Connect with us

Everything

Convention of States: fear versus fact

Published

on

Numerous American citizens who were once engaged in politics have walked away because they believe the federal government is broken beyond repair. This assumption is correct, and yet they ignore the fact that our own Constitution offers a way to rein in tyrannical leaders. The Convention of States project is attempting to eliminate the fear that stops people from embracing this tool.

A Gift From the Founding Fathers

It is always sad when solutions are readily available, but not embraced because of fear or ignorance. The reality is, we have access to a solution designed by a group of extraordinarily intelligent men–otherwise known as the Founding Fathers:

Article V can be used to stop the abuse of federal power, but unfortunately, it is gathering dust in a corner as the Framers turn in their graves because of that arch enemy of every great and noble person or cause–fear. Recently, I had the pleasure of an interview with  Constitutional expert, Bob Menges, who has tirelessly taken up this campaign.

The Stranglehold of Fear

Fear leads to bad decisions. We the People have recourse against an overreaching federal government that is top heavy, out of control, oppressive, intoxicated with its own power and no longer operating within the guidelines of the Constitution. Yet the recourse–which is calling a Convention of States–COS–is ignored and indeed when it is mentioned, certain individuals immediately put their fingers in their mouths and begin trembling in fear.

Imagine if our Founding Fathers acted in a similar fashion when it came time to sign that document of treason called the Declaration of Independence?

Article V of the United States Constitution

To understand the viewpoint of both fear of the unknown and faith in our Founders, we must first understand Article V of the United States Constitution, which details the process through which the Constitution may be amended.

To do so, an amendment must be proposed, and subsequently ratified. Amendments may be adopted and forwarded to the states for ratification by either a national convention or a supermajority vote in Congress. With the former, a minimum of 34 states legislatures–two thirds of the states–must request the convention for a specific topic.

With the latter, both chambers of Congress must agree through a supermajority vote–two thirds in each chamber–to propose an amendment. When either of these two actions are taken, the amendment must then be ratified by three fourths–38–of the states to become a permanent part of the United States Constitution.

To date there have been 33 amendments to the Constitution sent to the states and 27 were ratified. The first 10 make up the Bill of Rights. Congress initiated all 33 amendments. We the People have thus far neglected to use this powerful tool.

Difficult by Design

Amending the Constitution via the United States Congress or a Convention of States is difficult by design. The Founding Fathers knew that if it were easy, it may be used one day for the wrong motive.

With the COS process, 34 states must apply for the United States Congress to call an amending convention. All 34 must apply under the same subject matter, which means in simplified terms that there must be a specific focus for the Convention, not a jumble of different proposals from each state–something feared by those who have never listened with an open mind to the process.

Once 34 states have applied, Congress must call the Convention.  The power to refuse was taken out of their hands. (see http://towardsarenewedmind.blogspot.com/2014/09/madisons-final-resort-for-states.html)

Any proposed amendments resulting from the COS must be sent to each state for ratification. It takes 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment before it can become part of the Constitution, and only 13 states to stop a proposed amendment from being ratified.

Two Arguments–One Based on Fact, One Based on Fear

When the fearful are asked to explain their viewpoint, their answers are anemic. They revert to shrieking about a “runaway convention,” the latter of which is a term used to describe a COS that essentially runs out of control and proposes amendments that have nothing to do with the subject matter for which it was called.

However, when asked for facts, the fearful are at an utter loss. They completely ignore the many firewalls built into Article V to prevent a runaway convention, the latter of which is an occurrence that has been called “just north of impossible” by numerous Constitution experts. One such firewall is subject matter limitations.

Fear: The COS will end up being a free-for-all on a variety of subjects that have nothing to do with why it was called.

Fact: The argument that Article V leaves the Convention process open to anything is right up there with fear of the Boogieman. More than 400 applications for a convention have been submitted throughout America’s history and a COS has never been called. This is because the subject matter was never agreed upon. If the firewall of subject matter limitations was irrelevant, multiple conventions would have been called by now.

The Biggest Historical Lie Ever Perpetrated on the American Public:

Fear:  A runaway convention occurred in 1787–and therefore could happen again.

Fact: 1787 was not a runaway convention.

The idea that the 1787 Philadelphia Convention was called merely for the purpose of making minor amendments–and then subsequently ran out of control–is simply not true. This is proven beyond a doubt by Madison’s statements in a document called the Federalist 40.

In Philadelphia in 1787, the charge given to the Convention by Madison was “In the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.”

What this last part means in modern English is that because the Union was in a state of emergency and coming apart at the seams, Madison told attendees of the convention to do whatever necessary to render it once again adequate. For this reason, they were obviously not commissioned to merely make “minor changes,” as many have been lead to believe. The Convention of 1787 had an extraordinarily broad mandate from Congress. (Read Madison’s charge in the Federalist 40 to forever settle this debate.)

Fear: Rogue groups may call a COS to propose outlandish amendments that would be harmful to the country.

Fact:  Another firewall in Articles V is that 38 states must ratify any proposed amendment. Fear mongers must ask themselves what are the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment? But let’s go back into the dark and fearful world of “what if” for just a moment. What if it did happen?”

Fact: It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment. Therefore, as an example, if 38 states lost their collective mind and voted to impose Sharia law nationwide or something equally as absurd, it would only take 13 states to shut it down. Do you think at least 13 states would protest Sharia law? Here, we have yet another firewall against a runaway convention.

Additionally, if this process could be used effectively for an evil purpose, we have to admit our out-of-control government would have used it to that end by now. Remember, Congress can propose amendments too, so why haven’t they proposed to confiscate the firearms they have unsuccessfully attempted to grab through gun control legislation? Because they know 38 states would not ratify a rogue amendment such as that and if they know it, so should we. Let’s not be exposed for being less intelligent than the Congress most of us despise.

The positive aspects of calling for a Convention of States are backed by sound, solid facts. Where are the facts of those who choose instead to live in fear? (Other than the non-existent runaway convention in 1787.)

Real Runaway Government Bigger Threat Than Imagined Runaway Convention

Article V is a gift to American citizens from our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, many prefer to do the same old thing: elect the “right” people and then complain when nothing changes.

Fearing the “risk” associated with a Convention of States, which is microscopic at best, but not being afraid of America’s march toward a dictatorship is nothing more than super sized reverse order. Which option should we believe carries the greater risk: the almost impossible scenario of a runaway COS or our CURRENT out of control federal government?

If a building was being consumed by flames and people had a fire extinguisher, would there be any justification to just watch the building burn? Well, if we give our fears a vitamin, we can come up with all kinds of reasons. For instance, there’s a chance that some of the water might…uh…get somebody really wet. The fire extinguisher might malfunction and cut the person’s finger off. There may even be some strange element in the water we didn’t know about that will make the fire worse. Besides all that, what if it just LOOKS like a fire extinguisher and really it’s a bomb?

We better just let the building burn to the ground.

For more information visit http://www.conventionofstates.com/

Jesse Broadt has been a full-time writer in the travel industry since 2007 and regularly contributes to news and political websites.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. Marcia

    August 2, 2017 at 11:35 pm

    Very important issue, Jesse! You made some excellent points and, yes, I do know real conservatives that are scared to death of a COS. I do understand their points somewhat, which seem to be- they do not trust the progressive socialist left because they seem to be above the law and Constitution. They ignore rule of law, make up their own laws thru executive actions and are scott free to commit criminal or treasonous acts with no consequence, but you or I would rot in prison. The sadder part that the frightened conservatives realize, is that the left know they can do what they want because the jelly spine “conservative” congress do nothing and barely even acknowledge the double standard much less insist on justice for the heinous crimes. The whole point, as you explained, is that the Constitution has already been shredded, how can it be any worse? Certainly not by using the one “gift” we were left to try to save it..

    • Jesse Broadt

      August 3, 2017 at 12:44 pm

      The point that goes over the fearmongers heads is that if a runaway convention could truly happen–and if they don’t understand why it can’t from this article I GIVE UP–the liberal congress would have called one long ago to take away gun rights, free speech, etc. They haven’t done it because they know it wouldn’t succeed, yet the supposedly “smart” conservatives, who claim they are oh so much smarter than congress, insist that it could happen and toss this valuable tool into the garbage can. Sad. They don’t understand that fear leads to bad decisions, while faith leads to wise decisions. However, it is mainly old-timers who are afraid, and they are ineffectual overall when it comes to politics…look what they just did, after all. Why is Trump in the WH? Because people were afraid of Hillary. Bad decision based on fear. Afraid to vote 3rd party so they submit themselves to the selling of their souls and take the lesser of two evils WHICH IS STILL EVIL. That’s what fear does. Oh well, let the fearful be fearful still. LOL. Let the skeptics weep and howl while we proceed to a convention.

  2. July Harris

    August 3, 2017 at 11:37 am

    One of the best ever on this

  3. Jesse Broadt

    August 3, 2017 at 5:56 pm

    Thank you, July!

  4. Angelina (@ResistTheNazi)

    August 4, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    This was the first time I actually read something that didn’t just defend a COS, but explained WHY the fears of those who oppose it are groundless. ROCK on!

  5. Danny Lamar (@4liberty7777)

    August 7, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    I was very happy to see this great explanation of the COS. But ALSO the dismantling of the arguments against it! People like to talk about it, but no one ever takes on explaining why the “fearmongers” as you put it, are wrong. Great job!

  6. Jesse Broadt

    August 7, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    Thank you, Angelina and Danny. That is exactly what I was going for with this one! Glad I hit the mark!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

EXCLUSIVE: Interview with Yehuda Remer, Author and Second Amendment Advocate

Published

on

Yesterday, I spoke with Second Amendment advocate and author, as well as my good friend, Yehuda Remer. We discussed his conservatism, how he developed a love of guns and how he turned that into a career, and how he got into writing.

Below is a transcript of our exchange:
JF: Let’s begin. Tell us about your background. Growing up in blue LA, how did you become conservative?

YR: So I grew up in an apolitical home where politics were not mentioned. As an Orthodox Jew, I always figured I was a Democrat because hell, aren’t all Jews? In 2007 while Obama was campaigning for his first term as President, I was driving to work one morning and listening to the local FM DJs. They were talking about some highly inappropriate things and as I sat there listening, I swear I felt the brain cells exploding one by one in my head. I truly felt myself getting stupider by the Second. I decided to turn on AM radio and over the next year, I found myself nodding in agreement with the many common sense things they had to say. Before long I realized not only was I not a Democrat, but I wasn’t even a Republican. I was a full on Conservative, almost Tea Party like. Following that epiphany, I started blowing up Ben Shapiro’s phone because we grew up together and he was my go-to guy. He explained all my questions not in preaching way but in a way that allowed me to make up my own mind based on what he said. I guess you can call me a Ben Shapiro “disciple.”

JF: That’s awesome. What made the Second Amendment and guns your passion?

YR: During my road into politics, I started learning about the Constitution. Because I grew up in an apolitical home, I didn’t care about the country and took it for granted. But after learning about the Constitution, the one that stuck out was the Second Amendment. It made sense to me. Up until that point, I thought the only people allowed to have guns were law enforcement, military, and bad guys. I never realized that a citizen of the United States could own and carry a firearm. My mind was blown. A buddy of mine called me and invited me to the gun range. Let’s just say, the rest is history.

JF: How did you learn everything you need to know?

YR: Most of it I was born with. I’m just a natural. The rest, well, that was with hard work. Like I mentioned before, I would ask Ben to explain tons of things to me. As for my firearms knowledge, the Internet is a wondrous place and so are many people in the Second Amendment world. Any questions I would ask or have, people didn’t hesitate in explaining things to me. Many times I would explain to people that I am a novice. I want to understand. When you approach someone looking to learn, you would be surprised how forthcoming people can be. I constantly am reading about different approaches in the world to get a more full circle understanding. Another thing, especially in the firearms industry, there is no such thing as a stupid question, unlike in other places.

JF: Why do you think the Second Amendment is important? Obviously, as a conservative, we know the answers to this, but would love to hear from your perspective.

YR: I mean, the Second Amendment is the one that protects them all. Without it, we would not be able to keep and protect the freedoms we all hold dear. We would end up like another England, and we all know how well that worked out for them 250 years ago.

JF: How did you turn this passion from a hobby to a career in writing and media?

YR: Well, Ben Shapiro gave me my first real break when I began writing for his old site, Truth Revolt. I started helping him with the back end but that turned to a full-time writing gig. From there, I transitioned into children’s books. I needed a way to educate my children on gun safety and was shocked to find out that there were no books geared towards kids about firearms safety. You have some organizations out there and they do a fine job. But I wanted something where I can climb into my kids’ beds with them and read them a book before they went to bed. After tons of research and finding nothing, I decided to write my first book, Safety On, as a tool to teach my kids about gun safety.

JF: How did you break out into public media, appearing on NRATV many times, getting media credentials to the SHOT show and being interviewed on major gun radio shows?

YR: Wow! Great question. A few months after my first book came out, I applied for a media badge as an author to the NRA Convention in Atlanta. I was shocked that I actually got it. But it paid off. I went there, not knowing anyone and planned on walking around in circles, just handing my book out. Two huge things happened. The first was I literally bumped in Cam Edwards of NRATV and the host of Cam & Co. As a huge fan, I found myself tongue-tied and feeling like a 14-year-old girl at a Justin Bieber concert. Luckily, I quickly snapped out of my daze and offered Cam a signed copy of my book. He took one look at it and told me to wait right there, he is putting me on TV. That was my first appearance on NRATV. Since then, Cam has had me on many more times and even helped me get on some other shows. He has been a blessing. But at one point while I was there, I went to the media room to take a break. Someone walked up to me and asked me if I was the guy who wrote the kids book on gun safety. To this day, Rob Morse of the Polite Society Podcast and I are still friends. Being on that show opened up so many doors for me into the Second Amendment radio world. It truly was a blessing.

As for SHOT Show, one of the connections I made was to the Firearms Chat Podcast and they invited me to be a co-host of their show at SHOT. So getting in was super easy.

JF: When you moved to Texas, did that help you bring this passion out more, considering that Texas is much more gun friendly?

YR: Of course it did. Within six weeks of moving to Texas, I had my license to carry. Life became instantly safer and better.

JF: Your work on this is an inspiration and the Second Amendment and gun rights are something we all need to hold dear. Thanks for being a voice for that.

Where can everyone find your work and appearances, and if they want to follow you?

YR: So all four of my books are available on Amazon. If you want to find out more about me and my appearances I have made, you can visit my website, www.yehudaremer.com.


Yehuda Remer is the author of Safety On: An introduction to the world of firearms for kids, Safety On: The Coloring Book, 10 Little Liberals: A Tale of Hope, and The ABCs of Guns. He lives in Texas with his wife and kids and can be found shooting, writing, and trolling.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Gun control: Washington doublespeak used to void the Second Amendment

Published

on

When it comes to measuring the political dishonesty of our elected officials in Washington, I often recall the old joke “How do you know if a politician is lying? His lips are moving.”

While some of the untruths told by these lying liars aren’t obvious until after they get caught—such as the GOP promise to repeal Obamacare root and branch—others are obvious before the fact if we keep our ears tuned-in to the use of Washington doublespeak.

Once the proprietary property of the liberal-left, Washington doublespeak has found its way into the lexicon of the so-called conservative-right as well.

  • Immigration reform? Doublespeak for amnesty and citizenship for millions of illegal aliens.
  • Budget reform? Doublespeak for abandoning fiscal responsibility in order to build bigger government.
  • Tax cuts? Doublespeak for tax increases to pay for bigger government.
  • NSA data collection? Doublespeak for unconstitutional, warrantless electronic spying on Americans.

In the aftermath of the 17 murders at a Florida High School, we are once again hearing the words “gun control,” which is doublespeak for creating ways to void the Second Amendment.

As he did as a candidate following the Orlando Night Club shooting in 2016, Trump is backing an effort to “improve” gun laws as a way to keep firearms out of the hands of “mentally disturbed” individuals—an idea strongly supported by many Republicans. Besides the fact that “erratic behavior” pretty much describes Donald Trump and the GOP, who gets to decide who fits the definition of mentally disturbed?

Is it people like Joy Behar, who believes Christians who hear God’s voice suffer from a mental illness? Or would it be psychiatrists who believe that conservatism is a sign of mental instability?

Not content with anything coming out of Washington, the Brady Center is using the Florida tragedy to renew its push for Extreme Risk Protection Orders. These laws empower those who are close to an individual “in crisis” to ask a judge to seize that individual’s guns. Once again, who decides what “in crisis” looks like?

As an individual who holds a Biblical worldview, I know that violence will never end unless the heart of man is healed. However, passing arbitrary gun control laws won’t bring an end to gun violence either. In fact, it’s likely to increase the violence. But that won’t stop politicians in Washington from using doublespeak to pass gun control laws anyway.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s top pastor, Mark Burns, running for Congress

Published

on

Trey Gowdy is retiring after his term creating a rather large vacancy for Republicans in Congress. Looking to fill the void is Pastor Mark Burns.

Pastor Mark Burns has been lauded as Trump’s top pastor and was rather influential in the 2016 election. His influence landed him or was made clear in the 2016 Republican National Convention where he gave a passionate “All Lives Matter” speech. Mark Burns is the founder and CEO of NOW Television Network. After serving six years in the South Carolina Army National Guard, Pastor Burns along with his wife Tomarra Burns founded the multicultural, non-denominational contemporary church The Harvest Praise & Worship Center of Easley.

Though somewhat new to the political scene, Mark Burns is not without scandal. During the Trump campaign, he was busted for and admitted to padding up his resume with false accomplishments. These remain credibility concerns moving into the race for the South Carolina 4th district. Burns made his announcement via Twitter, highlighting his unifying personality.

 

Reactions

My Take

Considering this race, “Burns”. That being said, he could have a Roy Moore sized scandal level his campaign. But without such, it seems as though this race is over before it began. I remain optimistic about Mark Burns joining the ranks of Congress. Previously, Burns announced he was praying about challenging Lindsey Graham, a notorious warmongering RINO. But it appears either prayer or opportunism has landed him in a different race. Due to his political amateurism, not many of his positions are clear. Oddly enough, he has suggested Federal takeover of public school security. Though his heart seems in the right place, his position shows a lack of localism which small government believes in. It’s safe to speculate that Mark Burns isn’t all that fiscal conservative which isn’t unfamiliar.

On social issues, however, Pastor Mark Burns could be a strong tool for conservatives, so long as he can graduate from being a Trump surrogate. Burns has a more unifying persona than a lot of Republicans adding the possibility of broadening the base. On the issues of race and abortion, Pastor Mark Burns is a powerful voice. Though a strong personality does not make one the best candidate, Burn has tremendous potential to make a difference in DC.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.