminal document for the Convention of States movement. It encapsulates in two pages the philosophy and leadership behind the movement. There are eleven (11) luminaries from academia, media, and politics who put their names to the document.

      According to the Convention of States Action organization, “[Robert] George is a signer of the Jefferson Statement, which became the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

      That list of luminaries seems to be the guiding intellects behind the Convention of States movement. Indeed, they are described as the “Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

      Let us explore what kind of changes board member Robert P. George would advocate. He took part in the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting project. He was the principal co-author of a model constitution titled “The Conservative Constitution.”

      The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently states:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      George proposed to change it to say:

      “All persons have the inalienable right to the free exercise of religion in accordance with conscience.”

      Did you notice the slight change? The First Amendment has been changed from recognizing an assumed God-given right to the right flowing from George’s constitution itself. The authentic First Amendment assumes that the people have the God-given right to the free exercise of religion and places a limit on the government. Whereas, under the George variation, his constitution has become the source of a person’s rights. “All persons have the inalienable right …” Under George’s rubric, the right to the free exercise of religion is granted to the people (making it a privilege).

      Once the inalienable God-given right has been transformed into a supposed “inalienable” privilege, the limitations on that right can be instituted. And George proceeds to do just that. For example, in the George revision, the supposed inalienable right to freedom of religion can be prohibited, impeded, or penalized when it is “necessary to secure public peace and order or comparably compelling public ends.” That does not sound so inalienable to me.

      The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently provides:

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Robert George does not much like that language, so he changed it. George’s “Conservative Constitution” states:

      “Neither the States nor the United State 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.”

      Notice that the only right protected is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or recreational purposes. But those are not the primary reasons for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is for the purpose of giving the people the ability to resist a tyrannical government that would seek to infringe on their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. The Second Amendment is the enforcement provision in the Constitution. The people must have the right to resist tyranny. That is why it says that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The militia is not necessary for the security of a tyrannical state; it is necessary to ensure the security of a “free” state.

      George was not finished stripping the people of their right to resist tyranny. He then adds a limitation on the right to self-defense by saying that the right to bear arms for that purpose is subject to the general regulatory authority of the state and federal governments. He enumerates that the state and federal governments “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.” That language is sufficient to seize virtually all weapons from the people. The vaccine mandates should wake people up to what the federal and state governments think of due process protections.

      The Ninth Amendment presently states:

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      What that means is that the Bill of Rights is only a partial list of your God-given rights. You are not granted rights in the Bill of Rights. The rights are granted by God, and the Bill of Rights merely enumerates (lists) some of the important ones. All other God-given rights are retained by the people.

      George does not much like the Ninth Amendment either, and so he provided the following change:

      “The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed, by negative implication, to deny or abrogate rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law, which shall be retained by the People; or to enlarge the powers of the state or federal governments.”

      Notice that he takes away the concept of God-given rights. He changes the remaining rights of the people to only those “rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law.” That means that there must be some legal source that recognizes the asserted right. For example, it would not be enough to cite to the Bible to argue that the unborn child has a God-given right to life. Under George’s new construct, there must be some “legal source.”.

      The Tenth Amendment currently provides:

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      What that means is that the federal government is a government of specifically enumerated powers. All powers not specifically granted in the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. George eviscerates that limitation by deleting the Tenth Amendment from his “Conservative Constitution.” That opens up the Constitution to be interpreted to allow for certain implied powers of the federal government.

      The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was intended by the founders as a limit only on the federal government. After the civil war and the resulting 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has selectively incorporated many of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and applied them to the states. But George has taken that a step further. Every limiting provision in George’s “Conservative Constitution” is a limit on both the federal and state governments. But the states already have their own constitutions with their own Bills of Rights. George’s constitution applies a uniform Bill of Rights to the federal and state governments. That undermines the federalism of the U.S. Constitution. That uniform Bill of Rights would clear the way for the amalgamation and absorption of the states under an all-powerful national government.

  3. your article is based on allegations made on an article from 2013. Much of the article tries to tie people to George Soros, which you have since removed references to him.

    Have you verified the other people stated are still the same status and involvements as alleged in this article from 2013 which you state is the basis of your allegation?

    • The Jefferson Statement is the seminal document for the Convention of States movement. It encapsulates in two pages the philosophy and leadership behind the movement. There are eleven (11) luminaries from academia, media, and politics who put their names to the document.

      According to the Convention of States Action organization, “[Robert] George is a signer of the Jefferson Statement, which became the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

      That list of luminaries seems to be the guiding intellects behind the Convention of States movement. Indeed, they are described as the “Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

      Let us explore what kind of changes board member Robert P. George would advocate. He took part in the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting project. He was the principal co-author of a model constitution titled “The Conservative Constitution.”

      The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently states:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      George proposed to change it to say:

      “All persons have the inalienable right to the free exercise of religion in accordance with conscience.”

      Did you notice the slight change? The First Amendment has been changed from recognizing an assumed God-given right to the right flowing from George’s constitution itself. The authentic First Amendment assumes that the people have the God-given right to the free exercise of religion and places a limit on the government. Whereas, under the George variation, his constitution has become the source of a person’s rights. “All persons have the inalienable right …” Under George’s rubric, the right to the free exercise of religion is granted to the people (making it a privilege).

      Once the inalienable God-given right has been transformed into a supposed “inalienable” privilege, the limitations on that right can be instituted. And George proceeds to do just that. For example, in the George revision, the supposed inalienable right to freedom of religion can be prohibited, impeded, or penalized when it is “necessary to secure public peace and order or comparably compelling public ends.” That does not sound so inalienable to me.

      The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently provides:

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Robert George does not much like that language, so he changed it. George’s “Conservative Constitution” states:

      “Neither the States nor the United State 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.”

      Notice that the only right protected is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or recreational purposes. But those are not the primary reasons for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is for the purpose of giving the people the ability to resist a tyrannical government that would seek to infringe on their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. The Second Amendment is the enforcement provision in the Constitution. The people must have the right to resist tyranny. That is why it says that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The militia is not necessary for the security of a tyrannical state; it is necessary to ensure the security of a “free” state.

      George was not finished stripping the people of their right to resist tyranny. He then adds a limitation on the right to self-defense by saying that the right to bear arms for that purpose is subject to the general regulatory authority of the state and federal governments. He enumerates that the state and federal governments “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.” That language is sufficient to seize virtually all weapons from the people. The vaccine mandates should wake people up to what the federal and state governments think of due process protections.

      The Ninth Amendment presently states:

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      What that means is that the Bill of Rights is only a partial list of your God-given rights. You are not granted rights in the Bill of Rights. The rights are granted by God, and the Bill of Rights merely enumerates (lists) some of the important ones. All other God-given rights are retained by the people.

      George does not much like the Ninth Amendment either, and so he provided the following change:

      “The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed, by negative implication, to deny or abrogate rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law, which shall be retained by the People; or to enlarge the powers of the state or federal governments.”

      Notice that he takes away the concept of God-given rights. He changes the remaining rights of the people to only those “rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law.” That means that there must be some legal source that recognizes the asserted right. For example, it would not be enough to cite to the Bible to argue that the unborn child has a God-given right to life. Under George’s new construct, there must be some “legal source.”.

      The Tenth Amendment currently provides:

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      What that means is that the federal government is a government of specifically enumerated powers. All powers not specifically granted in the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. George eviscerates that limitation by deleting the Tenth Amendment from his “Conservative Constitution.” That opens up the Constitution to be interpreted to allow for certain implied powers of the federal government.

      The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was intended by the founders as a limit only on the federal government. After the civil war and the resulting 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has selectively incorporated many of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and applied them to the states. But George has taken that a step further. Every limiting provision in George’s “Conservative Constitution” is a limit on both the federal and state governments. But the states already have their own constitutions with their own Bills of Rights. George’s constitution applies a uniform Bill of Rights to the federal and state governments. That undermines the federalism of the U.S. Constitution. That uniform Bill of Rights would clear the way for the amalgamation and absorption of the states under an all-powerful national government.

  4. Convention of States is not out to expand the power of the federal government.
    It actually trying to do just the opposite by using the Constitution using Article V to save the Constitution

    • The Jefferson Statement is the seminal document for the Convention of States movement. It encapsulates in two pages the philosophy and leadership behind the movement. There are eleven (11) luminaries from academia, media, and politics who put their names to the document.

      According to the Convention of States Action organization, “[Robert] George is a signer of the Jefferson Statement, which became the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

      That list of luminaries seems to be the guiding intellects behind the Convention of States movement. Indeed, they are described as the “Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

      Let us explore what kind of changes board member Robert P. George would advocate. He took part in the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting project. He was the principal co-author of a model constitution titled “The Conservative Constitution.”

      The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently states:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      George proposed to change it to say:

      “All persons have the inalienable right to the free exercise of religion in accordance with conscience.”

      Did you notice the slight change? The First Amendment has been changed from recognizing an assumed God-given right to the right flowing from George’s constitution itself. The authentic First Amendment assumes that the people have the God-given right to the free exercise of religion and places a limit on the government. Whereas, under the George variation, his constitution has become the source of a person’s rights. “All persons have the inalienable right …” Under George’s rubric, the right to the free exercise of religion is granted to the people (making it a privilege).

      Once the inalienable God-given right has been transformed into a supposed “inalienable” privilege, the limitations on that right can be instituted. And George proceeds to do just that. For example, in the George revision, the supposed inalienable right to freedom of religion can be prohibited, impeded, or penalized when it is “necessary to secure public peace and order or comparably compelling public ends.” That does not sound so inalienable to me.

      The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently provides:

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Robert George does not much like that language, so he changed it. George’s “Conservative Constitution” states:

      “Neither the States nor the United State 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.”

      Notice that the only right protected is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or recreational purposes. But those are not the primary reasons for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is for the purpose of giving the people the ability to resist a tyrannical government that would seek to infringe on their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. The Second Amendment is the enforcement provision in the Constitution. The people must have the right to resist tyranny. That is why it says that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The militia is not necessary for the security of a tyrannical state; it is necessary to ensure the security of a “free” state.

      George was not finished stripping the people of their right to resist tyranny. He then adds a limitation on the right to self-defense by saying that the right to bear arms for that purpose is subject to the general regulatory authority of the state and federal governments. He enumerates that the state and federal governments “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.” That language is sufficient to seize virtually all weapons from the people. The vaccine mandates should wake people up to what the federal and state governments think of due process protections.

      The Ninth Amendment presently states:

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      What that means is that the Bill of Rights is only a partial list of your God-given rights. You are not granted rights in the Bill of Rights. The rights are granted by God, and the Bill of Rights merely enumerates (lists) some of the important ones. All other God-given rights are retained by the people.

      George does not much like the Ninth Amendment either, and so he provided the following change:

      “The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed, by negative implication, to deny or abrogate rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law, which shall be retained by the People; or to enlarge the powers of the state or federal governments.”

      Notice that he takes away the concept of God-given rights. He changes the remaining rights of the people to only those “rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law.” That means that there must be some legal source that recognizes the asserted right. For example, it would not be enough to cite to the Bible to argue that the unborn child has a God-given right to life. Under George’s new construct, there must be some “legal source.”.

      The Tenth Amendment currently provides:

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      What that means is that the federal government is a government of specifically enumerated powers. All powers not specifically granted in the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. George eviscerates that limitation by deleting the Tenth Amendment from his “Conservative Constitution.” That opens up the Constitution to be interpreted to allow for certain implied powers of the federal government.

      The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was intended by the founders as a limit only on the federal government. After the civil war and the resulting 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has selectively incorporated many of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and applied them to the states. But George has taken that a step further. Every limiting provision in George’s “Conservative Constitution” is a limit on both the federal and state governments. But the states already have their own constitutions with their own Bills of Rights. George’s constitution applies a uniform Bill of Rights to the federal and state governments. That undermines the federalism of the U.S. Constitution. That uniform Bill of Rights would clear the way for the amalgamation and absorption of the states under an all-powerful national government.

  5. Such malicious statements are not about supporting our Constitution. Have you read it! Have you read Article V? Obviously, your knowledge of our history is most limited.

    • The Jefferson Statement is the seminal document for the Convention of States movement. It encapsulates in two pages the philosophy and leadership behind the movement. There are eleven (11) luminaries from academia, media, and politics who put their names to the document.

      According to the Convention of States Action organization, “[Robert] George is a signer of the Jefferson Statement, which became the Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

      That list of luminaries seems to be the guiding intellects behind the Convention of States movement. Indeed, they are described as the “Legal Board of Reference for the Convention of States Project.”

      Let us explore what kind of changes board member Robert P. George would advocate. He took part in the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting project. He was the principal co-author of a model constitution titled “The Conservative Constitution.”

      The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently states:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      George proposed to change it to say:

      “All persons have the inalienable right to the free exercise of religion in accordance with conscience.”

      Did you notice the slight change? The First Amendment has been changed from recognizing an assumed God-given right to the right flowing from George’s constitution itself. The authentic First Amendment assumes that the people have the God-given right to the free exercise of religion and places a limit on the government. Whereas, under the George variation, his constitution has become the source of a person’s rights. “All persons have the inalienable right …” Under George’s rubric, the right to the free exercise of religion is granted to the people (making it a privilege).

      Once the inalienable God-given right has been transformed into a supposed “inalienable” privilege, the limitations on that right can be instituted. And George proceeds to do just that. For example, in the George revision, the supposed inalienable right to freedom of religion can be prohibited, impeded, or penalized when it is “necessary to secure public peace and order or comparably compelling public ends.” That does not sound so inalienable to me.

      The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution presently provides:

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Robert George does not much like that language, so he changed it. George’s “Conservative Constitution” states:

      “Neither the States nor the United State 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.”

      Notice that the only right protected is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or recreational purposes. But those are not the primary reasons for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is for the purpose of giving the people the ability to resist a tyrannical government that would seek to infringe on their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. The Second Amendment is the enforcement provision in the Constitution. The people must have the right to resist tyranny. That is why it says that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The militia is not necessary for the security of a tyrannical state; it is necessary to ensure the security of a “free” state.

      George was not finished stripping the people of their right to resist tyranny. He then adds a limitation on the right to self-defense by saying that the right to bear arms for that purpose is subject to the general regulatory authority of the state and federal governments. He enumerates that the state and federal governments “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.” That language is sufficient to seize virtually all weapons from the people. The vaccine mandates should wake people up to what the federal and state governments think of due process protections.

      The Ninth Amendment presently states:

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      What that means is that the Bill of Rights is only a partial list of your God-given rights. You are not granted rights in the Bill of Rights. The rights are granted by God, and the Bill of Rights merely enumerates (lists) some of the important ones. All other God-given rights are retained by the people.

      George does not much like the Ninth Amendment either, and so he provided the following change:

      “The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed, by negative implication, to deny or abrogate rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law, which shall be retained by the People; or to enlarge the powers of the state or federal governments.”

      Notice that he takes away the concept of God-given rights. He changes the remaining rights of the people to only those “rights, privileges, or immunities arising from other sources of law.” That means that there must be some legal source that recognizes the asserted right. For example, it would not be enough to cite to the Bible to argue that the unborn child has a God-given right to life. Under George’s new construct, there must be some “legal source.”.

      The Tenth Amendment currently provides:

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      What that means is that the federal government is a government of specifically enumerated powers. All powers not specifically granted in the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. George eviscerates that limitation by deleting the Tenth Amendment from his “Conservative Constitution.” That opens up the Constitution to be interpreted to allow for certain implied powers of the federal government.

      The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was intended by the founders as a limit only on the federal government. After the civil war and the resulting 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has selectively incorporated many of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and applied them to the states. But George has taken that a step further. Every limiting provision in George’s “Conservative Constitution” is a limit on both the federal and state governments. But the states already have their own constitutions with their own Bills of Rights. George’s constitution applies a uniform Bill of Rights to the federal and state governments. That undermines the federalism of the U.S. Constitution. That uniform Bill of Rights would clear the way for the amalgamation and absorption of the states under an all-powerful national government.

  6. The U.S. Constitution is founded upon the CHRISTIAN egalitarian premise of equal protections and equal benefits before and under the law for all… and so, precluding the NON-CHRISTIAN non-egalitarian notion of unequal protections and unequal benefits before and under the law for a few, by way of having NON-CHRISTIAN-LED BRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVES declare and dictate that protections and benefits will be governed by way of NON-CHRISTIAN-LED BRAT STATES, and rather, than be effected NATIONWIDE… .
    In the New Testament’s Book of Romans Chapter 13: 1 and 2, we read the following:…
    .
    1) Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [NIV]
    .
    In the New Testament’s Book of Mark Chapter 3: 23 to 27, we read the following:…
    .
    23) So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24) If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25) If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26) And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27) In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house…” [NIV]
    .
    To the matter… for TRUE Christians, it is clear that we are to be subject to that which is in authority. But, it’s also clear, that the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY within a democratic country– at least!– is a country’s God-allowed respective national constitution!… and which– invariably!– contains Rights and Freedoms (e.g., Freedom of Expression, Press Freedom, Life, Security of the Person and EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL… BUT, ETCETERA!). And to resist such… and in keeping with Romans 13: 1 and 2… IS TO RESIST THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GRANTED TO A COUNTRY’S PEOPLE THROUGH GOD’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY; AND, THEREBY, TO RESIST GOD AND HIS HOLY SPIRIT! And in addition to the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of our national constitutions, is the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)… the signatories to which, are available for all too see.
    .
    And reader… and if I may!… let me offer up juxtaposed analogous “relevant arguments” and translations of Christ’s words conveyed in Mark 3…
    .
    1) How can Constitutional Paramountcy drive out Constitutional Paramountcy? 2) If a Constitution’s words be RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE in the context of it’s̲ entirety, that Constitution can’t stand. 3) If a Government is divided against itself, that Government can’t stand. 4) If a President opposes one’s self and is divided, such a soul can’t stand; that soul’s end has come. 5) In truth, no one can defeat a strong philosophy’s premise without first binding it’s̲ premise. Then one can defeat the strong philosophy’s premise.
    .
    To close, in keeping with a prerequisite NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE premise of a Constitution, a Constitution that cannot aver NATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS for ALL CITIZENS within the purview of it’s̲ mandate, is based upon a RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE premise… and so and thus, if local and state-wide interpretations of the purview of NATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS D̲E̲L̲I̲M̲I̲T̲S̲ NATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS– and the Constitution, in fact, supports such a delimitation!– then that Constitution’s “egalitarian premise” is faulty, and NATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS can’t be realized; thus, CONSTITUTIONAL PARAMOUNTCY is but RUSEFUL deference to LOCAL AND STATE-WIDE DIVISIONS!
    .
    For God so Loved the WORLD!… etc., etc.!… and so, so much for American Christian Nationalism– let alone, AMERICAN PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BRAT STATEISM/ REPRESENTATION!
    .
    CHRISTIAN America and Americans have a GLOBAL job to do… and if it/ they don’t want the job, then God will give it to somebody else!… God’s got no time for brats!

  7. I noticed you used a lot of John Birch Society as your sources.
    The same John Birch Society who believes the Nazi regimes murder of the Jewish people was a lie in order to get the United States into World War II? (my source is the JBS documents scanned into archives. org and other websites). JBS claim that then, General Eisenhower and Winston Churchill’s daughter was having an affair. That he and Churchill created a plan to bring communism to the United States by making Russia a close ally against the Nazis. This is the John Birch Society that states that the Nazi Regime in Germany, was the only true freedom-loving nation.

    Seriously, these guys are your source for information about the Constitution of the United States?
    Why not use Article V of the Constitution as your source of information?

    • So, you have nothing to say about the evidence that they present. You, instead, attack their credibility. I am aware of the failings of JBS. It is a Zionist front operation. It was funded and designed by powerful Zionists to spin attention away from the real power behind the world conspiracy against God and man. Read the following article from one of its founders, Revilo Oliver: http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/2015/01/revilo-oliver-on-the-john-birch-society/

      Despite the failings of JBS, I found that what JBS has to say about the convention of states movement is accurate. Why don’t you check out the evidence, as I have done?

  8. Nothing the JBS says about the Article V convention is accurate. Here’s one example: that Congress would control the convention using their Article I Necessary and Proper powers. That’s not true. There was even a court case from the early 80’s (Idaho v Freeman) in which the court held that Congress has no power to act outside of the authority granted to it by Article V. The court went on further to state that, with regard to the amendment process, Congress does not retain any of its Article I powers.

    Here is a link to that ruling: https://www.leagle.com/decision/19811636529fsupp110711473

    Search for this: does not retain any of its traditional authority vested in it by article I

    This is one specific example of how the JBS is 180 degrees off from reality.

    Care to discuss this specific issue (whether Congress can or cannot control the inner workings of the convention)?

    • You seem to think that Congress will follow the rules. Do you not understand that Congress has demonstrated time and time again that it will violate the limits of the Constitution? You cite Idaho v. Freeman. Do you think that Congress cares what the Supreme Court says? Your naivete is the very thing of which those in the convention of states movement will take advantage. You are like the many other lambs being led to the slaughter, and you don’t even realize it.

      If Congress will not abide by the limits placed on it in the present Constitution, what makes you think that if you change that Constitution, presto-chango, suddenly Congress will abide by a new Constitution. Make no mistake about it. You have been hoodwinked. The convention of the states is a scam to strip us of the Constitutional protections of our God-given rights.

      Communists have a name for true believers in socialism who have been hoodwinked to help them come to power: useful idiots. All conservative true believers who push for a convention of states have likewise been hoodwinked and are likewise useful idiots.

  9. It GREATLY DISTURBES ME that so many commenter are as Shallow Minded Trusting of a Government gone ROGUE !! After what we’ve just been through, I’m simply STUNNED that there are So many Obtuse, backwards thinking and overly trusting of people who have their Own agendas. When was the last time you voted for a politician who actually REPRESENTED YOU ! ?? and did so, with out making sure THEY are Overpaid for work they’ve FAILED TO PERFORM !!! D.C. is NOT Just a Swamp, it’s a CESSPOOL of corruption with unelected Ego’s and many other useless idiots.
    I’d say the current standing party is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of Power Mad, Power Crazed useless unqualified IDIOT’S, being supposedly led by a DEFECTIVE JELL-O BRAINED IDIOT, with others with Their own agendas, pulling Biden’s Puppet Strings. He’s got a son, whose broken virtually every federal law HE can, backed by a father who has no Coherent Thought passing through His brain, whose ALSO as guilty as his son, only HE’S GUILTY of Numerous Crimes of Treason. And you challengers don’t think that those calling for a Constitutional Convention, WON’T Attempt to Destroy our Constitution !!! You will get what you deserve, if you allow this to take place, and shortly there after, you’ll either be in a FEMA ReEducation Camp, learning to speak Chinese, because THATS THE DEAL That that Demented, Dementia Ridden Ignorant Crook has made with the CCP. He and his son are SO Guilty of Treason, and every single one of you, that wants to see a Constitutional Convention, will be guilty of the same crime !! Treason !!!! Which by the way, carries the Death Penality !! You people had BETTER WAKE UP AND SMELL THE TREASON, because you can cut it with a plastic knife !!!

Leave a Reply to Katherine Cancel reply