A Convention of States - Part 2 Answering the "Runaway Convention" and other Arguments

I’d like to continue today with a couple of the other most oft heard arguments opposing the process given to us by the framers in order for the people of the states to respond to an out of control federal government. One of these is a bit more complex so if you really want to understand, please read all the way through and bear with me.

(1) One of the other arguments goes like this….they tell you that an Article V Convention will be a “runaway convention”, that the commissioners to such a convention will destroy the Constitution. They base this on their absolutely historically inaccurate understanding of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. As a matter of fact my use of the word “understanding” in my above statement is being overly generous. What those that make this argument have is anything but an “understanding”.

They claim that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a “runaway convention”. They claim that the men who gave us our great Constitution somehow did something wrong at that convention. The ironic thing is that this view actually started with the left in the mid 50s and 60s….part of their attempt to scare the states away taking up their powers under Article V. That fact aside, wouldn’t that then make our Constitution illegal? If those men did disobey their charge at Philadelphia, wouldn’t that make them less than honorable?

They don’t explain those inconsistencies because the “runaway convention” myth of 1787 is nothing more than the biggest historical lie ever told in our nation’s history. The truth of the matter for anyone wanting to do just a little historical research is that those men completely OBEYED their charge and amended the Articles of Confederation to meet what they called the “exigencies” of the union….or the emergency in the union. I cannot tell you how many times I have had someone tell me that “they were just supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation”. Then I ask them where they got that from…and they tell me someone else told them that.

James Madison in Federalist #40 tells us exactly what the commissioners to Philadelphia were charged to do….they were charged to “devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution [Articles of Confederation] of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union”. The fact of the matter is that they were given broad latitude to save a young nation that was in grave danger due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. And by the way, logic tells us that if you make one amendment or 500 amendments, you still amended the document. My youngest daughter understood that when I asked her that question one day. If you make one amendment or many, didn’t you still “amend” it?

No my dear fellow Convention of States patriots, every time you hear the argument that an Article V Convention of States will “runaway” because the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ran away, I want you to realize that to take that position, you have to trash the founders. You have to call James Madison a liar for what he wrote in Federalist #40 where he explains in simple terms what happened in that convention. The fearmongers simply cannot have it both ways, either they were honorable men that did their duty and gave us our great Constitution, or they were charlatans that disobeyed their commissions. I for one….will stand with the founders and their integrity.

(2) One other argument put forth…this one specifically is used by the John Birch Society and by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum. They tell you about a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that said an Article V Convention of States is a bad or dangerous idea….they don’t tell you that this same Justice, Warren Burger, was the man that presided over and was part of the 7 member majority in the famous Roe V Wade case that has given us 60 million dead babies. Why don’t they tell you that? Is it because they figure you will put two and two together? That you will realize that logically, one of the most left wing and activist justices in our nation history would not be supportive of any effort that would STRIP HIM OF HIS POWER! So they keep that little sordid and horrific tidbit from you.

A Convention of States - Part 1 Answering the "They're not following it now" Argument

The following is often heard as a reason to oppose the Convention of States Project: "They are not following the Constitution today, so what makes you think they will follow any amendments?"

While this sounds good on the surface, and the questioner often has an arrogant look of "gotcha" on his/her face....(trust me on this one, I've been out speaking and presenting the COS Project for almost three years...and this never fails to occur just as I have described it). However, this question fails the test of honest intellectual scrutiny. As a matter of fact, that statement/argument fails that test miserably.

(1) It is simply not true that ALL of the Constitution is being ignored...that simply is a falsehood perpetrated by people that either will not think for themselves or people that are disingenuous. I ask those people one simple question: "Why have we not had a President since FDR serve more than two terms"? This usually leaves a puzzled look on their faces.....but the answer is simple....because the Congress and the Courts ARE following the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution....they are following that amendment to the letter today. I could also ask why women still get to vote every election? Again this would draw a puzzled look....the answer is that Congress and the Courts ARE following the 19th Amendment to the Constitution to the letter today. I could do this over and over again with ALL of the modern amendments (Post 14th)....ALL of those amendments are followed to the letter. The reason is that there has not been enough time to twist and pervert many of those (or the will to do so).

(2) Although no one would agree with the crux of that statement more than I would (I teach Constitutional Law and Original Intent), the question betrays a deep ignorance of HOW and WHY much of the Constitution is ignored today. The courts are operating off of the decades of twisted and perverted interpretations of the original text of the body of the Constitution. If you were to ask any of the 535 members of the United States Congress why they ignore the Constitution, none are going to agree with you that they ignore it, they are going to point across the street to the United States Supreme Court and tell you that the SCOTUS tells them that what they are doing is Constitutional. Hence we have a problem with the current interpretation of what they are using. They are following the modern interpretation (albeit twisted) of the Constitution. There is no question that new amendments today can be used to "re-calibrate" the interpretation of areas that are the most abused due to twisted interpretations.

The "Court Consequence" Argument

For those that have ears to hear and those that want to be able to offer the facts and truth to others concerning the Supreme Court issue. Some will dismiss this as arrogance because it makes them feel better about dismissing what I'm saying. Last Saturday morning I exposited on the Supreme Court and federal court issue. I keep reading variations of this idea that not voting for a particular candidate "guarantees losing the Supreme Court for the next 30 years". I see and hear this written and spoken by people that have no idea what they are talking about on this subject. I mean no disrespect, but some people simply don't like my frankness. I have zero expertise on mixing rocket fuel....so the charge of having no idea what I'm talking about on that subject is an accurate charge....I would not take offense to that charge against me....I've not studied "mixing rocket fuel".

However, I do have a tremendous amount of expertise on the United States Supreme court and the two lower tiers in the federal court system. I teach the appellate system from the state Supreme Courts through the 94 Federal Circuit Courts, on up through the 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, into the Supreme Court of the United States. I am certainly not the final say on things of opinion, but I can certainly speak with authority on how appeals are worked through the federal judiciary system and how SCOTUS rulings are written from Majority opinions to dissenting opinions and all concurring opinions. I understand where the federal courts are today and much more importantly, exactly how we got where we are with a federal court system that is utterly untethered from its constitutional anchor.

So when armchair court quarterbacks start espousing about what is going to happen in the federal courts based on a lack of a vote for a certain candidate, forgive me if I roll my eyes a bit....no....a lot.

I have written and spoken extensively on this subject for the national Convention of States Project staff on the issue of how we got where we are today.....how the current state of the federal judiciary did not happen overnight.

What you need to understand...that is if you are interested in understanding the facts and truth no matter what your decision is for your vote....what you need to understand is the actual current state of the federal court system. At present count, there are over 850 members of the federal judiciary including currently 8 members of the SCOTUS and 800 + members divided up in the lower two tiers. All of those members are appointed for life barring Congressional use of removal powers embedded in Article I. Those powers simply are not used anymore. You can harangue on how they need to use them and you would find agreement with me....but reality is that the political cost has become so high....Impeachment Power will probably never be used again. A clear indicator of the need for structural change in our Constitution for those that understand this....but I digress...more on that later.

Let me move onto the real substance of what I want to say about this "court consequences" line of reasoning.

Talking to my now very close friend Claude O'Donovan the other day, Claude said something to me that I knew...but his words brought into sharper focus for me. He said to me that the "political capital" (cost if you will) for getting an originalist confirmed on the Supreme Court today is so high ....so very high that it simply is not realistic to believe that any candidate will be able to do that....much less what we're dealing with in today's options. He nailed it.

The truth that we all need to understand....and this ties in with the Convention of States Project effort....the cold hard truth is that Washington D.C....and in this case specifically that the Article III branch Supreme Court is SO out of control, so very far out of control...and the Article I branch Congress who is supposed to "check" and balance the Article III branch....is so far out of control that there will be no more removal (Impeachment) of rogue court members. The corresponding truth is that the cost of seating a true originalist in the caliber of Scalia or Thomas is so high under the reality of the current system (not the original system) that no President, much less any of the current candidates could get one confirmed. The Republicans who hold a majority in the Senate have no stomach for a fight of that magnitude and the Democrats in the minority have shown time and time again that they will get what they want even from a Republican majority. If any of you doubt this....or don't understand what I'm saying, do some research into the confirmation hearings of a man named Robert Bork and current justice Clarence Thomas. The left unleashes all out HELL on any candidate for the Supreme Court that is a true originalist.

The candidates for the Supreme Court today that will be confirmed by a Republican president....any President....will not be in that caliber. Even my pick for the nomination Senator Cruz....would not have been able to get a Scalia or Thomas confirmed....I'm convinced he would have nominated folks of that caliber, but it is very unlikely that he would have ever gotten them confirmed.

I'm not trying to give you gloom and doom....I'm giving you truth and the cold hard facts of where the federal courts and the Congress are today. Of course the Executive branch is out of control too....but this explanation really centers on Supreme Court members and who gets nominated and confirmed.

You may not believe this....but what I'm telling you is accurate and can be seen if you will look critically. Under the current system and the current political environment, those two things will virtually block any seating of a court nominee that will do what needs to be done. The best you will get from the candidate in question will be nominees that have the veneer of originalism much like Justice Roberts....but that is a very thin veneer that will peel off under the heat lamp of a major case pertaining to the expansion of the federal Leviathan.

This is why you hear those of us repeating over and over our support and advocacy for the Convention of States Project. As much as some folks hate to hear this....because they simply do not understand all of what I just wrote....our system today is so far out of whack....so very far removed from Constitutional moorings that no election can fix it .....our system needs structural change. By structural change we mean changes to the structure of the separation of power....to regain separation of powers. Term Limits for the Congress and probably more importantly the federal courts. Mechanisms that give the states real teeth to push back on rogue actions of the federal Leviathan in the form of supermajority provisions for state overrides of federal laws and Supreme Court decisions (see Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments") and resetting of the most abused portions of Constitutional text.

To sum it all up....the arguments about "court consequences" for voting or not voting for one particular candidate sound good...and have provided medicinal salve for a lot of people to get over their repulsion of one candidate....that argument does not hold up under any level of honest and scholarly scrutiny.

SCOTUS Nominee Reality Check

On the issue of Supreme Court nominations. This post has nothing to do with how you cast your vote, it is intended to inform you of reality from the perspective of one that has been reading, dissecting, and instructing SCOTUS written opinions/rulings for a very a long time. I have now advised / consulted for three United States Senatorial and Congressional candidates on the United States Constitution and the Supreme Court. I've taught Constitutional Law for going on 16 years. And when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I've actually authored / rewritten state law that retrieved lost liberty in that area (see South Carolina General Assembly, S308 signed by the Gov. 11 Feb 2014). So the very last thing you want to do is tell me "you don't care or understand about the 2nd Amendment" .

Yes, I am giving you my "resume" so that you can understand that I'm coming from a position of expertise, I certainly don't know it all...but I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject ....more than the average Joe or TV pundit.

That established, let me paint a crystal clear picture...again, this is not about your vote....I understand all the reasons for voting for the Republican nominee and I honestly am not trying to change your mind. I AM trying to help you understand what is to come so that WE ALL can be prepared no matter how we vote. Ok, so I'm not the enemy, I'm just trying to give you some information from at least one experts position. Others can disagree, but at least check their credentials before deciding who has more accuracy in their assessment.

Right now, there are two solid Originalists on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Sometimes referred to as "Constructionists" because of their belief (and mine) in the original construction of the United States Constitution. The late Justice Scalia would have referred to them sometimes as "textualists"....I like that term more myself as it accurately depicts what an Originalist jurist does....he/she interprets the meaning of the Constitution directly from the text....not the inferred meaning which is most often skewed by pre conceived viewpoints and current trends in culture. The Originalist jurist will start with the plain text...and when the plain text answers the question, thats the end of it. When the plain text does not answer the question before the court, the Originalists goes to source documents, the actual writings of the framers which we get from three primary sources (Madisons notes of the federal convention of 1787, the notes from the ratifying conventions, and the Federalist papers), there are other sources...but those three are primary for the Originalist jurist.

Today, there are two proven Originalists left on the Supreme Court of the United States; Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sam Alito, Alito not in the class of Thomas or Scalia, but close. Roberts is not an Originalist, he fooled most of us during his confirmation hearings. Justice Kennedy is a liberal who sometimes plays conservative advocate, but he is a liberal activist jurist who believes in the "Living Constitution" as much as the left wingers on the court. All of this assessment is based upon their written opinions and rulings, not my emotional like or dislike of any of them.

That said, you need to be aware of the fact that NONE of the nominees that Mr. Trump floated a few weeks back to fill the SCOTUS vacancy were Originalists. All but a couple will talk like an Originalist and they will "present" in confirmation hearings that they are Originalists just like Justice Roberts did. But I can assure you that they will end up ruling in many cases, but most certainly on the pivotal issue cases of government expansion and retraction of state made decisions in the area of social engineering....they will end up ruling with the hard core left wing of the court. This is not conjecture, we have seen it time and time again with Roberts and Kennedy.

I write all this to help you understand that practically speaking, there will be no difference between Trump nominees and Clinton nominees. I'm not trying to be gloom and doom and I'm not trying to get you to change your vote. Just want us all to be sober minded about what we are about to go through in this country in the coming years. Sort of "buckle up" warning.

Lastly, because of all I described above, the 2nd Amendment as intended by the framers WILL be eviscerated and succumb to the unending assault from the left. Yes, it will fall. You can say that this is just my opinion, but if you do....I ask you to show me your study that reveals otherwise. It will not go down in one fell swoop most likely, but it will go. It will start with the court accepting a case on what was otherwise settled case law with the Heller decision, and it will reverse course on the individual right conclusions arrived at by the Scalia decision in the landmark Heller ruling, and then it will all unravel from there.

This is what we are about to face with either candidate friends, better to know now than to be deluded into thinking that it will be stopped by the guy with the "R" beside his name.

Neither Presidential candidate has any intention of rolling back federal power. Both will increase it for different reasons, but they will increase it all the same. The time is now for an Article V Convention of States to do what neither of these candidates will ever do.

The 4th of July - "Your Most Joyous and Venerated Festival"

To understand the connection between the U.S. Constitution and Christianity in the United States one must first make the connection between the U.S. Constitution and its parent founding charter document, The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America. The Declaration of Independence, infused with biblical principle lays the cornerstone for the governing bylaws found inside the U.S. Constitution. In his 4^th of July speech in 1837, John Quincy Adams argued,

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, you’re most joyous and venerated festival returns on this day [4th of July]?”

It might appear to some that Adams asked a question that on the surface might seem almost heretical to the devout Christian. Was John Quincy Adams flippantly linking the founding of the nation with the birth of Christ? To understand why Adams was asking such a question, one need only read the rest of his statement on that 4^th of July.

“Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon the earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”

Adams quickly answers his own question with an explanation of his meaning. He posited that the birth of the nation is “indissolubly” linked to the birth of Christ. Adams used the phrase “chain of human events” to refer to what Christians call the providential hand of God. He connected the Declaration with the idea of the Social Compact put forth years earlier by men such as John Locke in the mid-17^th century. Social Compact theory suggests that in order to live together peacefully there must be a construct or pact that elevates agreement above the whims of men. The Mayflower Compact was such a construct. Before the English separatists would disembark from the Mayflower in 1620, they signed a basic agreement determining how they would live together in what they called the “civil body politick.”

Adams went on to assert that the founding of the United States of America forms a leading event in the “gospel dispensation.” The United States would become the largest liberty promoting nation in the history of the world. The liberty produced under this system propelled the nation into the largest exporter of Christian missionaries and Christian thought for the next two centuries, hence the “dispensation” of the gospel.

Without the Declaration of Independence, and more importantly its unique content and purpose, the U.S. Constitution would never have been drafted. One writer has surmised that “America’s Declaration of Independence birthed a revolution, whereas the Constitution restrained and defined that revolution”.

Christian Governance

The following is a guest post by my friend Det Bowers.

Twenty-three decades ago a Continental Congress declared this gathering of colonies a nation of people independent from all others except “the Supreme Judge of the world.”  In their Declaration of Independence, they left no doubt that one God created them as well as these United States located in America.  In their sober fervor to exercise the task of statecraft, they declared, “With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

You are most familiar with the fourth verse of Francis Scott Key’s The Star Spangled Banner wherein all the glory for this nation is attributed to the Lord:

            Oh! Thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand between their loved homes

            and war’s desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued

            land praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.

            Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just, and this be our motto:

            ‘In God is our trust.’ And the star spangled banner in triumph shall

            wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

What has changed over the past two hundred and forty years?  “Has a nation changed gods, when they were not gods?” (Jer. 2:11).  Has the dependence of a people upon the very “Divine Providence” that forged a free people become independence from the liberating “Divine Providence?” Could the constitutional magna charta of this national congregation need revisiting so Americans remember the cornerstone of American liberty? 

Neither people nor their governments can be neutral toward religion – secularism is a religion.  When a republican form of government separate the people from their moorings (the Bible), an implosion is birthed, for neutrality is a myth spewing from the mouth of agony.  John Wycliffe (1330-1384) said, “This Bible is for the government of the people, by the people and for the people.”  God says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). 

How do you know when a people have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” and have begun worshiping and serving “the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever?” (Ro. 1:25). 

v  When the lawful are fearful of navigating their streets at night

v  When shamelessness is publicized and yet few are ashamed

v  When social discourse focuses upon symptoms rather than causes

v  When historically aberrant lifestyles and decorum are normalized

v  When churches battle for societal acceptance rather than righteousness

v  When society fails to produce true heroes

Americans’ refusal to address the marrow of their delinquency is perpetuating a race of humanity refusing to advance beyond puberty.  Americans are so enamored with the allure of youthfulness and the Peter Pan theology of never growing up that they have brought upon themselves and their progeny a perpetual puberty. 

Many churchmen are watching the last struggles of a once Christian people, a once Christian church or a once Christian family, and yet are taking no action.  They are as Pilate in MATTHEW 27:24 delivering over Truth to be crucified though he perceives himself innocent of Jesus’ blood.  The sin of quietness is inexcusable in those who have the vigor and yet not the courage to influence policy. 

Today’s America is producing men without chests, without passion and without excuse, “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them” (Ro. 1:19).  Where are the sons of freedom called by God to engineer a continuing progressive reformation?  Why are sons of glory refusing to move with singleness of purpose?  Do they not know that Christianity is America’s most effective social program?

Samuel Francis Smith wrote of the hand of God upon this America. Though many remember the opening verse of America (My country ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing), far fewer remember the fourth verse of that hymn:

            Our fathers’ God to Thee, Author of liberty, to Thee we sing;

            long may our land be bright with freedom’s holy light,

protect us by Thy might, Great God our King.

God’s people are equipped as patriots for godliness.  In 1778, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to the French declaring, “He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.”  America’s populace is religious – it always has been and shall forever be.  Therefore, when revisionists attempt to re-write America’s history in order to deprive generations of the Christian influence upon this nation and societal engineers attempt to keep religion out of the public square, they shall discover a nation fraught with civil discord and psychological disorder.

America’s Founders established this commonwealth with a holy vision in their minds, Bibles in their hearts and psalms upon their lips.  Their commitment to Christ assured that their lines did fall upon them in pleasant places and their heritage would be beautiful (Ps. 16:6).  Their God has not dealt with them according to their national sins, for if He had the heavens would be brass and the earth would have swallowed them up. 

Your God expects you to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Lk. 20:25).  Are you rendering to Caesar the things that are God’s? Victor Hugo said that Columbus’ glory lay not in his arrival, but in weighing anchor.  Have you weighed anchor?

Your America is in a moral plummet because it is in need of another spiritual and cultural reformation.  These United States are becoming increasingly disunited.  Americans are becoming more fractured by ethnicity, economics and ego. This graced land needs tutors to instruct Americans in thinking Theocentrically (God-centered) rather than anthropocentrically (man-centered).  The clarion call is for new leadership and statesmanship that is no longer covetous to accumulate wealth and power, but willing to sacrifice all in the cause of righteousness. 

God-appointed watchmen access the Holy Spirit to discern appropriate advances.  They baptize every thought in the word of God and their prayerful minds seek to capture the mind of Christ.  Christians will not quail because they refuse to bow their knees to fallen public opinion, societal acceptability and cultural conformity.  Retreat is no option for God’s beloved, for they have nowhere to flee except the bosom of Christ.  They shall remain unflinchingly biblical regardless of the ugliness of men and the assaults of demons.

Self-deniers can change the course of nations. Never in the history of these states united have so few been enabled and ennobled by so great a salvation to accomplish so much in so brief a time with such lasting effects.  Christian fifes and drums must pulsate for an American renaissance wherein “righteousness exalts a nation” (Prov. 14:34).

Return to the American Spirit of 1776 and reflect upon the conflict that birthed the land of your birth.  Read again the four gospels and the Spirit of eternity will remind you that Christianity itself was birthed in conflict.  The Washingtons, Madisons, Hales and Henrys were willing to go into harm’s way for a cause greater than themselves.  America is again in travail and calls you to labor at her bedside.  Holy patriots are needed to address the assailants battering their homeland (Isa. 1:26).

Patrick Henry (1736-1799) was a member of the First Continental Congress and the first governor of Virginia.  In an address delivered at the Virginia Convention, St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, on March 23^rd, 1775, he said,

            Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God

of nature hath placed in our power.  Three millions of people, armed in the

holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are

invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.  Besides, sir,

we shall not fight our battles alone.  There is a just God who presides over

the destinies of nations, and who will raise friends to fight our battles for us. 

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the

brave.  Besides, sir, we have no election.  If we were base enough to desire

it, it is now too late to return from the contest.  There is no retreat but in

submission and slavery!  Our chains are forged!  Their clanking may be heard

on the plains of Boston!  The war is inevitable – and let it come!  I repeat

it, sir, let it come! 

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.  Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace!

– but there is no peace ….  Our brethren are already in the field!  Why stand

we here idle?  What is it that gentlemen wish?  What would they have? Is life

so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? 

Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take, but as for

me: Give me liberty, or give me death![i]

God has gifted you with birth so that you would lead His people.  Cowards cannot be effective Christians. Christians must again dare to express their Christianity in the governance of their America. 

This nation was founded upon the teaching of Jonathan Edwards, the courage of George Washington and the Christianity of Jesus Christ!  The courageous one unsheathes the scriptural sword of naked unvarnished truth – He refuses to trim his sails or reduce the meat of the doctrines of grace to tickle the ears – He speaks and lives as though seeing Him who is invisible – He pursues lions into their dens of iniquity so that the Holy Spirit through him might restore all that the locusts have eaten. 

Perhaps the most appropriate closing for this writing is captured in a familiar song. Katharine Lee Bates’ America the Beautiful expresses America’s dependence upon God in all four verses. She affirms the heart of your nation’s indebtedness to the true Sovereign with such phrases as:

¨      God shed His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea

¨      God mend thine every flaw, confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law

¨      May God thy gold refine, till all success be nobleness, and every gain divine

When Paul was in Athens, “his spirit was being provoked within him as he was beholding the city full of idols” (Acts 17:16). Your spirit is provoked by a nation filled with idols. What are you to do?  Engage the public square. Come to know the joy of being invested in the eternal cause of Christ. Aim at God’s glory and you shall become the vehicle of the Lord to reform a society and redeem a culture.

- Written by Det Bowers, June 22nd, 2016

The Deadly Cost of Fear

The following is a guest blog by my good friend and Constitutional Scholar, Michael Farris:

Do you want to know who is responsible for millions of babies being killed in the womb? Do you want to know who is responsible for at least $16 trillion in the national debt? It is conservatives (particularly Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society) spreading a message of fear. Here are the facts: 

Article V of the Constitution allows for two ways to amend the Constitution. Congress can propose amendments when two-thirds of both houses vote in favor of a particular text. The states can propose amendments when two-thirds of the state legislatures vote to call a convention for a particular purpose. At the Convention (properly called a Convention of States), the text is written. No matter how the text is proposed, then three-fourths of the states must ratify afterwards. 

The Founders gave us the state-based method because they knew that Congress would never propose any amendment that reduces federal power. 

Two of the most significant abuses of federal power are the killing of millions of babies by the order of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade. It is hard to put anything in the same league as that deadly abuse--but the federal abuse of our children by incurring a massive debt that now officially is in excess of $19 trillion (and much more when you consider unfunded liabilities) is also extremely important. Our children's futures are being sold so that Congress can buy votes with current spending. 

The states responded to both of these outrages by calling Article V Convention of States. Since the subjects cannot be combined together, it requires 34 states to call for a convention for either purpose. 

On June 22, 1988 there were 19 state applications for a Convention to reverse Roe v. Wade and protect the right to life of babies. And on that same day, there were 32 state applications for a Convention to require a balanced federal budget. 

Since that date there have been approximately 21,442,131 babies deliberately killed in the womb. 

And since that date our national debt has increased by approximately $16.6 trillion. 

Why do I pick that date? That is the date that Warren Burger wrote a letter to Phyllis Schlafly president of Eagle Forum warning her that a Constitutional Convention (his inaccurate term of a Convention of States) could be a dangerous wide open affair that could not be controlled. 

It must be remembered that Warren Burger was the Chief Justice who presided over Roe v. Wade and voted in the majority to authorize the killing of babies. 

Based on Burger's letter to Phyllis Schlafly states started rescinding their Article V applications on both the right to life and the requirement of a Balanced Budget. And in several of state repealing documents, the opinion of Warren Burger is specifically cited as the grounds for reversal. And these are not just leftist states, very pro-life states like Idaho and Utah voted to rescind their applications based on the fears that Burger stirred up with the Phyllis Schlafly letter. 

This fear has killed 21 million babies. 

This fear has increased our debt $16.6 trillion. 

Moreover, if the Supreme Court had been reversed on Roe v. Wade through this method, there is absolutely no way they would have dared to legalize same sex marriage in 2015. We can add that horrific abuse of federal power to the list of consequences of fear. 

Using debt as the analogy, it is like we are inside a burning building but we are afraid to run outside because we might be hit by a meteor.

God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and a sound mind. 2 Timothy 1:7. 

Yesterday, the ACLU and other leftist organizations used the Warren Burger reference to oppose the Convention of States. Their testimony is indistinguishable from the testimony we hear from Eagle Forum in Utah and the John Birch Society in South Carolina and other states. 

Please help spread this message. Those conservative organizations have helped evil triumph for far too long. 

It is time we use our sound minds and our love for innocent life and the future of our children to demand that state legislatures stop listening to the fear and lies from those who are responsible for so much debt and so many deaths. - Michael Farris