Connect with us

Opinions

An Article V convention of states would not destroy the Constitution

Published

on

Constitutional crisis!

This phrase is tossed around so flippantly nowadays that it’s lost all meaning. For a refresher, here’s the definition from God’s preferred source of truth, Wikipedia: “a constitutional crisis is a problem or conflict in the function of a government that the political constitution or other fundamental governing law is perceived to be unable to resolve.”

In other words, something so unpredictable that our Constitution simply isn’t prepared to handle it. Call me a cynic, but I can’t think of anything our Constitution hasn’t provided a mechanism for dealing with.

As such, I laugh at Leftists who lose their minds over the possibility of President Trump firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, as if this move would irrevocably establish Trump as Dictator of the United States (although I have to say, I’m a big fan of the acronym DOTUS).

But some on the Right are also guilty of these irrational doomsday ramblings on one topic in particular: an Article V Convention of States.

Article V of the Constitution specifies how the Constitution may be amended, whether at a federal or state level: “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 the 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 the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

Thus far, no Convention of States has ever been held and all 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Congress, but as many as 15 of those (including the Bill of Rights) can be traced to the threat that states would call to order a Convention of States and thereby craft amendments without the ratification of the federal legislature.

Yet some paranoid right-wingers are convinced that the result of an Article V Convention would be to dismantle our Constitution and draft a new one out of whole cloth — a constitutional crisis!

I have a great deal of respect for some of these people, but on this topic, I find them utterly silly.

How would such an unprecedented upending of American law occur? What evidence is there to suggest that state legislators even want to do such a thing, let alone that it would be plausible?

States tend to lean Republican, and Republicans at state levels tend to be more conservative. There are more than twice as many Republican governors in the Union as Democratic, and Republicans control both chambers in 32 state legislatures (plus Nebraska’s single chamber).

Even then, they fall short of the 38 states necessary for a three-fourths majority, so even Democrats have no reason to fear a runaway Republican convention.

Again, I ask, in what universe will a majority Republican Convention of States vote to abolish the Constitution? I have my gripes with the GOP, but I would never go full tinfoil.

The most commonly cited objective of a modern convention would be to pursue a balanced budget amendment. States tend to be far more fiscally responsible — even California recognizes that it can’t afford Medicaid-for-all, something federally elected Senator Bernie Sanders won’t shut up about.

Congress obviously holds the power of the purse, but do we really trust them to keep the buttons clamped without an outside check?

I’m old enough to remember last week’s omnibus, so I’m gonna say no.

Moreover, how can we trigger a constitutional crisis by invoking a power specifically granted by the Constitution? It’s an absolute paradox, tantamount to saying that using the electoral college rather than the popular vote would cause a constitutional crisis, or that we can never impeach any president ever because such would result in a constitutional crisis. It’s literally written into the Constitution.

We the People have been atrocious in holding our government accountable. We have shamelessly neglected our enumerated checks and balances while loudly complaining from the sidelines that the system is broken and that nobody listens to us.

“We need to bring power back to the states, but also a Convention of States would destroy the Constitution.”

This attitude is senseless, overdramatic, and antithetical to constitutional conservatism. It is pure silliness.

We have never called a Convention of States, we have never successfully impeached a president (including one who imprisoned 120,000 Japanese-Americans based solely on their ethnicity without due process), and we have only once impeached a federal judge.

Don’t complain about federal tyranny if you’re unwilling to enforce the constitutional measures afforded to you to push it back.

There is no constitutional crisis. We have a common sense crisis.


Richie Angel is the Editor at Large of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards, Co-Host of The New Guards Podcast, lifelong fan of the Anaheim Ducks, and proud Hufflepuff. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in English from Brigham Young University in 2017. One day later, his wife gave birth to a beautiful daughter. Richie is a constitutional conservative and doesn't see any compassion in violating other people's rights.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
14 Comments

14 Comments

  1. Bill Walker

    April 1, 2018 at 3:19 pm

    You can read more details about an Article V Convention at http://www.foavc.org. The site presents the applications filed by the states plus all relevant public record about a convention. It also discusses the real reason a convention has never been held.

  2. Shawn Meehan

    April 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm

    Richie, you are terribly misinformed. I’ve spent four years nearly full time studying Article V. There is no such thing as a “convention of states” in the Constitution. Article V provides for “a convention for proposing amendments” This is called by Congress, not the states and Congress controls it no matter the propaganda COS spouts. (Footnotes 1,2)

    Article V’s second method was created for when the AUTHORIZED distribution of powers between the federal government and the states is out of balance and the federal refuses to give up power. Congress calling it was stuck in with the convention option. Those claiming Congress plays no role or is only ministerial aren’t telling the truth. Did you know George Mason was one of only three delegates refusing to sign the final draft Constitution? He didn’t get what he wanted, a purely state-controlled convention.

    One would have to contort common sense and reality to think that changing a document that is being disobeyed will suddenly make people obey that document. The Supreme Law of the Land is being disobeyed but convention promoters will guarantee rules for a convention will be obeyed.

    The Founders advised us to strengthen state governments, not to change the federal when they are ignoring their duty (Footnote 3)

    When a group doesn’t tell the truth to 137 state legislators from across the country about changing our federal Constitution, it should be very clear they are not worthy of being anyplace near that Constitution: https://www.guardtheconstitution.com/2017/07/06/convention-of-states-falsifies-thomas-jeffersons-advice-2/20530

    Footnote 1) “And the few cases that have been asked to deal with issues comparable to the one now tendered to this Court have uniformly held questions as to compliance with Article V’s requirements are within the sole province of Congress and not the courts — in the language that has come to characterize such issues, they are political” (that is, nonjusticiable) questions.”
    — United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Wayne Wojtas, Defendant, No. 85 CR 48, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 611 F. Supp. 118; 1985 U.S. District. Lexis 19914, May 10, 1985

    Footnote 2) “As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule.”
    — Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921)

    Footnote 3) Thomas Jefferson was clear: “Then it is important to strengthen the state governments: and as this CANNOT BE DONE BY ANY CHANGE IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for,) it must be done by the states themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the general government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government….”
    — Thomas Jefferson To Archibald Stuart written December 23, 1791

    • John De Herrera

      April 2, 2018 at 9:43 am

      It’s a right of the people to debate/propose amendments when Congress won’t, says Meehan, who then turns around and says, except in a convention. Meehan’s arguments are not only irrational but illogical. He is a typical example of an American who fails to comprehend what he thinks he’s talking about.

      • Shawn Meehan

        April 2, 2018 at 1:29 pm

        John De Herrera slanders my comments. The convention method of Article V was added for when states felt the authorized power distribution between them and the federal were out of balance. Advocates for an Article V convention claim the Constitution isn’t being obeyed, as do most anti-convention folks. We all agree that if the authorized distribution of powers were obeyed, we’d all be happy.

        John De Herrera claims my arguments, supported by footnotes, aren’t credible, yet, he offers no references. Notice John De Herrera doesn’t counter that Convention of States was deceptive with 137 state legislators from across the country. How could anyone trust our Constitution to the care of hucksters that either don’t know the truth and facts of the issue, or don’t tell the truth about it?

        As an Article V expert, I’m happy to stand my ground.

        • John De Herrera

          April 2, 2018 at 2:02 pm

          The convention clause of Article V was proposed and unanimously passed at the 1787 Convention, and then was used as the final argument in adopting the Constitution (Federalist 85), which to paraphrase Hamilton, said–if you Anti-Federalists are so afraid of this new document/government there is the provision whereby the states can formally propose amendments the Congress fails to. That’s why it exists, to formally discuss change when change is needed and Congress fails to respond. All the Article V Convention does is formalize discussion about amendment language. It’s like a national town hall, and then all the delegates go home, and the ratification process begins. To think 38 states in a huge, regionalized country like ours will agree to shooting ourselves in the foot is both irrational and illogical.

          • Shawn Meehan

            April 2, 2018 at 2:28 pm

            Again, John De Herrera fails to respond to documented facts, effectively conceding the points.

            Madison’s Journal of the 1787 in fact documents that the Article V convention option was not unanimous. It was noted as passed “nem. con” which means without objection (meaning in parliamentary procedure that not everyone in the room voted). Those that actually check the record of 15 Sept. 1787 will learn there were SEVEN votes after that vote, including one to propose removing the entire thing. No parliamentarian would call that unanimous.

            John De Herrera displays a profound contempt for the words of the Founders. Federalist 85 contains the following: “…For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers” This is course means as I stated above the organization / distribution of government, not the massing of power.

            Actually, states do not propose amendments, the convention does and this has been discussed by constitutional scholars. Further, Federalist 85 doesn’t mention “change” or such, merely where states think amendments are needed to redistribute powers and Congress doesn’t agree. It is well documented that an Article V convention can not be topic limited:

            “Because no amending convention has ever occurred, an important question is whether a convention can be limited in scope, either to a particular proposal or within a particular subject. While most calls for amending conventions in the nineteenth century were general, the modern trend is to call for limited conventions. Some scholars maintain that such attempts violate Article V and are therefore void.”
            — Spalding, Matthew; Edwin Meese; David F. Forte (2005-11-07). The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (p. 266). Regnery Publishing, Inc.

            “Writing at the height of debate over the 1980s campaign for an Article V Convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger asserted that the Framers deliberately sought to provide a means of amending the Constitution that is insulated from excessive influence by either the state legislatures, or by Congress.”
            — Walter E. Dellinger, “The Recurring Question of the ‘Limited’ Constitutional Convention,” Yale Law Journal, volume 88, issue 8, July 1979, pp. 1623-1640.

            His view of the convention’s authority is among the most expansive advanced by commentators on the Article V Convention: …any new constitutional convention must have the authority to study, debate, and submit to the states for ratification whatever amendments it considers appropriate (emphasis added). According to his judgment, an Article V Convention must be free to pursue any issue it pleases, notwithstanding the limitations included in either state applications or the congressional summons by which it was called:
            — Walter E. Dellinger, “The Recurring Question of the ‘Limited’ Constitutional Convention,” Yale Law Journal, volume 88, issue 8, July 1979, p. 1624.

            “If the legislatures of thirty-four states request Congress to call a general constitutional convention, Congress has a constitutional duty to summon such a convention. If those thirty-four states recommend in their applications that the convention consider only a particular subject, Congress still must call a convention and leave to the convention the ultimate determination of the agenda and the nature of the amendments it may choose to propose.”
            — Walter E. Dellinger, “The Recurring Question of the ‘Limited’ Constitutional Convention,” Yale Law Journal, volume 88, issue 8, July 1979, p. 1624.

            More recently, Michael Stokes Paulsen invoked original intent and the founders’ understanding of such a gathering. Asserting that they would have considered a “convention” to be a body that enjoyed broad powers, similar to the Constitutional Convention itself, he suggests: “Convention” had a familiar … public meaning in 1787. It referred to a deliberative political body representing the people, as it were, “out of doors.” Representatives or delegates to such a convention might well operate to some extent pursuant to “instructions” of the people thus represented, but a convention was not a pass-through or a cipher, but rather an agency ― a deliberative political body.”
            — Michael Stokes Paulsen, “How to Count to Thirty-Four: The Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention,”Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, volume 34, issue 3, 2011, p. 842.

            “As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule.”
            — Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921)

            Perhaps the most assertive expression of the open or general convention argument centers on the doctrine of “conventional sovereignty:”According to this theory, a convention is, in effect, a premier assembly of the people, a representative body charged by the people with the duty of framing the basic law of the land, for which purpose there devolves upon it all the power which the people themselves possess. In short, that for the particular business of amending and revising our Constitution, the convention is possessed of sovereign powers and therefore is supreme to all other ”Government branches or agencies.”
            — Brickfield, Problems Relating to a Federal Constitutional Convention, 16.

            “Constitutional scholar Charles Black offered emphatic support of this viewpoint: “I believe that, in Article V, the words ‘a Convention for proposing such amendments’ mean ‘a convention for proposing such amendments as that convention decides to propose.”
            — Charles Black, “Amending the Constitution: A Letter to a Congressman,” Yale Law Journal, volume 82, number 2, December 1972, p. 199.

            “In fact, he went on to assert that limited conventions would be constitutionally impermissible for the reason that no language is found in Article V that authorizes them: It (Article V) implies that Congress cannot be obligated, no matter how many States ask for it, to summon a convention for the limited purposed of dealing with electoral apportionment alone, and that such a convention would have no constitutional standing at all.”
            — Black, “Amending the Constitution: A Letter to a Congressman,” p. 199.

            “When delegates are presented with a choice of writing a new constitution or submitting a number of amendments to the existing document, they have exhibited a desire to become part of history by framing a new constitution.” – Russell Caplan in Constitutional Brinkmanship

            “Congress’s inability to limit the scope of a convention suggests that a limited convention, even if requested by the States is not permissible.”
            — James Kenneth Rogers, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 30]

            “What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything
            they want.”
            — Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, on the steps of the Capitol in Richmond on Jan. 17, 2011

            ”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. Congress 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. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose’.”
            — Chief Justice Warren Burger Letter to Phyllis Shafley

            “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. Congress 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. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
            — Chief Justice Warren Burger

            Barry Goldwater said: “[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]…We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue.”

            U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986 wrote: A few people have asked, “Why not another constitutional convention?” … One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being. And the one quote I will never forget because I was on the University of Maryland’s campus at the time it was made was that of Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law, who wrote in 1991 in response to the call for a constitutional convention to write a balanced budget amendment: “After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call ‘a convention for proposing amendments.’ In my view the plurality of ‘amendments’ opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget.”

          • John De Herrera

            April 2, 2018 at 3:33 pm

            So if the Article V Convention can in your view, “runaway” where is it going to run to? There’s no way 75%+ are going to agree to it. Your fears are irrational and you’re standing in the way of our right to alter/abolish a thoroughly corrupt government. Thanks Meehan.

          • Shawn Meehan

            April 2, 2018 at 3:44 pm

            I didn’t use the word “runaway.”

            I thank John De Herrera for agreeing with the facts of history and my arguments by failing to even attempt to dispute them.

          • John De Herrera

            April 2, 2018 at 3:54 pm

            You posted a quote with the “runaway” argument. So I ask again, where is the convention going to run to?

          • Shawn Meehan

            April 2, 2018 at 4:28 pm

            Those are quotes from the authors. They can handle your requests. You are in no position to demand any explanations. I have offered numerous facts and you haven’t rebutted. Make your argument. I will not debate myself.

          • John De Herrera

            April 2, 2018 at 4:45 pm

            Anti-Conventionists profess that if the Article V Convention is called by the Congress of the USA, that something might happen that none of us alive today want, i.e. a “runaway convention” as Justice Goldberg above terms it. If that’s your position, or whatever position opposing the Article V Convention, my rebuttal is: where will it run to, and how will it become a grave danger to we the living? What idea, as amendment language, is going to do away with our republic as we currently know it, and get roughly seven out of ten Americans NATIONWIDE to agree with it?

          • Shawn Meehan

            April 2, 2018 at 5:57 pm

            You assume that the ratification in Article V will be complied with. Precedent from the 1787 Convention clearly provides that it may not. Since an Article V convention is clearly NOT the solution the Founders offered and the fact that a convention could be considered a sovereign gathering of the people, the constraints of Article V may be thrown off. This has happened in several state conventions in American history.

            Unbridled Powers of Delegates in a Constitutional Convention
            Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. Following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Constitutional Convention. Legal “experts” have asserted that it would be highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn findings from several separate and concurring State Supreme Courts. The foot-note numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made.

            These citations, along with the letter from Chief Justice Warren Burger (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm#.WKZQmhLyu00) clearly and concisely tell us that if a Constitutional Convention were to be opened, for whatever “alleged” purpose, there would be no controlling the outcome. State Legislators have been lulled into a false sense of safety by assurances that there is no danger in a Con-Con because, “of course, you would never ratify a bad amendment or a total rewrite of the Constitution”. What the State Legislators are NOT told – and probably 99% of them are unaware of the fact – is that there are two modes of ratifying an amendment, and the U.S. Congress decides which that would be. In other words, state’s legislatures can be bypassed in favor of ratifying conventions.

            * The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1)
            * and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2)
            * They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3)
            * and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4)
            * and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)
            Citations:
            (1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472
            (2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738
            (3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v. Jackson; 6 W. Va. 613
            (4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry; 91 p. 193
            (5) Texas (1912) Cox v. Robison; 150 S.W. 1149

  3. John De Herrera

    April 2, 2018 at 5:25 pm

    All law is composed of two things: letter and spirit. The spirit of the Constitution is for the people to govern themselves, not slim ball politicians and special interests. The letter embodies the spirit–“Congress shall call a convention”–and the states have long ago satisfied the legal requirement. Thus, to be Anti-Conventionist today, based on congressional records, is to be Anti-Constitutionalist. As Marbury v. Madison said, the Constitution is black and white, no equivocation, you are either for it or against it.

    • Shawn Meehan

      April 2, 2018 at 6:02 pm

      Well, John De Herrera has finally revealed himself to be a conspiracy theorist worthy of being ignored. States are fully able to rescind resolutions applying for Article V, just as my Nevada did last year with a resolution I initiated (SJR 10) and which passed four unanimous votes. We have not yet reached the requirement for 34 active petitions and I believe the court has dismissed and laughed at your leader Mr. Walker’s thesis of such.

      You make a really dumb argument. So, because Article V is in the Constitution, we must call a convention? Declaring war is in there also, must we declare war? Where do we start a new war? Come on, it’s in there. Impeachment is in there. Any federal officer. Why aren’t you advocating for 30 or 40 impeachments?

      When you get some education about the facts, you should let us know. Until then, you shouldn’t continue making yourself look all a fool.

Leave a Reply

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

Everything

Frathouse Conservatism Sucks

Published

on

I’m going to do a lot of offending in this column so viewer discretion advised if you are a snowflake on the left or right. The problem in the Conservative movement that needs addressing is the number of young Conservatives rising to prominence who lack any real depth or articulate principles. I dub thee “Frathouse Conservatism” because the problem largely stems from campus organizations. I am 22, so this isn’t some Gen Xer ranting about Millenials and Gen Z. In fact, I do not boast about how much better I am. Rather I point out the cause of the problem and point to the solution.

Rejection of Worldview

Western civilization is founded on the intersection of Athens and Jerusalem. The founding father’s took ideas of John Locke. Read this excerpt from the Second Treastie Chapter 2:

that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends;
and, on the other side, ill-nature, passion, and revenge will carry them
too far in punishing others, and hence nothing but confusion and disorder
will follow, and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government
to restrain the partiality and violence of men. I easily grant that
civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the
state of Nature, which must certainly be great where men may be judges
in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined that he who was so
unjust as to do his brother an injury will scarce be so just as to condemn
himself for it. But I shall desire those who make this objection to remember
that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be 

the remedy of those evils which necessarily follow from men being judges
in their own cases, and the state of Nature is therefore not to be endured,
I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better
it is than the state of Nature, where one man commanding a multitude
has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects
whatever he pleases without the least question or control of those who
execute his pleasure? and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by reason,
mistake, or passion, must be submitted to? which men in the state of
Nature are not bound to do one to another. And if he that judges, judges
amiss in his own or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of
mankind.

The Conservative worldview is largely pieced together by John Locke. Mankind in fallen. Government can’t correct mankind’s fallen nature, because government is made up of fallen men. Fallen men, if given arbitrary uncheckable authority, will commit injustices. Therefore it is most ideal that government be limited in its purpose. It’s purpose is to protect inalienable rights and to navigate violations of said rights.

Conservative worldview hinges on accepting the premise that mankind is fallen. One need not be religious to accept this premise. Many Conservatives unknowingly accept fallen nature to be true while others fully embrace this premise. The Frathouse Conservative supplements this premise if not outright rejects the notion altogether. Instead of mankind being intrinsically flawed, the state is intrinsically flawed. This substituted premise often results in the same conclusions as far as policy goes, but rejecting a fundamental pillar of the Conservative worldview is the root of Frathouse Conservatism’s inferiority.

Rejection of Mission

Frathouse Conservatism confides Conservatism to simply small governance. This directly stems from the rejection of the fallen nature. Conservatism, in accepting mankind’s state, necessitates the pursuit of living to a higher standard. All of the founding fathers believed in living high moral standards, despite their diverse religious beliefs. The founding fathers wanted no part in debauchery. Frathouse Conservatism may instead celebrate immoral behavior under the guise of limited government. More distinctly, Frathouse Conservatism is ready to lampoon deviant moral behavior.

Frathouse Conservatism is not as purposeless as it may seem. The movement does contain a mission, however vein it may be. The best way to phrase it is in their own words “owning the libs!” In accomplishing this, there are no boundaries or lines not to be crossed. The use of personal attacks is often substituted for substantive argument. A classic example of this is Tomi Lahren who believes that social issues are a waste of time. Her column on social issues showed a very misinformed understanding of the last three presidential elections and a concern for only illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is an issue where conservatism favors one side. There are many worldviews that could come to the same conclusion that America needs to curb illegal immigration. Some people are concerned about security, others cost. There’s also a principled belief in rule of law. And of course nativism exists. Not all of these are necessarily conservative. But the mission of Conservatism isn’t to win elections as Lahren suggests it should be. The perpetuity of Republicans in office has shown to be a detriment to Conservatism. Rather Conservatism seeks to better society, largely through small governance. Jesse Kelly understands the mission in how he responded. Ben Shapiro’s response was also worth noting

One Trick Ponies

If were ranking top issues for the Conservative cause, opposing abortion is one of them. But not everyone on the side of life is a Conservative. In my experience arguing abortion with the pro-abortion, there arguments shift from logical fallacies to denial of moral personhood for all of the unborn.

These types of arguments do not have substantial logical backing, especially when placed in perspective with cultural practices and norms. The pro-abortion side is simply not the logical side of the debate. One doesn’t have to be a Conservative to come to this conclusion. Many people can articulate well thoughtout pro-life arguments. This doesn’t make them a great Conservative. A great Conservative can articulate Conservative positions on various issues with intellectual consistency. The Frathouse Conservative cannot.

Abortion is not the only trick these ponies may know. It’s similar to libertarians who are libertarian because of marijuana. There’s also immigration (back to Tomi Lahren) and race (Candace Owens). And then there are the snowflakes whose mission is to trigger the snowflakes. And upon being challenged, they hit that block button on twitter. And of course there’s the everyday Trump bandwagoners like CJ Pearson who wants to line his own Paypal account.

Tactics of the Left

Candace Owens is a classic example of a Frathouse Conservative. She is very capable of explaining why she walked away from the Left. There is nothing wrong with that. What I have issue with is two things:

  1. Her reliance and profiting from Identity Politics
  2. Smear on those who think differently

We get it, you’re black. Ted Cruz is hispanic. You don’t see him using his race to pander to “his” group. Conservatives should not be seeking attention for their race, rather, they should be seeking attention for their ideas and merits. Candace Owens has little of either. She can explain her life story. That’s fine, but she’s wrong to assume black people can’t freely be Democrats. Further more, her tactics are of the Left.

The Left has successfully employed identity based labels to attack those they disagree with. Owens employs the same. Conservatives should stay away from these tactics.

Solution

Frathouse Conservatism aims to own the libs. The libs do a good job at owning themselves and eating their own. The Frathouse Conservative places too much uniqueness in themselves. Demographically speaking, the coming generations of voters are likely to be more Conservative because Republicans are having more kids. The baby gap has been written about for over a decade now. After all, the Left supports abortion, gay marriage, and free birth control. These three things are not conducive to bearing children. Mathematically speaking, it is likelier for a child now to be raised in a Republican household. This doesn’t mean, they will grow up Conservative. However this does mean a young Conservative, like myself, is nothing special or surprising. Sorry to disappoint.

The solution begins by first realizing that a young Conservative is nothing unique, therefore not seeking attention for it. Don’t go to colleges that suppress free speech(yes this is something you can research), and don’t treat college like a summer camp. Work during school, and if you’re not working during school, you better be more articulate than Amanda Kemp and half the writers at Lone Conservative. You have the time.

With that said, everyone wants to be Ben Shapiro, but no one wants to put in the same work that Ben Shapiro put in. Shapiro is a hardcore writer and reader. The Frathouse conservatives on Twitter are typically neither. And through reading and writing, education and practice, the Frathouse Conservative can graduate to being an actual Conservative.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

$.02: When is it OK to quit church?

Published

on

Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:

  • Sermon quality
  • Welcoming environment/people
  • Style of worship
  • Location

Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.

1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.

2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.

3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.

4.  It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.

5.  It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.

Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.

The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.

Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.

Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.

This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-21 ESV

The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.

Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?

There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.

That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.

That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.


This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Liberty Control (aka Gun Control) Dead at 501 [1517 – July 10, 2018]

Published

on

By

Today we celebrate the passing away of one of the Left’s worst legacies: Liberty Control

Liberty Control (aka Gun Control), the absurd idea that depriving the innocent of a means of self-defense will protect them from criminals and the government died on July 10, 2018, after a protracted illness. The past few months saw it suffer multiple degradations, but the final cause of death was a settlement between the Department of Justice and Second Amendment Foundation in SAF’s lawsuit on behalf of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed over free speech issues related to 3-D files and other information that may be used to manufacture lawful firearms:

Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military.

“Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort.

This curse on freedom began with the nonsensical label ‘Gun control’ but like a mutating virus, it morphed into ‘Gun safety’ or ‘Gun reform’ as people began to understand it’s true liberticidal nature. The final proper designation for this statist abomination helped seal its fate: Liberty Control.

In recent years, Liberty control had suffered a number of potentially fatal maladies ranging from the Heller and other Pro-Liberty decisions of the Supreme court to the virtual explosion in gun ownership with untold numbers of new adherents joining the ranks. Despite valiant attempts by the Left to resurrect this absolutely horrid idea from a bygone era, most imbued with common sense came to realize that more guns equaled less violence.

Liberty Control is barely survived by its one year older half-brother in statist tyranny Collectivism, born when the book ‘Utopia’ was published in 1516.  This ancient idea remains in critical condition having been transferred to the Bronx on life support. It is not expected to survive, despite the best efforts of the Socialist-Left. As is usually the case when a free-people can properly assess the liberticidal ideas of the Left.

Libertas [The ancient Roman personification of liberty] Celebrated the death of one of its intractable foes down through the centuries. “There must have been some viral affliction in the water of the early 16th century to have created these two horrible curses upon mankind.”

Services will be held on July 27th, 2018, and after August 1 Cody Wilson plans on re-launching Defcad.com with ‘a treasure trove of 3D-printed gun files for download.’  In Lieu of flowers, those of the Liberty loving public are encouraged to visit https://ghostgunner.net/ after that date and download the files for future use as well as donate to the organizations that defend this critically important freedom.

Please note that while we are using this ‘obituary’ form to prove a point, it should be patently evident that the dreams of the Liberty grabbers of banning and confiscating guns are now dead. Even if by some freakish turn of events whereby the defenders of Liberty forget history, agree to the requirement of governmental permission to exercise a commonsense human right, and then have their guns confiscated. The technology will still exist for everyone to produce their own weapons. It should perfectly clear to everyone including the cadres of Liberty Grabbers out there that the genie is out of the bottle, that there is no way they can ever ban guns, knives or even the odd spanner here and there. It should also be evident that such groups should move on to other causes that actually have a chance of coming to fruition. Also, note that it was very proper that this took place during #Gun Pride Month.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.