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”.