Tag Archives: James Madison

Poll: Majority of Americans Support States Opting Out of Federal Programs

Posted on July 22, 2026 by | 13 comments

2REPOSTED FROM THE TENTH AMENDMENT CENTER

A recent Rasmussen poll indicates a growing number of Americans agree with James Madison and support state refusal to cooperate with the federal government.

The first key finding was that a majority of likely voters in the U.S. believe states should have the right to opt out of federal programs.

The poll indicates that 54 percent believe states should ignore federal programs they don’t agree with. The number jumps if the program includes unfunded mandates. A full 61 percent of likely voters think states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs if the feds don’t help pay for them.

A third of Americans take an even more aggressive position, supporting the right of a state to ignore Supreme Court decisions. The recent SCOTUS opinions on gay marriage and Obamacare seem to have ignited a surge of support for this position, according to Rasmussen.

“[The] survey finds that 33 percent of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials disagree with them. That’s up nine points from 24 percent when we first asked this question in February. Just over half (52 percent) disagree, down from 58 percent in the earlier survey.”

I find it interesting that so many Americans express a willingness to ignore Congress by opting out of federal programs, yet many in that same group still can’t bring themselves to ignore a Supreme Court opinion. They are, after all, “coequal” branches. The fact that most Americans view the Supreme Court as the final authority on constitutionality probably accounts for this disparity.

We can debate the absolute supremacy of the Supreme Court in establishing constitutionality. But when it comes to states simply opting out of federal programs, or even refusing to cooperate with enforcement of federal laws, according to James Madison, constitutionality doesn’t matter. Even if the Supreme Court deems a federal act or program constitutional, states can still simply opt out by refusing to act. In other words, even though the Court has found Obamacare “constitutional,” states can still opt out and refuse to implement or participate in its operation.

Madison established this principle before the Constitution was even ratified. Writing in Federalist #46, the “Father of the Constitution” addressed an important question: how do Americans keep a limited federal government from acting outside of its delegate powers?

Madison wrote that the states hold the key to checking federal power through a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.” Additionally, he wrote:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand.” [Emphasis added]

Take careful note of the words Madison uses. He doesn’t just limit state action to “unwarrantable measures,” meaning acts that violate the Constitution. Madison says states can take action to oppose even “warrantable measures.” In other words, acts of the federal government perfectly within its delegated power and authority. States have just as much right to opt out of legitimate programs as illegitimate programs.

States don’t have to act. They can opt out.

In fact, as Madison brilliantly argues in Federalist #46, the system was set up that way. The founding generation never intended to establish a monopoly government centered along the banks of the Potomac. Without the ability of states to act against unconstitutional, or even constitutional, yet unpopular acts, the federal government becomes an entity with unlimited power.

When states opt out or refuse to participate, they create effective impediments and obstructions to federal powers

The recent Rasmussen poll indicates Americans are starting to come around to Madison’s point of view.

13 Comments

Posted in Constitution

Tagged , ,

Nullification vs. Art. V Convention: Why Mark Levin is wrong

Posted on June 10, 2026 by | 6 comments

By Michael Lofti for Truth in Media

levin

NASHVILLE, January 16, 2026 –Mark Levin has one of the top-rated syndicated talk radio shows in the country. No one can deny that the lawyer and New York Times bestselling author commands major clout in conservative politics. However, should this clout serve as a warrant for millions of Americans to blindly follow his words? In his latest book, entitled ‘The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic,’ Levin seeks to provide a path for Americans who wish to fight back against an unchecked federal government. Levin proposes an Article V constitutional convention of the states as salvation. Not only is an Article V constitutional convention not the right answer, it is the bullet to a loaded revolver pointed at the Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION LACKS SOUND JUDGMENT

Before going down the rabbit hole, it is important to understand that calling for a convention to amend the Constitution with amendments shows absence in sound judgment.

Think about it… The NSA, NDAA, ObamaCare, Patriot Act, EPA, DOE, every war since the 1940s, federal gun laws, etc. are all unconstitutional. These laws and agencies all fly in the face of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

Did the federal government come to a grinding halt simply because of those amendments? Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the American government has been run lawlessly. Some call the Constitution ineffective.

Americans must ask themselves: Is the Constitution ineffective, or do we have a lawless, disobedient federal government? If the answer is the latter, which it is, then Americans should see little refuge in additional amendments, which the lawless, disobedient feds will simply continue to ignore.

LEVIN WRONG ON NULLIFICATION

Two emerging fronts seen as remedy to unconstitutional federal usurpation of power have arrived at the forefront of American politics. On one end is Levin’s constitutional convention, and on the other end is nullification.

Levin rebukes nullification and calls it unconstitutional. Levin even attempts to use James Madison’s “Notes on Nullification” to say that Madison himself rebuked nullification.

It is important to know that this is not truthful. What Levin refers to as Madison’s rebuking of nullification is actually Madison rebuking the 1832 South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification. Levin takes Madison’s words out of historical context to support his argument that Madison completely rejected nullification.

Madison was in fact rejecting South Carolina’s quasi nullification of constitutionally warranted tariffs. Vice President Calhoun and the South Carolina delegates’ Ordinance of Nullification was not nullification at all, but something the group had concocted out of thin air. This is what Madison rebuked, not general nullification. Somehow, Levin fails to mention this historical context.

In fact, Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” lays forth the plan to nullify unconstitutional federal acts. In Federalist #46, Madison speaks of “powerful means” to oppose an unconstitutional federal government. These powerful means include nullification.

Although Levin uses Madison to support his argument for an Article V convention, Madison himself never once made mention of using such a tactic for resisting tyrannical government. On the other hand, Madison does indeed call for nullification, as did Jefferson.

“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the Act is the rightful remedy.” -Thomas Jefferson

BULLET TO THE CONSTITUTION?

Who would Congress send? This is the worrisome question. Congress is now controlled almost exclusively by lobbyists. States essentially lost all control over the federal government with the implementation of the Seventeenth Amendment. Hardly a federal delegate in Congress feels the need to report to their respective state legislators. The risk for a runaway convention, by which our current Constitution could be completely shredded, is of paramount concern.

Let’s say the states somehow maintain total control without the federal government stepping in, which is essentially impossible. Republican lawmakers consistently kill bills in committee, which would gut the federal government in their states, due to corporate lobbyists that pad their wallets. Chris Christie, Mitt Romney and others love big government. Would you trust these men with the Constitution?

The state of Hawaii has already passed a resolution with proposed amendments, which if passed, would completely gut the Republic and add Obamacare to the text of the US Constitution.

Levin is pushing for state legislators to take the charge in this quasi-convention process. Meanwhile, he disregards the fact that the Constitution delegates these state legislators no power to do so.

Levin himself cannot follow the current Constitution, but somehow validates proposing amendments, which the lawless federal creature will (theoretically) suddenly feel obligated to follow. This is an oxymoron.

If Levin is so hell-bent on states controlling the process, why doesn’t he embrace nullification, or as Jefferson referred to it, “the rightful remedy”?

THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was charged with keeping the federal government in check. However, the SCOTUS began to extend its own powers in 1803 when it gave itself the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. So began the history of a constitutionally limited federal government deciding for itself the limits of its own power. As a result, today we have a lawless, all powerful federal government.

Jefferson and Madison envisioned this possibility and wrote that the Court was not the final arbiter of law, but the people themselves within their respective states. After all, how could a Court redefining its own limits ever remain constrained?

Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions how to handle such federal usurpations of power:

“…Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the Act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits…” (emphasis added).

Madison confirmed Jeffersonian nullification in his Report of 1800 and Notes on Nullification.

The powers delegated to Congress are few and defined. The Tenth Amendment provides explicit validation for nullification, “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” (emphasis added).

In regards to nullification, does the Constitution delegate this power to the federal government? It obviously does not. Does the Constitution explicitly prohibit nullification? It does not. It can now easily be concluded that nullification is a power reserved for the people of their respective states.

The Ninth Amendment expounds even further the right to nullification. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Jefferson explained that nullification was a natural right belonging to the people and their respective states. Because the Constitution does not expressly prohibit nullification, the federal government cannot deny or disparage this natural right of the people.

Levin is perhaps the most appreciated and admired political talk show host in America. Rightfully so, he has earned his accolades. However, with such clout comes an incredible responsibility to not only seek truth, but to display the humility and courage to admit when you are wrong.

“Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its Acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” -Thomas Jefferson.

-To learn more about nullification, one may visit the Tenth Amendment Center.

(Opinion): Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook & on Twitter: @MichaelLotfi

6 Comments

Posted in Constitutional Convention

Tagged , , , , ,

Image

OBAMA or MADISON?

obama-madison

4 Comments

Posted on June 7, 2026 by in Obama

Tagged , ,

Constitutional Convention Call Redux - Part 3

Posted on May 15, 2026 by | Leave a comment

James Madison himself, father of the Constitution, warned against convening a second constitutional convention. When he learned that New York and Virginia were actively calling for an Article V convention in 1788, just months after ratification of the Constitution, he was horrified. He counseled: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress…. It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric….”

There are numerous organizations promoting a Constitutional Convention under the guise of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Tom DeWeese wrote about the 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc, chaired by William Fruth, President of POLICOM Corporation. He covered this in his articles, “Powerful Forces Calling for a Constitutional Convention,” and “Constitutional Convention Cannot be Controlled.”

Back in 1995, model resolutions for the Conference of States (COS) came from the National Council of State Legislators (NCSL), the organization that indoctrinates liberal (mostly Democratic) legislators, just as American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) does the conservatives (Republicans). The NCSL is presently backing the internet sales tax, and the rotten E-Verify.

ALEC passed a resolution supporting the COS resolution, and Republicans joined the fray. Thankfully, the 1995 attempt was defeated, again because patriots were alert. (As an aside, the Governor of New Mexico was then Gary Johnson, Libertarian Candidate for President in the 2012 race, and he backed the COS resolution.)

The NCSL (National Conference of State Legislators), NCM (National Conference of Mayors), NGA (National Governors Association) just to name a few - are adjuncts of the Council of State Governments (CSG). The original COS was billed as a plan by Governors Michael Leavitt of Utah and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, but it became clear from a 1987 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) and (CSG) paper that in reality the Governors were merely delivery boys for the scheme led by the Rockefeller founded Council of State Governments. The United States ACIR was terminated in September, 1996, but nearly every state has its own ACIR.

Paul Weyrich’s ALEC, (American Legislative Exchange Council) backed the COS. ALEC boasts nearly 3,000 conservative legislative and corporate members, and has been strongly pushing a Con-Con for decades.

The CSG is a private, international organization funded originally with Rockefeller money through the Spelman Fund (John D. Rockefeller’s wife, Laura Spelman) (see CSG’s Book of the States Volume I - 1935) and currently receives millions of dollars from states’ dues - our tax dollars. As early as 1935, the CSG had already called for gun control and the creation of 10 REGIONS for America. Today, America has 10 Federal Regions from which the federal government controls our money and therefore our states, counties, townships and municipalities. Regionalism is Communism! The money from the block grants coming into the states is fed into the Federal Regional Planning Commissions, HUD, HEW, EPA, Departments of Labor, Commerce, DOE, etc., which in turn doles it out to our local governments in return for their “obedience” in passing whatever laws and ordinances the federal planners dictate (think Agenda 21, Smart Growth). If they do not comply, money is withheld until they do.

Here we are, eighteen years later, and they’re still at it. In this present assault on our Constitution the roles are reversed: ALEC wrote the model resolution; and the NCSL is solidly behind the scheme, as indicated by the letter that was sent to every Governor, Senate President, and House Speaker in this country by Florida Senator Jeff Atwater, from the NCSL. So, let’s take a closer look at ALEC.

American Legislative Exchange Council

The subject of ALEC deserves a three-part article alone, but for the sake of brevity, we’ll just give an overview. ALEC was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Grand Poobah of the secretive Council for National Policy, founder of Free Congress Foundation, and the Heritage Foundation. ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It’s not just a lobby or front group, ALEC is one of the most powerful unelected councils in the country. [Link]

Corporations hand to state legislators their “wish lists” of legislation to benefit their bottom lines. The membership of ALEC is 98% corporate and the corporate membership is the one that funds almost all of ALEC’s operations. They have bought their way into the process by which corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. ALEC’s legislative leaders are responsible for getting the bills introduced and passed. They introduce and carry the bills in their statehouses as their own brilliant ideas. As an example, the immigration bill, SB1070, was written by ALEC and carried by Russell Pearce, word for word, to Arizona. Private prison corporations had a huge part in ALEC’s crafting of SB1070.

Richard Mellon Scaife has allegedly funded ALEC to the tune of more than 7 million dollars. One must remember that Scaife funds both sides of the aisle and is connected to Rockefeller (Chase Mellon Bank). Scaife also had a full page ad in the WSJ stating why it was so important for taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood and what they do for American women. The danger in the ALEC organization is that its leadership apparently wants to rewrite our Constitution, and they claim a membership of 2,500 plus of our 7,500 legislators. Members of ALEC even include the Church of Scientology, which has spoken at ALEC meetings.

Sometime in the mid-1990s, the Church of Scientology became one of ALEC’s underwriters, for the apparent purpose of interacting with state lawmakers on mental health-care issues. Here’s an excerpt from a 1998 fundraising letter written by Bruce Wiseman, the president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, (CCHR) a highly controversial anti-psychiatry front-group of the Church of Scientology. Wiseman writes. “ALEC is a national organization made up of legislators from every state as well as some federal legislators who meet and draft model legislation for every state. The return for that has been enormous! CCHR has worked its way up the conditions at ALEC and recently got an article published by ALEC in opposition to mandated mental-health parity, which went to key state legislators who deal with health issues in their respective states. In addition, the ALEC membership has opened the door to meeting numerous legislators and other opinion leaders from around the country.”

Back in 1992, when Ross Perot came on the scene, he was gung-ho for a Con-Con. He stated emphatically that we needed a parliamentary government (same as ALEC’s founder, Paul Weyrich) and bragged that “his people” could get the remaining states needed for a Con-Con “in their sleep.” Thank God, we found out and it was stopped.

The legislators never disclose that corporations wrote and vetted these bills along with fellow politicians behind closed doors at ALEC meetings. So, everyone who is a member of ALEC is influencing not only state bills, but likely most federal bills as well, written by corporations with vested interests…along with lobbyists and state representatives.

ALEC is a long time supporter of a Constitutional Convention. A 43 page handbook, written by Robert G. Natelson, entitled: “Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States,” was provided to their mostly-republican members, along with model legislation to carry back to their states. The booklet is full of spins, lies, and misdirection. It claims the states must exercise control as given to them by the founders, that they must move quickly, that state legislatures will have complete control over the process, and will answer to the state legislatures they represent. This is far from the truth. As we discussed and made clear in Part 1 of this article, there is no provision in Article V empowering state legislators to choose the delegates to a Constitutional Convention or to “limit” the scope of a Con-Con. There are no rules, no regulations, and certainly no instructions.

Henry Hazlitt

Henry Hazlitt, American economist, (1894-1993), was the former economic advisor to pro-Constitutional Convention, National Taxpayer’s Union (NTU), headed by James Dale Davidson. Davidson’s NTU was instrumental in promoting a Con-Con in the early 80s and he claimed he gave $100,000 every year to the cause. Hazlitt was a renowned conservative, and he wrote a book which he republished in 1974 called, “A New Constitution Now.” This book makes the argument for replacing America’s presidential system of government with a parliamentary one resembling Great Britain’s. I thought we fought a revolutionary war to escape that form of government!

Hazlitt’s book is extremely dangerous inasmuch as Hazlitt states things like, “an amendment could be proposed that would strike out everything after “We the people,” and that, of course, includes the Bill of Rights. He was suggesting that everything after “We the people” on down be scrapped and rewritten, which is amazing, as this document has provided more human dignity and freedom for more people than any other in recorded history.

Other suggested improvements by Hazlitt include making it easier to amend our Constitution by adopting the Swiss and Australian procedure. Another would be to restrict Presidents to a single term. A third would be to abolish the office of Vice President. A fourth would reconstitute the Supreme Court, with each governor appointing a justice with the approval of his state legislature. (Think about that with these neo-conservative Trotskyite governors we have on the right, like Tennessee’s Haslam, and the full-blown communists on the left, like New York’s Cuomo.) The neo-conservative Trotskyite rightwing loved Hazlitt and still quote him.

In the final part of this series, we’ll discuss Rexford Guy Tugwell, and the Newstates Constitution. Tugwell was a man far ahead of his time. He deplored private property rights, declared our 1787 Constitution to be outmoded and archaic, and would have loved United Nations Agenda 21/Smart Growth/Sustainability.

In fact, in 1938 Tugwell was appointed as the first director of the New York City Planning Commission. New York’s reformist mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia, created the commission as part of a city charter reform aimed at reducing corruption and inefficiency. The Planning Commission had relatively limited powers – all actions needed approval from the legislative Board of Estimate. Rexford Tugwell tried to assert the commission’s power. He tried to retroactively enforce nonconforming land uses, despite a lack of public or legal support. His commission sought to establish public housing at moderate densities, yet repeatedly approved FHA requests for greater density. Robert Moses killed Tugwell’s proposed fifty-year master plan with a fiery public denouncement of its open space protections. [Link]

Tugwell’s book, “The Emerging Constitution,” makes it clear where he stood. He states on page 593, “The other considerable change (to the Constitution) is the consolidation of states into fewer, and it is hoped, more effective regional groupings, thus at last organizing as one system rather than a confused fifty.”

Also on page 593 is this statement about the proposed Newstates constitution, “It will be noticed that the general emphasis on the protection of individuals from the exercise of governmental powers has been supplemented with a list of responsibilities.”

Leave a comment

Posted in Constitutional Convention, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Constitutional Convention Call Redux - Part 1

Posted on May 13, 2026 by | 2 comments

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitution Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congressmen might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey it.” -Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger

“Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, I would tremble for the result of the second.” -James Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the United States

“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 2026

We could lose our God given rights, secured by the 1787 Constitution if a new call for a Con-Con is successful. The Constitution is about the specific powers we delegated to the federal government. Our rights pre-date and pre-exist the Constitution. The sole purpose of civil government is to secure those rights. Knowing what is waiting in the wings, if we lose this Constitution, all will finally be lost, and the war for our freedoms would be over. If you never read another one of my articles, I beg you to read and disseminate this one. Then contact your state legislators and find out where your state stands regarding a call for a Constitutional Convention.

Thirty Years Ago

In the early 1980’s, we did not have home computers, lap tops, or IPADs; neither did we have unlimited long-distance telephone rates. We only had our Fax machines and our telephones. Yet, the nation’s patriotic groups, and the Kitchen Militia gals, worked tirelessly to stave off a call for another Constitutional Convention. We knew the dangers, we knew the precedents, and we knew what was waiting in the wings to replace the Constitution given to us by honorable men. We knew that if we lost our Constitution and Bill of Rights, that the great experiment in freedom and liberty would be lost forever.

We worked to inform people of what a new Constitutional Convention would bode for America. Thirty-two of the necessary 34 states needed to call a new Con-Con had petitioned the Congress for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).

(An amendment to the Constitution is first proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention. This is the way we’ve ratified amendments since the Bill of Rights. It is then sent to the states for their votes. If 38 of the states ratify the amendment, it will be added to the Constitution. The danger in the ratifying process is that Congress decides whether it will be ratified by the legislators of 38 states, or by special Ratifying Conventions. As well, the legislators who called for the Convention can be totally circumvented - having no voice in the outcome, thus opening a Pandora’s Box and powerless to close it.)

Thirteen states finally recalled their calls; Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and in 2010, Tennessee. Link Now some are again calling for a Con-Con.

Our Constitution is still a barrier to the globalists, and they hate this document. The elite have always wanted to destroy it because, as Patrick Henry said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” The One Worlders have a new constitution waiting in the wings which will grant us privileges by the state. The distinctive characteristic of our Constitution is that it created a federal government of only limited, defined, and enumerated powers! We must focus on the limited powers we delegated instead of our “rights.” Rights pre-date and pre-exist the Constitution. Only with this conception of rights can we avoid having black-robed federal judges determine the scope and extent of our rights.

We have elected officials in local, state, and federal governments who have no problem trampling our Constitution. We have heard the cries from the right and left for a BBA via an Article V Constitutional Convention. The Constitution LIMITS what the federal government is allowed to spend with taxpayer dollars. It is so limited that the funding of outrageous items today would fill an encyclopedia. Our Constitution does not authorize foreign aid, or museums about rock stars, or studying of the blue lizard, or Chinese prostitutes, or unconstitutional wars, etc., etc., ad nauseam. We have a majority of Republicans in congress today…so why in heaven’s name aren’t they balancing the budget now without an amendment?

Of course, unknown to most of the electorate, the BBA would actually legalize the unconstitutional spending the Congress has been doing for decades. See Publius Huldah’s most important article “Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is a Hoax and a Deadly Trap.”

Forty-five Republican Senators and the majority of Republican Representatives absolutely love the BBA and desire its passage, including Rand Paul. They talk openly about it to the dumbed down electorate, never telling us that it would LEGALIZE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING. This would give Congress a free hand to spend whatever they want to on any frivolous item that floats past their desks. The Constitution limits CONGRESS alone to the spending of money!

The BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship. Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful, but Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the Constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will simply become a rubber stamp. Senate bill from 112th Congress. House bill from 113th Congress.

Former Senator Jim DeMint, and Senator Mike Lee, (neo-cons) are determined to jam this down our throats along with Congressional representatives like Michelle Bachmann. Don’t tell me they don’t understand what they’re doing, because all of them love the out-of-control spending and the BBA would legalize it. In the July 7, 2011, WSJ, Jim DeMint joined with that bastion of conservative politics, Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe, to push the BBA, stating it is The Only Reform That Will Restrain Spending. Liars and thieves!

The 1787 Convention

In 1787, delegates gathered in a Conference of States (not a Constitutional Convention) to discuss problems with interstate commerce. They were given strict instructions by the Congress that they were to meet only for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” Eleven of the twelve states present, specifically instructed their delegates to discuss nothing more than the commerce issue.

Once convened, the delegates of the twelve states, formed a “committee of the whole” (chaired by the elected George Washington, President of the Conference), took a vote, and declared the Articles of Confederation null and void! For five months they debated behind closed doors and emerged with an entirely new form of government. Our 1787 Constitution was the result. The Conference of the States had become a runaway Constitutional Convention! It happened then, and we are certain it will happen again if we don’t stop the process. The precedent was set.

An Article V Constitutional Convention today would undoubtedly mutate the same way the 1787 “Conference of States” mutated into a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convention makes its own rules, cannot be limited, and could indeed throw out the entire structure, including the narrowly defined, limited and enumerated powers granted the federal government, just like the framers threw out the Articles of Confederation in 1787! Remember, the Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it CANNOT do!

About 50 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians, so the Constitution they wrote was rooted squarely in the Word of God and the Ten Commandments. It maximized individual liberty while at the same time limiting government power. There are absolutely no Constitutional guarantees that the legal precedent of the first Convention will not be repeated by the second one, the result being a new Constitution. However, you can rest assured that this one will not be from Godly Christian men. Back in the early 80s, many of the states that called for a one-item Convention like the BBA, wrote limiting language into their calls, (thinking they could indeed control the agenda, and stating they would secede from the Convention if it overstepped the bounds). Nevertheless, the precedent of the first Convention is the basis for American jurisprudence. A Con-Con is not just the amendment that is at issue. The entire document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and people go to work on it, tearing it apart. There are NO RULES!

As well, the Unbridled Power of the delegates to a Con-Con has been acknowledged several times by various State Supreme Courts, and a letter from former U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger confirms the danger. In his letter Justice Burger said:

” . . . there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. . . After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.”

James Madison is the “Father” of our Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.” (Judicial, Legislative, Executive)

There were delegates from twelve of the thirteen states in attendance at the original 1787 Convention. Rhode Island did not send delegates. The most notable statesmen present were Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton, all of whom signed the final Constitution. Ultimately, 39 of the original 55 delegates ended up signing, but it is likely that none were completely satisfied. Their views were summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said,

“There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. … I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. … It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies…”

The names of several prominent Founders are notable for their not having participated in the Constitutional Convention. Thomas Jefferson was abroad, serving as the minister to France (nonetheless, Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, would describe the delegates approvingly as a gathering of “demi-gods”). Jefferson later stated that had he been present at the Convention, he would have urged term limits for politicians. John Adams was in Britain, serving as minister to that country, but he wrote home to encourage the delegates. Patrick Henry refused to participate because he “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.” Also absent were John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Many of the states’ older and more experienced leaders may have simply been too busy with the local affairs of their states to attend the Convention, which had originally been planned to strengthen the existing Articles of Confederation, not to write a Constitution for a completely new national government.

Now, think about the delegates and leaders of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. They were men of letters, with integrity, honor, and love of liberty and freedom. The Founders of America were patriots, visionaries, revolutionaries, world shakers, and nation builders. They joined together to protect America’s citizens from an over reaching, all powerful, centralized federal government. Although imperfect men, they were statesmen who understood government needed to be chained to protect the people.

Can you imagine the delegates we would get from the states today? It would be the same Congress which gave us a $16 trillion plus debt, which won’t stand up to Obama, that passed the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and all the other egregious bills they’ve signed on to. Can you see the delight of the globalists in destroying the Constitution that binds them? Can you imagine today’s Washington D.C. leaders deciding how to change our Constitution? I tremble at the very thought.

Who is behind the push for a Con-Con call today? What is the Compact for America? Who is ALEC? Who was Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell? What new Constitution is waiting in the wings, written by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations? We will answer these questions in subsequent articles.

Finally, a special thank you to my friend, retired attorney, Publius Huldah, for her help with this article.

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in Constitutional Convention

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Violent Partisans Will Destroy the Constitution

Posted on May 2, 2026 by | 5 comments

“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” - Speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 2026 James Madison

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional power.” Thomas Jefferson

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ― James Madison

Madison

The words in the title of this article are not mine. They belong to the father of our Constitution, James Madison. Madison wrote a letter to G.I. Turberville when he was asked how he felt if another General Convention should be called. Here is what he wrote:

“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of (an Article V) Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans [sic] on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.”

“Under all these circumstances it 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 Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.”

This letter was written November 2, 1788, only one year after the original Constitutional Convention, and Madison was worried about the violent partizans, the heterogeneous characters, and the individuals of insidious views. His urgent warning is even more important today, 226 years later. I cannot think of one single politician or personage in any of the 50 states who could come close to matching the statesmanship of the founders who were delegates at our 1787 Constitutional Convention.

The letter to Turberville is so profound that the con-con promoters often deny that Madison was referring to an Article V convention. However, the John Birch Society did the research and found that absolutely, Madison knew New York was suggesting the convening of an Article V convention. Virginia applied to the new federal Congress for an Article V convention on November 14, 1788. New York followed suit on February 5, 1789. (JBS Bulletin, January 2014).

Previous Battles

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, we fought a call for a con-con via a Balanced Budget Amendment (the same thing they’re using today), and we educated the people enough that 10 of the states who put out a call for a con-con, recalled that call. It was very close. The enemy succeeded in getting 32 of the necessary 34 states to call for a convention. With God’s help and the hard work of many patriots across the country, we succeeded in saving our Constitution. That was more than 30 years ago, and our electorate was far more educated then than it is today.

Unfortunately, today our fellow citizens listen to the neo-con talking heads like Michael Levin, Tom Coburn, Michael Farris, Lou Marin, The Goldwater Institute, Mark Meckler - formerly of Tea Party Patriots, American Legislative Exchange Council, Judge Roy Moore (who thinks he’ll get an amendment ban on gay marriage with a con-con), David Barton, Glenn Beck, Occupy Wall Street, talk show host Neal Boortz, former presidential candidate Herman Cain, (both Boortz and Cain are Fair Tax promoters which calls for a con-con to get rid of the 16th amendment although we didn’t need a con-con to get rid of the 18th amendment). Not one of these people are old-right conservatives. We must ask, who is funding the new push for a con-con?

The Money Behind Article V

There is no telling what some of the delegates will bring to the table no matter what “commission” they have instructing them (see Move to Amend below). One thing is certain, the LEFT, the progressives, the socialists, the Internationalists, the hardcore communists in our country, won’t sit on the sidelines of such a Convention. They’ll be in the convention and lobbying for their communist agenda.

There are hundreds and hundreds of Left-leaning organizations that want the Article V Convention so they can get “their man” in as a delegate to urge their amendments and Constitutional changes upon the deliberations of the Convention. These organizations have organized into a coalition called “Move to Amend.” Here’s the list of their member organizations. It would shock most conservatives to know who pays the bills at the online purveyor of progressive ideology. In fact, George Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the US. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. Yes, the financier of global fascism is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Farris, Meckler, Barton, Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Inst., and the rest of the neo-con Trotskyite right. One would think this would be enough alone to convince all true Constitutional conservatives and friends of freedom and liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular their purveyors may be. Link

If Soros and the left want it, why would any conservative back this? Are they duped? Or, as suspected, are they part of the agenda as they were in the early 80s when we fought this?

Precedents and Legal Conclusions

Legal experts have long concluded that if a convention is ever called under Article V of the Constitution, it would have the power to propose anything it wanted — a rewrite of the Bill of Rights, the abolition of the Supreme Court — anything. I’ve written about this extensively (Link) as has Publius Huldah, John Birch Society, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum and others.

Under that never-used Article V, a convention would be mandatory upon the call of at least two-thirds (34) of the states. Pushed by tea-party groups and the so-called conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, as well as all the above listed right and left organization, similar resolutions are moving or have already passed in Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Alabama and a number of other states

We don’t see any George Washington’s or James Madison’s today, and we don’t want to put our fate in the hands of men who think they can improve on the work of either of these men or the other delegates at the 1787 Convention.

Stanford Law School Professor Gerald Gunther also wrote “The fear that a Constitutional convention could become a ‘runaway’ convention and propose wholesale changes in our Constitution is by no means unfounded. Rather, this broad view of the authority of a convention reflects the consensus of most constitutional scholars who have commented on the issue.” As well, Professor Gunther, whose case-book is used in the majority of U.S. law schools, said that, “even if Congress tried to limit the Convention to one subject, the delegates could decide for themselves that the Convention “is entitled to set its own agenda.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger, wrote: “I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became Chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time. I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda. With George Washington as chairman, the [original constitutional convention] deliberated in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.”

We have far too many uneducated fools in our electorate today…and this, as the elite have planned, will be our downfall if we allow the left and the neo-con right to succeed in pushing a Balanced Budget Amendment, Article V, or Convention of States, etc.

The fact is, under the vague language of Article V, a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited. It would be wide open, and able to consider ANY change in the Constitution that was proposed, even eliminating everything after “We The People.”

This means that, even if supporters of a “Con-Con” claim that the convention would only cover one issue — whether it’s a Balanced Budget Amendment or removing the requirement that to be eligible to serve as President, one must be a “natural born citizen,” or anything else — there is NO WAY to stop the Convention from changing EVERYTHING that we hold dear in America!

Use Common Sense!

Forget all the pro- con-con scholars and talking heads you’ve heard and read!

  1. If the Congress and administration won’t obey the Constitution we have now, how will changing or adding amendments make them obey it? Answer: It won’t. That is not the hidden purpose of a new Constitutional convention.
  2. Who is worthy of being a delegate in this whole United States? True old right Constitutional conservatives and scholars will never have a chance.
  3. If George Soros and his cadre of leftists want a con-con and are funding it, why in heaven’s name would the right go along with it?

Waiting in the Wings

It was the Ford Foundation, in 1964, who funded and orchestrated the drafting of a new constitution for America. This was done via the tax-exempt Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, an offshoot of “The Fund for the Republic, Inc., which had been established with a $15 million grant from the Ford Foundation.

This model constitution, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people, took ten years to write. The 40th draft was the one published in Rexford G. Tugwell’s book, “The Emerging Constitution.” The project cost $2.5 million per year, or a total of $25 million, and produced the Proposed Constitution for the NewStates of America. Tugwell was for Regional Governance. This is Communism in all its vicious and rotten glory.

After the completion of the proposed NewStates Constitution (1974), Nelson Rockefeller, then president of the U.S. Senate, engineered the introduction of HCR 28 calling for an unlimited Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) in 1976. Public opposition defeated this effort so the convention backers then went to the states promoting a “limited convention” for the ostensible purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment.

There is nothing new today. The same old premise is being used. Unfortunately, the con artists have become quite slick and the legislators no longer read history. Once the Constitution is opened, all other battles, big and small, will be useless. The great experiment of a Republic (if we can keep it) will be over.

There are no quick fixes to the problem of adhering to the Constitution. It must be through an educated electorate that forces Congress to follow the Constitution. It’s not a quick fix, but it is the long term solution for returning to limited government and individual prosperity. We can only win if soldiers join the battle and we pray continually.

May God have mercy on those of us who love liberty and freedom.

Links

  1. Parental Rights Amendment: Selling You, Your Kids Out to Big Government.
  2. Parental Rights: God Given and Unalienable? Or, Government Granted and Revocable?
  3. Restore the Constitution, We Have Learned Its Meaning.
  4. Mark Levin Refuted
  5. The “Convention of States” scam, and the War over the Constitution.
  6. Balancing the Budget or Adding a National Sales Tax to the Income Tax?
  7. Article V Convention: How “Individuals of Insidious Views” are Stealing our Constitution
  8. Constitutional Convention Call Redux - Parts 1, 2, 3, 4
  9. The Constitutional Convention Con - Parts 1, 2

 

5 Comments

Posted in Constitutional Convention

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,