Opinions / Op-eds

Turning to a Convention of States in Times of National Crisis Not the Answer

Our country is in a rough place right now, perhaps the worst since the Civil War. Spending is out of control, our southern border is wide open, and Congress seems to be unable (or unwilling) to rein in the deep state swamp. What can we do to save this country we all love?

Some look to an Article V Convention of States to save the day. The framers of the Constitution created a method for amending the document, either by congressional action or a supermajority of states coming together on their own. Such a convention has never occurred in our history under our current Constitution.

While we agree that our country is in dire straits, a Convention of States is not the answer, and here’s why:

First is the risk of a runaway convention. Backers say that this is impossible, that when states pass their resolutions calling for a convention they will restrict it to certain issues such as term limits or a balanced budget, but anything can happen once the convention begins. Remember that the Constitution itself came about when the original thirteen states convened to revise the Articles of Confederation.

Christ Troupis Book

Next is the question of who would represent Idaho in a Convention of States? Would it be stalwart conservatives who refuse to give an inch when it comes to protecting our liberties? Or would it be moderates who would be willing to compromise with delegates from blue states to get something done? We simply don’t know.

The biggest question is how organizers expect to ratify any amendments coming out of a Convention of States. There are currently 22 states in which Republicans control both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office, while there are 17 such Democratic states. Since it would take 38 states to ratify any potential amendment, passing anything would require compromise with blue states.

As nice as it would be to think Democrats would be willing to come together on issues such as term limits or a balanced budget, it seems improbable. It is more likely that they would demand concessions on issues such as gun control, diversity, or climate change issues before considering conservative priorities.

The sad truth is that our country is not what it was at its founding. James Madison had high hopes for the ability of sovereign states to guide the direction of the federal government, but where are the modern Madisons to stand for the rights of the states and of the people? States are no longer sovereign, but tightly bound to the federal bureaucracy. I hate to say it, but a Convention of States at this point in our history would be a fool’s errand.

Our government does not follow the Constitution we have, and adding more amendments won’t change that fundamental fact. Right now we should focus on cleaning our own house and making Idaho great—and sovereign—again.

Amazon Big Spring Sale

8 replies on “Turning to a Convention of States in Times of National Crisis Not the Answer”

This statement by Chairman Moon, says a lot. Is the Constitution not a good thing? Was the convention bathed in prayer inside and from those back home? Is GOD not big enough to guide our selection and the convention? Have you personally talked to those who are asking for it or been to their mock COS? The USA becoming independent from Great Britain was a radical, treasonous, ‘can’t be done’ idea also…

“Remember that the Constitution itself came about when the original thirteen states convened to revise the Articles of Confederation.”

Agreed …….
The negatives far outway any positives ………
How many hard core and track proven ‘not one inch’ Conservatives are pushing hard for a COS ?

NEITHER WAS THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THE ANSWER – not by any stretch of imagination, regardless how many times the opposite is parroted.

If you don’t want to believe me, perhaps then you will Patrick Henry, who refused to attend the Constitutional Convention declaring, “I smelt a rat!”?

“…Convinced the Constitution would fail to secure and protect liberty, Patrick Henry voiced his concerns to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788:

‘…I say our privileges and rights are in danger. …the new form of Government … will … effectually … oppress and ruin the people…. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts, absolutely taken away…. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? …And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce: they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences…. I see great jeopardy in this new Government.’67

“In contrast to the federalists’ failed predictions, this and nearly everything the anti-federalists forecast about the Constitution has come true [even after the Bill of Rights (or were they a Bill of Goods*) were added]….”

For more, see Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of free online book “Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a free copy of the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC.”

*Listen to Michael Gaddy’s interview with me (“Bill of Rights or Bill of Goods?”) at

Then T 1307.

I agree with Dorothy on this. The ART V/COS is a good theory. Theoretical concepts only work in a society where they can be adhered to without favor. I have talked and listened to quite a few people over the years on this, including Mark Meckler, who promotes a BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment). He doesn’t seem to understand that our Federal Government doesn’t allow for a budget. Instead, the Constitution contains enumerated spending powers outlined in Art. I Sec. 8
All the agencies in the above created post Civil Wa, esp. the XVI and XVII Amendments and the Agencies of Pres. Roosevelt and Wilson (over 457 individual units, bureaus, and agencies, done with a stroke of a pen, (all of them are armed) are still growing, and who’s stopping it? Want another reason why this is not the time for an Art.V? Gov. Newsom has a Federal firearm law that will severely oppose the 2nd Amendment that is just waiting for this to happen. The remedy for an ART V/COS is interposition or nullification which is what a State can do, and Idaho should. I would submit that quite a few of our State Legislators cannot coherently explain any of this. We should work with the ones who can explain and support these Constitutional measures.

Leave a Reply

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

Gem State Patriot News