For tyrants, the most dangerous weapon against them is individual liberty and sovereignty because it neutralizes their voracious hunger for power and dominion over others.
In his book, The Liberty Amendments, Mark Levin explains:
The nation has entered an age of post-constitutional soft tyranny. As French thinker and philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville explained presciently, “It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd” (3).
Think about how every once in a while you find yourself saying, How in the world did we get in this complicated mess? You know instinctively something isn’t right. As you try to think it through, you realize it is such a quagmire, you throw up your hands to let the “experts” figure it out. However, what we don’t know will hurt us. We live busy, stressful lives. Everything is in sound-bites and delivered in fast-food fashion, dumbed down through the media (and school textbooks) to make it palatable and digestible. Subtleties are delivered drip by drip until over time, the camel’s nose is not the only thing under the tent - he’s all the way in, and now we have to deal with him, but how?
We talk about the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. We are proud of ourselves for knowing Freedom of Speech/Press/Religion, the Right to Bear Arms, and “Pleading the Fifth,” take your pick. But if you really had to be pressed to sit down and think about what our Founding Fathers gave to us, I, like you, would be hard-pressed and maybe a little embarrassed. While we are not expected to know the Constitution intimately - there are scores of scholars and lawyers who make a living doing this - we should be well-versed enough to recognize and know that when the “long train of abuses” start to pile up in front of our eyes, something needs to be corrected. We should have the ability to “break glass in case of emergency” to obtain the tool that will solve the problem. The Constitution provides We, the People that mechanism of correction.
To quote Benjamin Franklin, based on a famous story, what do we have? “A republic, if you can keep it.” Sounds trite, but in fact, it’s critical. The Founders understood the necessity to regularly remind ourselves of the principles of a free republic in order to remain vigilant in the retention of our individual liberties, our God-given rights. Time has a tendency to erode memory unless regular reminders occur. In her recent podcast on Rumble, Rita Peters of Convention of States Action interviewed Professor Robert G. Natelson, Constitutional lawyer, scholar and historian. He related a personal story from 2008 in which, out of curiosity, he looked at the section on the Constitution in his daughter’s high school history textbook. The textbook spent about three pages on the Constitution, but he was shocked to find those few pages fraught with error. In fact, he said there were so many errors, it took a four-page single-spaced memorandum to cite all of the corrections. Take a moment to do a little quick math on how many textbooks in how many high schools over decades might be disseminating erroneous information just on our Constitution alone.
Article V - Amending the Constitution
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of several states, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
Explained: There are two methods by which Amendments can be proposed and ratified. The first method is at the federal level through Congress and requires two-thirds consent from members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Currently, the House has 435 voting members (two-thirds would be 287), and the Senate has 100 members (two-thirds would be 66). The second method is at the state level and also requires two-thirds of the states (34) to make an application to call a convention through their respective state legislatures. Congress must call a convention once this number is reached, and each of the 50 states sends delegates representing one vote per state.
Once achieved, the ratification process commences and can be accomplished either by the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures or by a convention of three-fourths of the states (38). In either case, federally through Congress or through the state applications, ratification happens at the state level. It should be noted that a Convention of States is not the same as a Constitutional Convention, which seeks to rewrite the Constitution. The Convention of States relates to proposing and ratifying amendments to the Constitution.
Current Proposed Amendments Under the Article V Process
There are three proposed amendment topics:
Fiscal restraints on the federal government
Limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government
Setting term limits on federal officials
Historically, all of the current amendments came through the first method, proposed by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states at the time they were proposed. Looking at these proposed amendments, they all seek to control the federal government, Congress in particular, which is why the second method, a convention of states needs to be used. Congress is not interested in limiting themselves. The Founders knew this was a very real potentiality and so wisely, presciently built this safeguard into Article V.
Fiscal Restraints on the Federal Government: In the past 16 years at least, it never fails to boggle my mind to hear about how much the federal government votes to spend and the kind of deficit that keeps racking up. The omnibus bills we keep hearing about are discussed by members of Congress as constant, urgent fiscal matters, attached with “continuing resolutions” to kick the can further down the road instead of properly and honestly addressing runaway spending by the federal government. A word about omnibus bills (omnibus, from the Latin, meaning “to, for, by, with or from everything”). Most of us learned what a bill was in school, simply a proposal to enact something, usually a single statute or measure, that has to start in one of the two houses of Congress depending on the type of bill it is, passing both houses and going to the President to be signed into law. The difference with an omnibus bill is that it is not singular in focus, but encompasses “everything,” meaning multiple statutes and measures. This bill “package” is voted on by a single vote, not parsed out and addressed piece by piece, and the package can contain diverse areas that may have nothing to do with each other. The problem is that because of the size (often 2,000 or more pages) and scope of the bill, scrutiny and debate are severely limited, making them difficult to get through properly in the short time given to consider them before the vote is called. You may recall Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s remark to the press years ago about having to pass the bill first to find out what’s in it. Think about someone trying to sell you something that will cause you to shell out a significant amount of money, with a lot of fine print attached, but the offer is only for a very limited time, so you have to “act now” before you have time to read through everything and make a fiscally sound decision. The current FY2022 Omnibus Spending Package contains 2,741 pages. For perspective, when was the last time you read a book you really liked that was that long and you completely digested and understood it? How long did it take you?
Money is being spent that the federal government really doesn’t have, and money is being printed devaluing the dollar, causing inflation and higher prices on everything. Inflation is a tax on everyone from pain at the pump to pain at the grocery store - it does not discriminate and affects every level of business and daily activity from production to distribution to services rendered. For a little historical perspective, in 1965, the federal government was $761 billion in size. Sounds like a lot, especially for back then. Fast forward to 2016, and it swelled to $3.5 trillion, five times the size. Spending goes beyond the collection of our taxes. The current US National debt stands around $20 trillion. Now, apply their thinking to your personal budget and spending. If you handled your own financial affairs the same way, debt collectors would be at the door, your credit history would be shot, and printing your own money is counterfeiting and illegal. Yet, the federal government has no problem doing it - do as they say, not as they do. Mildly put, the federal government is that reckless kid who got a hold of Dad’s credit cards and maxed them out. The difference is, the kid will face Dad’s consequences because Dad makes Junior take responsibility, but what will the federal government face? Who will make it take responsibility? The answer: We, the People through a convention of states.
Limiting the Power and Jurisdiction of the Federal Government:
I have long stopped jokingly saying, “There aught to be a law” because, quite frankly, there are too many, and that does not even include regulations. And while laws have to go through a specific process designed to take time to allow for scrutiny and deliberation, there is the problem of regulations, which do not. Regulations are issued by various federal government departments and agencies to carry out the intent of legislation enacted by Congress. Administrative agencies, often called ‘the bureaucracy,’ perform a number of different government functions, including rule making…Administrative agencies began as part of the Executive branch of government and were designed to carry out the law and the President’s policies. Congress, however, retains primary control over the organization of the bureaucracy, including the power to create and eliminate agencies and confirm presidential nominations for staffing agencies. Congress also has the power to create and eliminate agencies and confirm presidential nominations for staffing the agencies. Congress also has created administrative agencies that exist outside of the executive branch and are independent of presidential control…Over the years administrative agencies have become more powerful participants in the overall federal government structure as Congress and the president have delegated more legislative and executive duties to them. Administrative agencies have also become responsible for many judicial functions. Some agencies you no doubt have heard of include, but are by no means limited to: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
So let’s think this through. Members of the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government, whom the People did elect to represent them and their interests, create and delegate their duties to agencies populated and run by individuals not elected/represented by the People. These unelected officials make the rules and regulations that the People are expected to abide personally and/or through their own business activities. You might be asking yourself how big can this aspect of our federal government be? See for yourself - the Federal Register is “the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.” Just the fact that it is necessary to post daily overwhelms the senses. The Table of Contents lists the agencies with all of their details. This PDF provides an example for a little “light reading.”
Congress has the power to eliminate or reduce agencies.
The critical question is: Will it?
Whether it’s Congress or some other entity that enjoys its own power and is happy to push to see how much more can be gained, an entity, such as Congress in our case, is not likely to be gung ho to limit itself, nor be in favor of having itself limited. The Founders understood this, and that is why the second method of amending the Constitution exists. If Congress will not limit itself, the States have the power to do it by the will of the People, and Congress will push mightily against being limited, so a Convention of States will meet with vigorous opposition as we are seeing happen now.
In his book, The Liberty Amendments, Mark Levin describes beautifully our country’s current condition: Undue alterations and constant alterations are the hallmarks of the modern Congress and the administrative state. They are especially notorious and deceitful, for they are often imposed in the name of the people but without their consent or even knowledge. It is this exercise of arbitrary power, and the infliction of social experiments by ambitious public officials — pushing and pulling the individual from here to there, and tormenting him nonstop by banning and mandating the most minute lifestyle behaviors — which are intended to make subservient the individual’s independence and unalienable rights. This is precisely what the Constitution was crafted to blunt (172).
Omnibus bills, great fiscal leviathans of mystery, force-passed with record speed and a crushing cavalcade of regulations imposed by administrative agencies the People did not elect, pose a serious threat to liberty and individual freedom. A West Virginia retired art teacher recently spoke before her state’s session regarding joining the Convention of States. In five minutes, she, a member of the People, succinctly laid out why West Virginia should take up this cause. It’s inspiring to watch the heartfelt courage of a fellow American taking the brave step to speak up and be heard.
And by the way, West Virginia passed their Convention of States Resolution on March 4, 2022.
The people were heard.
Setting Term Limits on Federal Officials:
Coming back to the Natelson interview with Rita Peters, the professor used FDR’s extended presidential terms, almost four, as the example of the need for term limits. Up to FDR’s presidency, every president starting with Washington who proposed the idea, served no more than two four-year terms in office. Natelson expressed how it was understandable at the time with the complexity, severity, and turmoil of World War II. However, upon FDR’s death, the American People were loathe to let that happen again. They knew their history. They looked to Congress to pass an Amendment - utilizing the first method of Article V. Interestingly, Congress wouldn’t take it up. Could it be that they realized if the President was officially limited, the next step would be to limit Congress? Food for thought. Undeterred, the People went to the second method and called a Convention of States to make an application for Washington’s term limit to be “formalized and enshrined in the Constitution” becoming the 22nd Amendment (proposed 3.24.1947 and ratified 2.27.1951).
Even then, a resistance by the federal government to limit itself existed. Fast forward to today. The People have imposed their will through the 22nd Amendment to limit the terms of the President, and they now seek to do the same with Congress. In both cases, Congress would not take it up, so it is up to the People to do what’s right and proper. What will such an amendment do? For one, it will break up the idea of a career politician, or at least one who remains in the same position for years, decades even. In looking at the brief biographies of the signers of the Constitution, while many were lawyers, the occupations and educational backgrounds of these Founding Fathers shows quite a bit of range and diversity.
Why would this be important?
When an elected official has an active occupation, the connection to constituents remains fairly close. The elected official still has “skin in the game,” still feels the sting of what laws and regulations impose on the rest of us. Career politicians by virtue of time (decades) become further removed from the day-to-day struggles and so insulate themselves in favor of self-interest and/or the interests of lobbyists. Think about who your representatives and senators are at the federal level and how often they “come back” home to work their occupation or to visit with their constituents. Coming from diverse occupational and educational backgrounds benefits the representative operations of Congress by providing a much broader range of daily life perspectives. From these perspectives, more accurate representation of the realities of industries, education, and business to name a few would be on display and better inform legislative activities, ideally, despite partisanship.
Those elected officials who have held office for many years, especially over decades, then become very difficult (but not impossible) to replace by the average citizen interested in bringing Congress back around to the will of the People. Levin explains in The Liberty Amendments: Through gerrymandering of House districts, patronage, a barrage of self-serving free and paid media, and fund-raising advantages, incumbents are able to extend their hold on federal office. Furthermore, incumbents often use their positions as lawmakers to promote federal spending and legal initiatives that benefit their personal longevity in office, making it increasingly difficult for successful electoral challenges. For example, part of the unsustainable growth of the federal government can be attributed to members of Congress treating federal spending, borrowing, and taxing as a personal prerogative used to award funds and assign legal rights to various political and electoral constituencies and would-be constituencies. There are undoubtedly other reasons for their behavior, including and most certainly ideology, but there is no denying that the instrumentalities of the federal government are used to build political constituencies and supporters — that is, to reshape the nature and mindset of the electorate. Therefore, Congress has become less of a representative body as its members become more insulated (21).
Through this explanation, the need for term limits ties directly to the other two proposed amendments of fiscal restraints and power limitations. As Levin’s last statement shows, Congress has become less about listening to and enacting the will of the People and more about imposing their will on the People, severely weakening our representative republic.
Current Status:
So, where are we in this process? Thirty-four states need to make an application to call a Convention of States. To date, based on the Convention of States Progress map:
19 states have passed the Convention of States Resolution
6 states have passed in one chamber
15 states are in active legislation this year
10 states show no activity
If all six states pass the second chamber, that makes 25. Passage in both chambers from a minimum of 9 of the 15 states currently in active legislation would get to the magic number of 34, but imagine if all 15 states passed both their chambers. That would mean 40 states would be in favor and since 38 are needed for ratification of the proposed amendments, it would send a pretty clear message regarding the will of the people and the power of Congress.
You may have found yourself asking what you can do for your country as JFK once admonished. Your life is busy and hectic and doesn’t seem to be slowing down. Maybe it’s as simple as a quick phone call or email to your state legislators to let them know your will. Considering what the Convention of States proposes and how it might impact and ease the burdens you face every day living in what is supposed to be a free nation, your contribution does not have to be grandiose, but this might be a place to start, and as shown by one West Virginia woman, it can make a difference.
Helpful resources:
While I inserted links to key resources throughout my article, below are additional places you can go to learn more about the Convention of States and proposed amendment topics. I have also included information for historical comparison relative to the topics.
The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin
History of US Federal Budgets from 1789 - 2018 (includes chart)
Historical Comparison of Bills Introduced/Enacted from 1973 to Present (includes charts)
FY2022 Omnibus Spending Package (2,741 pages)
Federal Qualifications (President, Vice President, Senate, House of Representatives)
Rumble app - follow @ConventionofStates for clips of various state debates and testimony on the matter