Title: Why Conservatives Need to Amend the Constitution
Original CoS Document (slug): why-conservatives-need-to-amend-the-constitution
Login Required to view? No
Attached File: Why_Conservatives_Need_to_Amend_the_Constitution.pdf
Created: 2021-08-05 15:24:14
Updated: 2022-08-05 23:00:00
Published: 2021-08-04 18:00:00
Converted: 2025-04-14T20:02:00.774422809
WHY CONSERVATIVES NEED TO
Our Constitution
Our Constitution spells out two ways in which
constitutional amendments can be achieved legitimately.
(“Legitimately” is a key word here, since we know
illegitimate amendments to it all the time). First,
Congress can propose amendments that are supported
by two-thirds of both chambers. Alternatively, the states
can meet to propose amendments after two-thirds of
them (34 states) notify Congress of their desire to do so
on a specifi ed proposal or topic. In either case, proposed
amendments must be ratifi ed by three-fourths of the
states (38 states).
For the past several years, the Convention of States
Project has been gathering concerned citizens from every
pocket of the country to urge state legislators to use
this long-neglected constitutional “check” on the power
of Washington. With Republicans in control of 33 state
legislatures and Trump in the White House, now is the
time to make this happen. The Project’s model resolution,
which has been introduced in 47 states, to date, calls
for a meeting of the states to consider, and potentially
propose, amendments that would achieve one or more of
three objectives:
1. Impose fi scal restrains on the federal government,
2. Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,
While it is no surprise that Marxist-leaning groups would
fi ght, tooth and nail, to resist any plan for breaking the
federal government’s virtual monopoly on policy-making,
all conservatives agree that this monopoly is a perversion
of our federal system. But, sadly, the Left’s propaganda
and junk history have brain-washed some conservatives
into opposing the states’ use of constitutional power to
check federal overreach.
Having spent much of my adult life documenting various
tactics used by the radical Left, I can’t say that I was totally
surprised when I recently learned that the Left was, in
fact, the original source of the fear and misinformation
concerning Article V today, or that they are now escalating
and publicizing their opposition to conservatives’ use of
the process to restrain federal power.
by David Horowitz | What do the John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, Common Cause, and Planned
Parenthood have in common? They all oppose the states’ use of Article V of our Constitution to
impose and enforce constitutional limits on Washington.
AMEND THE CONSTITUTION
The (Tiny but Loud) Conservative Opposition
To repeat, the aim of the Convention of States Project
is to trigger a gathering of state delegations to consider
proposals to impose fi scal restraints on Washington,
limit its power and jurisdiction, and set term limits
I don’t know any proper conservative who wouldn’t agree
that accomplishing at least one of those objectives would
signifi cantly curtail the pattern of federal overreach that
not only threatens America’s economic survival, but
undermines her very integrity as a constitutional republic.
And yet, a dogged little posse of conservative activists are
convinced that any person or group working to implement
the state-led Article V process is the boogeyman—or at
least in cahoots with him.
away from the one process powerful enough to “drain the
swamp,” the conservative naysayers refer to the process
as a “constitutional convention,” or “con-con,” slander the
Founding Fathers by maintaining that the Constitutional
Convention exceeded its authority, and prophecy that
if 34 state legislatures should ever be so reckless as to
hold a meeting to discuss proposing amendments, then
Christmas will be outlawed, the Second Amendment
deleted, and the nation’s capital moved to Los Angeles.
They have overlooked a few key facts about interstate
conventions, in general, and Article V, in particular.
First of all, they have overlooked the fact that the state
applications that trigger the convention can limit the
scope of the convention however they choose. This is
inherent in their power of application. They have also
overlooked the fact that the commissioners to the
convention act as agents of state legislatures who appoint
and commission them. Any actions outside the scope of
that authority would be void as a matter of common law
agency principles, as well as any state laws adopted to
specifi cally address the issue.
While Article V does not spell out these details, we know
these fundamentals of how interstate conventions operate
because of the consistent precedents set by the interstate
conventions held more than 40 times in American
history, many of which informed the drafters’ addition
of the convention mechanism to Article V. On the other
hand, those who claim that an Article V convention would
legal precedent to support their assertions.
But perhaps most signifi cantly, naysayers overlook
important aspects of the text of Article V itself. It
does not authorize a “constitutional convention,” for
the drafting of a new Constitution, but rather only a
“Convention for proposing Amendments” to become
part of “this Constitution” (i.e., the one we already have)
upon ratifi cation by three-fourths of the states. This is
a virtual guarantee that no outlandish proposal can
ever be adopted, because ratifi cation by 38 states
is a very high bar, indeed.
The Left, Laughing
The sad thing is that the conservative opposition
groups don’t even seem to realize that in stoking
fears about an Article V convention, they are reading
right out of the Left’s playbook. While they tell the
conservatives on their direct-mail lists that they are
working to save the Constitution from being rewritten
by George Soros and his ilk, Mr. Soros smiles, breathes
a deep sigh of relief, and toasts to their success.
The sad thing is the conservative opposition groups don’t
even seem to realize that in stoking fears about an Article
V convention, they are reading right out of the left’s
playbook. While they tell the conservatives on their
direct-mail lists they are working to save the
Constitution from being rewritten by Geroge Soros and
his ilk, Mr. Soros smiles, breathes a deep sigh of relief,
and toasts to their success.
Conventi on of States
Why Conservati ves Need to Amend the Consti tuti on
The problem will
only worsen until
definitive action
corrects it…
Never mind how these conservatives missed the memo in
which the 230 most liberal, Marxist-leaning organizations
in the country explicitly stated their opposition to the
Convention of States Project. These fringe conservative
groups, fi ghting hard against the broader conservative
movement to oppose this constitutional safety valve,
are blocking the one politically feasible means the Right
has to reverse our nation’s slide into socialism. So long
as the John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, and certain
representatives of Concerned Women for America
are fi ghting this fi ght for him, Mr. Soros can save his
billions to send more statistics to Congress, where
they can continue to exercise powers never actually
given to Congress in the Constitution, but blessed
by an activist Supreme Court.
The problem will only worsen until defi nitive action
corrects it, because when the nation’s highest court
“interprets” the Constitution to allow the federal
government to act in an extra-constitutional way, the
only medicine strong enough to counteract it is
the medicine prescribed by Article V: a defi nitive
amendment of the Constitution, to clarify the will
of the American people in black-and-white language.
The Left knows this. And fears it.
The Left’s Historical Opposition to
the States’ Use of Article V
The history of the Left’s campaign to shroud the people’s
power to bypass Congress through constitutional
amendment is well-documented in Professor Robert
G. Natelson’s article, “The Liberal Establishment’s
Disinformation Campaign Against Article V—and How It
Misled Conservatives.” Here are the high points of that
“disinformation campaign,” in a nutshell:
Around the mid-20th Century, a couple of proposals arose to
address the federal overreach inherent in several new federal
programs, by using the Article V convention of states process.
These included proposals to repeal the 16th Amendment and to
create a state-based tribunal to check the Supreme Court. A bit
later, another group began the campaign to propose a balanced
budget amendment.
In 1963, liberal Yale law professor Charles Black published a law
review article in opposition to the whole principle that states
could overrule Congress and the Supreme Court. He posited that
state legislatures might radically change the constitution, and
therefore proff ered various proposals for obstructing the state-
led process. His conclusions, however, were unsupported by law
or history. In 1972, Professor Black published a second article in
Yale Law Journal, objecting again to the process, and reaching
further unsupported conclusions about it by again failing to
consult history and relevant legal precedent.
At some point during this general timeframe, opponents re-
branded what our Constitution refers to as a “convention for
proposing amendments” and what had long-since been labeled
by various states and the Supreme Court as a “convention of the
states.” They began calling it a “constitutional convention,” or
“con-con.” This re-labeling campaign was remarkably eff ective
(as such linguistic campaigns by the Left so often are today)
at changing the public perception of the Article V Convention
process. While it was once widely understood that an Article
V Convention process. While it was once widely understood
that an Article V convention to propose amendments had
only the authority to propose individual amendments for the
nation’s consideration, now people began to fear, for the
fi rst time, that such a convention would have the ability
to rip up the entire constitution and start again from
scratch—a preposterous suggestion.
Stanford University’s Gerald Gunther, who had clerked for
activist Chief Justice Earl Warren, published a tract in 1979
referring to an Article V convention as a “constitutional
convention” and suggesting that commissioners would
be popularly elected. He appeared to be unaware of the
fact that the Supreme Court had long since characterized
an Article V convention as a “convention of states”—
not a convention of commissioners.
In the 1980’s, Chief Justice Warren Burger, who had joined
in the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, wrote multiple letters
opposing the Article V process, which he, too, referred to as a
“constitutional convention.” His opposition was based, in part,
on his assertion that the 1787 Constitutional Convention in
Philadelphia had disregarded its instructions. Of course, this
assertion has been defi nitively proven to be incorrect.
Strange Bedfellows
Ironically despite the fact that Burger was complicit in the
Supreme Court decision that might easily win the “most-
hated-by-conservatives” award, it was one of Burger’s
letters that appears to have turned the fringe conservative
groups against the use of an Article V convention to
propose amendments with the power to end federal
overreach. The late Phyllis Schlafl y, Founder of Eagle
Forum, made no bones about the fact that her opposition
was based upon Burger’s letter advising her of the
“dangers” of an Article V convention. It’s unclear whether
she ever considered the possibility that Burger’s “advice”
was based on his recognition of the very real danger,
at that time, that an Article V convention was about
to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision that he supported.
What triggered the John Birch Society’s opposition to the
Article V convention process is less clear. What is well-
documented, however, is that JBS hasn’t always opposed
it. In fact, in the late 50’s and early 60’s, JBS Founder
Robert Welch and many JBS chapters lobbied for passage
of state resolutions to trigger a convention to propose the
“Liberty Amendment.” Today, however, JBS seems to
have forgotten about all that. It now uses the Left’s label
of “con-con” to refer to the proces, and fi ercely opposes
any and all eff orts to implement it.
Conservatives March on to Restore our
Constitutional Republic
It is important to point out that in opposing the Article
V convention process, Eagle Forum and John Birch
Society have placed themselves in opposition to a long list
of prominent conservatives that includes Sean Hannity,
Mark Levin, Jim DeMint, Jeb Bush, Allen West, Ben
Shapiro, Bobby Jindal, Greg Abbott, Marco Rubio, Mike
Huckabee, Michael Farris, and many, many others. As
more and more well-respected conservatives sign on to
the Convention of States Project, I suspect that Eagle
Forum and John Birch Society will grow increasingly
uncomfortable with standing on the side of George Soros,
Democracy 21, and Planned Parenthood.
I would remind them that there is no shame in changing
their position. After all, I was once a radical Leftists, until I
learned the truth. There is, on the other hand, considerable
shame in letting fear and ignorance triumph over reality,
reason, understanding, and cold, hard, historical facts.
David Horowitz
is an American conservative writer. From 1956-1975, Horowitz was an
out-spoken adherent of the New Left. He later rejected liberal and progressive ideas and
became a conservative, dedicating his life to “exposing the evils of the American left.”
Today, he is widely considered to be the lead scholar, expert, and writer on the history,
tactics, propaganda and operations of the American left, and his eight-volume (soon-to-
be 9 volume) treatise is widely considered the defi nitive work on the subject.
Conventi onofStates.com info@conventi onofstates.com 540-441-7227
Support the only soluti on that is as big as the problem.
Sign the peti ti on at Conventi onofStates.com