The 229 Year Old Message From Col. George Mason

Permit me to share a very Important Constitutional history lesson with you. The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention (today referred to as the Constitutional Convention) had been going over every section of every article in the final months of the Convention in 1787. 229 years ago, on a Saturday, just two days before the Convention in Philadelphia completed its work, we find a gem in the notes of James Madison, who took extensive notes just about every day of the convention. This item that I refer to as a “gem” is little known and hardly talked about today. On September 15, 1787, George Mason of Virginia (referred to in Madison’s notes as Col Mason), was alarmed that in the text of Article V (the provision for making Amendments to the Constitution), Congress would have sole power to propose amendments; Mason insisted, as he did earlier in June, that the states have authority to call for conventions. Mason explained that an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments necessary to restrain a rogue, tyrannical legislature.

"Col. Mason thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” (See Madison’s notes 15 Sep 1787).

To make sense of that, you must understand that earlier in the summer when the issue of even having an Amendment process was first brought up as a provision in the Constitution, many of the delegates thought it unnecessary. Madison’s notes record the following on June 11^th: “Col. MASON urged the necessity of such a provision [Amendments]. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account…”.

Then by the time the convention reached its final days in mid September, the Amendment provision had been added as Article V, and the provision had two methods; the national legislature (Congress) could propose Amendments and the states could request that Congress propose specific amendments. However, both methods were left in the hands (power) of the national legislature, that’s what Mason meant when he referred in the first quote above as “both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress”. Mason had objected to this back in June and now as the convention drew to a close, he rose to his feet to forcefully object with his reasons stated above (“It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account”). Madison’s notes of 15 Sept tell us that Mason’s motion was accepted and the language was changed in order to require [mandate] Congress to call a convention upon application of 2/3 of the states.

It is noteworthy to point out that this process does not call for a Constitutional Convention; the language specifies calling a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments”…to the existing Constitution…it would still require 3/4ths of the states (38) to ratify any amendment proposed in this convention.

We owe George Mason and the other framers a huge debt for this...they had the foresight to understand first of all, that we needed an orderly process in which to amend our Constitution (“regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence” – Mason 11 June). Secondly we owe them a huge debt for recognizing and understanding the depravity of man and the extremely intoxicating effects of years of power in the hands of the same people (hence a need for term limits) and that these power intoxicated occupants of the United States Congress would “abuse their power, and refuse their consent” (Mason 11 June) to any amendments that would “injure” themselves and return powers never intended for the national legislature or any of the other branches for that matter, they would never take steps to return that power on their own to the rightful owner, the states/people (“no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive” – Mason 15 Sep).

The least we can do as citizens of this great nation today, citizens that do not seem to want to be bothered with taking the time to understand the underpinnings of their liberty, the least we can do is take the time to understand what the framers of this amazing document did for us. When the framers agreed on September 15^th, 1787 to change the text in Article V, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2016, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution, a way back to what Thomas Jefferson called the “chains of the Constitution”.

Click Here to Answer the Call of the Founders!

Who Do The Article V CoS Opponents Really Stand With?

Keep this in mind when you hear opposition to using the process for the states to offer amendments to the Constitution....those that have any understanding at all of this process recognize that there are two ways under Article V to propose amendments to the United States Constitution: (1) Congress can propose amendments anytime they like (so technically they are in perpetual convention) (2) The states gathered in a called Convention can propose amendments. Either method only produces "proposed amendments", amendments from either vehicle MUST be sent back to all 50 states where 3/4ths (38) states must ratify them for them to become part of the U.S. Constitution.

So keep this in mind, when you are confronted by someone who claims to be on "our side"....in other words they claim to stand for limited government and the Constitutions original meaning....keep in mind that when you encounter opposition to the 2nd "mode" of amending....you are encountering an individual that stands resolutely with the status quo.

The reason I state this is because they hate when I tell them that....they call me a liar...and tell me that "you know that I don't stand with the status quo".....but folks....let me walk through the logic here....if one opposes the mode whereby the states can do what Congress WILL NEVER do....then logically one is standing with the Congress and the Washington D.C cartel as the only means by which we can propose amendments to correct the "abuses" as the founders told us would come. They tell us in their writings that they gave us the 2nd mode that permits the states to act ...specifically as a method for the states to reset the meaning of the text when the federal government (through the courts) perverted the Constitution. This person would deny the people of the states to use the lawful and Constitutional tool to self govern.

It is only logical that if one opposes the use of the 2nd mode....that they are standing with those that hold the 1st mode.

Their actions betray their words.

They stand with the Leviathan over the states.

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

John Birch Society has Blood on Their Hands

I think anyone that knows me well will tell you that I am a history freak. I realize that not everyone shares that passion, but there are times that behoove all of us to be aware of things that have gone on in history. If you are pro life and if you are sickened by the perverse and horrific 1973 Supreme Court decision in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade....I ask you to consider the following: 

In the 1973 Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe v Wade, 7 robed men codified government sanctioned infanticide. The United States Supreme Court literally made up the right to chop up little unborn babies. They went so far as to tell us that they found this right in the Penumbras (Shadows) of the Constitutional text. What most people do not know, is that following this atrocious ruling, there was an enormous push from the states to get the United States Congress to propose a Right to Life amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Congress of course... sat on those requests and did nothing. Many people are also unaware of the fact that at about the very same time, there was a very strong movement in the states to call for a Convention of States under Article V of the United States Constitution limited to a single issue, a Right to Life Amendment. Many people at the time realized that Congress did not have the political will to propose and send to the states such an amendment using their power under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

The state led movement grew to fever pitch and by 1980 19 states had applied under Article V for such a Convention of States. You can see the list of states in this online Article V Library.

By 1978, the John Birch Society began fearmongering the state legislatures that had passed those Article V applications for a Convention of States limited to the Right to Life amendment. They doggedly spread their misinformation and fear in those 19 states to urge them to rescind their Article V applications….and by the early 90s the movement was dead.

Those are the indisputable facts. What I say next I readily admit is conjecture….but I ask you to think logically through this and come to your own conclusions. Bear in mind, the movement to achieve a COS specifically for a Right to Life amendment was at fever pitch in the early years following Roe. The abject perversion of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in order to create a right to butcher unborn children en utero had created tremendous will in the states to amend the Constitution either via the Congressional or the state led modes in Article V. It is clear that the Congress did not at that time or today have the political will to propose such an amendment. However, the framers knew what they were doing when they supplied the state led mode to amend the Constitution in Article V. The framers knew there would come a time when the people in the states understood the need to protect themselves and their progeny from a central government that would not restrict itself. Listen to the words of George Mason while he was advocating for the COS mode of amending the Constitution: 

“Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence.  It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.” – George Mason June 11, 1787 

The states were pushing hard for this…as evidenced by 19 states actually passing an Article V application for a Convention of States specifically limited to the Right to Life Amendment. Things being what they were, there is a good probability that the states would have achieved the 2/3rds requirement of applications to trigger a Convention of States. It is also a good probability….again, bearing in mind the climate in the states in the 70s following Roe, there is a very good probability that the 3/4ths requirement of 38 states would have been met to ratify a national Right to Life amendment. 

Please keep in mind…this is CRUCIAL for you to understand. If such an amendment had been ratified, the decision in Roe would have been automatically vacated and the unborn would have gained protection and the same Right to Life that you and I enjoy today simply because we have exited a birth canal. Abortion on demand would have ceased to exist in our country overnight upon ratification by the 38^th state. 

My question for you after you ingest the facts I presented…and then after you think over my conjecture….my question to you is this: How many of the 60 million babies that have been butchered since the Roe v Wade decision would be alive today if the John Birch Society had not stopped this movement dead in it’s tracks in the 80s and early 90s? I think it a fair question to ask when you consider the climate in the states immediately following the Roe decision in 1973. 

None of us will ever know the answer to that question. But what we do know is that there was a strong possibility that the Right to Life amendment that would have protected those precious unborn children would have become the 28^th amendment to the United States Constitution. 

The John Birch Society folks hate when I tell them that their pathetic organization has to bear some responsibility for some of the post Roe holocaust that might have been stopped by the states. They don’t like it when we tell their dirty little secret. They really should not get so worked up over me educating people on this....after all the current President of the John Birch Society, John McManus proudly tells audiences that they are responsible for stopping the Article V movement for the Right to Life amendment. You can watch and hear Mr. McManus in this video, gleefully proclaiming their victories here in his own words. 

It is not hard to understand why Conservative icon William F. Buckley was so adamant about running this pathetic group out of the Conservative movement many years ago. 

Let me finish with one more piece of evidence of this group’s pathetic defense of the status quo and the Roe decision. In their zeal to make their misinformed case against the use of an Article V Convention of states they repeatedly write and speak utilizing the statements and the writings of former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger. They use a letter written by him that said an Article V Convention of States is a bad or dangerous idea. But here’s another dirty little secret that they do not tell you.

What they do not tell you is who Warren Burger was…they don’t tell you that because they know it will turn your stomach and make you want to throw up…. they also know that you are smart enough to turn right around and ask them some tough questions that they do not want to have to answer. 

You see Warren Burger was the Chief Justice who presided over and was part of the 7 member majority in the infamous and atrocious Roe V Wade case that has given us 60 million butchered 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 obviously NOT be supportive of any effort that would STRIP HIM OF HIS POWER! The guy in the middle below....that would be Chief Justice Burger....the anti Article V COS poster child of the pathetic JBS. Always remember....he was the Chief Justice that gave us 60 million dead babies.

The John Birch Society is the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson of the Liberty Movement. They claim they want to stop the overreach of the Federal Government but behind the scenes they are doing everything in their power to maintain the status quo.

I stand by my statement….the John Birch Society is a pathetic fearmongering organization. I think their leadership has to bear some responsibility for what has continued to happen unabated since their activities in the late 70s and early 80s to fearmonger the states away from using the Constitutional tool specifically given to the states to correct course when the Constitution was twisted beyond recognition. In this instance we have the fruit of that inaction....60 million dead babies. To be clear...the Supreme Court handed down that decision not the JBS. But it was the JBS that was responsible for stopping the states from their attempt to immediately correct course for our nation. At that time...there was a good chance of success. I ask you to again, go back and watch their leader smugly and gleefully tell you how they stopped this. Then I want you to think about all those butchered babies that just might have been given the right to live.

The Birchers will maintain that they did this because they believe that a Convention is "dangerous".  But the fact remains that we will never know what would have been the result if the states had succeeded in getting into an amendments proposing convention. Their fears are irrational and based on bad history.

I submit that the political cult known as the John Birch Society has to bear some responsibility for the continued holocaust. I submit that their pathetic leadership has the blood of some of these babies on their hands.

Draw your own conclusions.

Here come the fearmongers....

Just as I anticipated….the fearmongers against the use of the Constitutional tool in Article V to save our country have descended again this year in South Carolina. Just as we have been making HUGE strides with our legislature because of your efforts with your emails and calls, these people are now trying to scare you and the legislators you have been contacting away from this fight, the fight of our very lives to save our country. Before you read one more word of my message, please stop and see what the founders had to say about what they gave us here.

This is going to be a bit long, but I implore you to read it all the way through. Some of you received an email today from a group that calls itself the “South Carolina Council for Freedom and Enterprise”. Those of you that have been involved in this fight for awhile will remember the exact same fearmongering coming from the John Birch Society and Campaign for Liberty…I’m sure they will begin the handwringing soon.

As I continue to see the emails that are being sent into South Carolina by the fear mongers and Article V naysayers, I wanted to send this reminder out to you. Every day I receive emails like this forwarded by many of you that read them and are confused and or frightened by the misinformation and frankly utter lies. These people want to paralyze you in fear.

It’s rare that I will take the step of calling someone a liar whom I have not met….but this latest letter that is going out by this pathetic group….among other things….states the following:

“All of these special interest groups claim to be working toward a convention limited to their own issue, yet they are working together behind the scenes. Groups like Convention of States -- who claim to want a convention to limit the federal government -- are working with groups like Wolf PAC”.

I can tell you that WolfPAC is a left wing group that wants its own Article V Convention and their effort will go nowhere. The individual that wrote this letter to you tells you that the Convention of States Project is working with WolfPAC. That is an absolute and utter lie…not a falsehood, not a misstatement…it is an absolute lie.

If that were even remotely true, I wouldn’t be near this project with a ten foot pole. The fact of the matter is that people like my friend Michael Farris, probably one of the finest Constitutional scholars in the nation….who founded this project, have spent more time in the Conservative and Limited Government trenches fighting for what you and I care deeply about than most people will ever know. I myself spent 20 years on active duty defending the United States Constitution. For the last 15 years I have been teaching homeschooled high schoolers Constitutional Law and Original Intent. I have been speaking to Tea Party groups, 9-12 groups, and just about any other conservative group about the Constitution and limited government from an originalist perspective….I teach the Constitution in churches and just about any group that will listen. So when I read this garbage from this group, I want you to know that I have been pouring my life into defending and protecting the United States Constitution with my own resources for a VERY long time.

But, we have seen this type response from Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society now for about two and a half years. The leader of this group tells you “many believe a constitutional convention can be limited to certain types or categories of changes”. He goes on to say “that simply is not true. Article V itself does not back up any assertions that a convention can be limited -- and noted constitutional scholars agree.” However, he does not name one single “scholar” and his assertions about not being able to limit a Convention of States (which is the historically accurate term) are simply not true as you can read here.

On our side, the side of the founders, take a look at the noted scholars that support the Convention of States Project here.

The writer of todays fearmongering nonsense from the “South Carolina Council for Freedom and Enterprise” states “all of these people working together behind the scenes” are trying to destroy the Constitution. Really? Is that true?

If that were true….would Rush Limbaugh be for it? Mark Levin? Glenn Beck? Allen West? Governor Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Gov Huckabee, former United States Senator Tom Coburn (known in the Senate as Dr. No because he was one of a few that consistently voted against the liberal big government agenda), how about Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Sean Hannity, Conservative Columnist Thomas Sowell? All of these people I mentioned here have either officially endorsed the Convention of States Project or have publicly stated their support. Are all of these people “working together behind the scenes” to destroy the Constitution?

Are all of those people dupes of the left?  Do they all want to “hijack” the Constitution? I think the answer to that question ought to destroy the credibility of this so called “South Carolina Council for Freedom and Enterprise” and any other group, be it the John Birch Society, Campaign for Liberty, or any other group that opposes this effort out of fear and misinformation. That fact of the matter is that their opposition puts them squarely on the side of the status quo. They want to keep things just like they are because frankly they are cowards..

The rest of us have had enough. What the Convention of States Project resolution seeks to do is to use what the founders gave us INSIDE Article V. They didn’t have Article V and a process for the states to call an amending Convention under the Articles….so they called a General Convention in the summer of 1787. Today, with the document they gave us, they specifically gave the states a process to deal with an OUT OF CONTROL federal government that is staggering drunk on power it was NEVER intended to possess. Article V contains THE LAWFUL and orderly process given to the state legislatures to rein in the federal government. I for one will not cower in fear over every single lie and misrepresentation that is put forth by the fear mongers and frankly the pantswetters out there.  Our founders who gave us this process would hold such men in contempt for their sheer cowardice to trust what they gave us. I debated a gentleman from an organization that opposes the Convention of States last year and it struck me that I heard him use the work “risk” five times….and I realized that our founders risked EVERYTHING to give us our country and our Constitution. Today, when we really step back and realize the firewalls that the founders gave us in this process….we risk little to nothing. BUT….even if we did….how can I do less than the founders to save my country? I simply am not willing to look my grandchildren in the eye one day and tell them I did nothing because I was too fearful of the outcome…..all the while I was staring at an absolutely out of control federal government that was shredding the Constitution in front of my eyes. That just doesn’t make sense to me….and I refuse to have that said of me

I ask you to remember that it was the great men of the founding era that GAVE US ARTICLE V and the Convention of States process. If we say we love the Constitution, then we ought to love ALL of it. 

I leave you with an article that I wrote that goes into much more depth if you are interested and answers most of the questions you might have.

And I leave you with this great speech made by Mark Levin to over 1200 state legislators back in December of 2014. If you have seen this, I recommend you watch it again.

The fact of the matter is that the Convention of States Project is on fire around the nation with a majority of states returning to their General Assemblies and we have over 30 states that have lead sponsors filing our historic identical template resolution. But as you can see, you know what that means? Yep...you guessed it....the bedwetters and cowards are coming out from under their rocks to fearmonger the state legislators....they want to continue doing the same things over and over and over...and you know why? Because they fear the "con con" boogey man....whatever that is.

You would think that after this past June....and the June before that...and the June before that....I mean these folks want to wait for the next shoe to drop every June from the out of control Supreme Court.....that they would get it.

So here is what you have to do....if you come across one of these folks....they are easy to spot....they are all wrapped up in fear..and are continually wringing their hands and soiling their garments while they talk to you....if you come across someone trying to spread fear about an Article V Convention of States....ask them how they can be so utterly cowardly in the face of our out of control and staggering power drunken federal Leviathan. Let them know that their misinformation, lies, and fearmongering are very unbecoming of someone that claims to be a Constitutionalist. There position is utterly pathetic and as someone that has studied and read the founders/framers voluminously, I can tell you that they would hold such men in contempt.

They are cowards....no other way to frame it. Its one thing to oppose something based on your own reasoned argument using historically accurate information from scholarly work on Article V and the history surrounding it...but the problem for the opposition is this…as you saw in the video I asked you to watch at the very beginning....all of the scholarly information supports our effort.

I have been leading the effort in SC for 2 and a half years now and I have yet to hear a reasoned argument against the use of the founders tool...every single person and every single argument I have seen...bar none... is grounded in fear. That is why it is fair and accurate to hammer them as cowards. Rome is burning to the ground…and we simply do NOT have time for them.

Bravado vs Rule of Law

I am utterly amazed at the bravado of those that would call for violent resistance to the federal government. Many of those same people that voice such bravado.....turn around and literally cower in fear over the thought of using the lawful, peaceful, Constitutional process given to us by the framers in Article V in order for the states to amend the Constitution and rein in the staggering power drunken federal Leviathan. The bravado on one hand and the sheer cowardice on the other....betrays a disconnect...or a fraud.

For those of you reading this that claim Christ....you have nowhere to go on this. Perhaps you think that a rather assuming perhaps even arrogant position. Permit me to explain. If you claim to be under Biblical authority….as do those of us that claim Christ…you are duty bound to follow the Rule of Law as long as you have recourse under the Rule of Law. Romans 13 tells those that claim Christ that they are to obey the governing authorities. There is no ambiguity there, it is a crystal clear command. Unfortunately, there is mass ignorance as to who that governing authority is in our country. For decades now, the Church has suffered from erroneous or no teaching on Romans 13. Let’s go through this piece by piece. Unlike most other countries around the world, certainly outside the west…the governing authority in the United States of America is not a human....the governing authority in the United States is the Rule of Law. The great reformer Samuel Rutherford wrote about this in his work titled “Lex Rex”, Latin for law is king. Rutherford wrote about the Biblical principle that Law should be King, not the other way around as was the prevailing political philosophy of his day where the King was Law (Rex Lex). A radical concept in the mid 1600s….radical enough to cause you to lose your head under your King.

Indeed it is clear that God infused the minds of many of the founders / framers with the understanding that because of the Biblical doctrine of the Depravity of Man, civil government under a Biblical Worldview would involve setting law above men. That is precisely what our founders did with the United States Constitution. Every federal elected official and every member of the Armed Forces takes an oath to that document. Now before anyone misunderstands....I will remind you that for the one who claims Christ, our ultimate governing authority is the Word of God. That said, we do not live in a theocracy, we live under a Constitutional Republic where the Rule of Law (Lex Rex) is set above the Rule of Men (Rex Lex) in order to protect the people from despots and tyrants. Unfortunately, the people that ought to have the most interest in protecting this (The Church) since we were blessed to inherit this radical, Biblical form of civil government, unfortunately we have been left in the dark on these principles and Truths due to a vacuum in training from the Church….for various reasons that I will not go into here. We have been asleep at the wheel for so long, we know see a growing “soft tyranny” to use the words of radio talk show host Mark Levin.

Therefore, under Romans 13, the Christian is duty bound to follow the Rule of Law and our Constitution. That means before following ANY idea that is outside the Rule of Law, the Christian is duty bound to use all recourse UNDER the Rule of Law. Many people will bring up the founders and the American Revolution to refute this, but they show a lack of historical perspective. The founders had no option under the Rule of Law; there was no rule of law. They were under tyranny with no recourse under a “Rule of Law”….which is instructive in and of itself to understand what they did when they set up a governing manual based upon a law higher than men.

Which brings us full circle back to Article V of the United States Constitution. Under the Rule of Law in the United States of America today, there is a lawful, peaceful, Constitutional (think Rule of Law) available to us that has never been exercised. Now this does not mean that the Christian that does not think that the use of a Convention of States is a good idea is somehow being sinful, that is NOT what I am saying at all. Honest people can disagree. However I take great issue if the opposition is based on fear rather than reason….which defines about 99% of the oppositions today…but I digress. What I am saying is that if you claim Christ and you advocate for ANY solution outside the Rule of Law BEFORE utilizing the solution INSIDE the Rule of Law….then yes….you are clearly way out of bounds. SHAME on any believer that would advocate for going outside the boundaries of the Rule of Law and advocating for any solution that clearly today would lead to violence….shame on them for doing so before exhausting all lawful, peaceful, Constitutional options that God has blessed us with.

The Article V Convention of States is not an easy solution. I heard one so called conservative leader the other day state that using it was wrong because we (those of us involved) think it is a “quick fix”. That statement alone told me volumes about this individual and that he has never taken the time to even look at the process to amend the Constitution in either mode of Article V nor has he taken the time to perform due diligence on the Convention of States Project itself. This is no “quick fix”….I tell everyone that gets involved with the Convention of States Project that the framers intentionally made the amendment process very difficult…and for good reason…they did not want our governing document amended on the whims of just a few people. Therefore it takes VERY broad consensus across the nation to get an amendment proposed through either mode much less run the gauntlet of 38 states ratifying any proposed amendment. This effort is probably the most difficult political effort in our nation’s history since the founding era. Indeed, if God grants us favor…and we are successful….it will be the greatest single historical event in our nation’s history since the founding era.

If you desire to learn more about the Biblical Worldview of civil government in order to be able to better connect the dots between your faith and our Constitution, just click on the image below and send the website link to your pastor. I would be more than happy to bring the course series I specifically developed to teach these principles into your church if your pastor is willing.

Christian Worldview Studies: The United States Constitution and American Government