In 2021, I was a supporter and very briefly involved in the [[Convention of States]]® effort, and largely because it was a beacon for great patriotic folks, and everyone I know engaged with it are right-minded and have the right intentions. I chose to take a 2nd deeper look and consider the implications and unintended consequences as I dug deeper into the global shadows of power, the ruling class/elite who have been operating at subverting methodically the USA for 100+ years in their quest for implementing a World Government.  The International Banks, Federal Reserve System, League of Nations, Council on Foreign Relations, United Nations, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, World Government Summit, UN Agenda 21 and UN 2030 Agenda - if those are not on your radar, they should be because the one thing standing in the way of their well-articulated goal of World Government is the USA and the U.S. Constitution - our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights in particular. UN Agenda 2030 is literally the guiding agenda of Climate Agenda, Open Borders, Energy Control. They operate in plain sight, with legitimate fronts, but most folks are unaware because they also control the media. I know there is a sentiment out there that not supporting Convention of States® is doing nothing - however, I think the something that must be done is to have a deeper understanding of the "they" we intuitively know exist and really understanding who "they" are, what their agendas are, and how they operate. They are playing the long game of a Doctrine of Gradual Inevitability, not revolution, but gradual infiltration of our institutions and culture, and slow changes. And they have been seeking a Constitutional Conventions for a long time. We are all on the same team, and we all need to take opportunities to consider different points of view on this important topic.  A) *"First of all, there is no way they could make amendments for abortion or gun control. Those topics are not included in the resolutions and would be declared non-germane at any convention."* -  I understand the Convention of States model that they are propagating. There is no Constitutional basis to the thesis that Congress will only consider similarly worded applications, and limit a Convention for proposing Amendments to just those topics.  - “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...” - The April 11, 2014 Report of the Congressional Research Service shows that Congress is well aware that it has the authority to make the laws to set up the convention: “While the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including (1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications; (2) establishing procedures to summon a convention; ... (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates...” (p. 4). - Page 40 of the CRS Report shows it’s been recognized that there doesn’t seem to be any “. . . constitutional prohibition against [U.S.] Senators and Representatives serving as delegates to an Article V Convention. . .” - [https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/crs-report.pdf](https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/crs-report.pdf) - S. 1272, the Federal Constitutional Convention Procedures Act, passed the US Senate during 1973, and illustrates that Congress recognizes that it has the power to determine the number and selection process for Delegates: It provided for the election of one Delegate from each Congressional District; and the election of two additional Delegates for the State at large. In this case, the number of Delegates each State gets would be the same as its number of electoral votes! E.g., Calif would get 55 Delegates. - [https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/senate-bill/1272](https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/senate-bill/1272) B) *(Even if they did manage to propose such an amendment, they would never be ratified by 38 states, so they would be DOA.)* - The States should never have ratified many amendments, but did, ie, 1) 16th Amendment on Federal Income taxes, which I believe there is a question as to whether it was legitimately ratified, 2) 17th Amendment on direct election of Senators which subverted the States' representation and removed an important layer of diffusion of power, 3) 18th Amendment on Prohibition of Alcohol in 1919, which took 14 years to be repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment. Ratification is not a safety when the process is subject to being manipulated. C) *Secondly, there is nothing in the Constitution at present about fiscal responsibility or term limits, except for the President.*  - The Constitution lays out specific [[Enumerated Powers]] for the Federal Government. Most of these powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. Congress and the Supreme Court have broadly interpreted the enumerated powers, especially by deriving many implied powers from them. Our bloated Federal government is a consequence.  - The only way out of our fiscal state of affairs is to limit government. Currently Congress keeps raising the Debt Limit on a regular basis, which is at least up for debate and creates some awareness. Other ways, wealth taxes, more taxes, could in theory just be proposed just as well as an amendment that it be balanced. It's technically balanced now, just by means of taxes, and "borrowing" by means of ever increasing loans from the Federal Reserve - and we pay income taxes to pay for interest.   - [[Term Limits]] is a whole other topic, which most folks don't understand was something the Founders explicitly did not include in the Constitution based on their experience with the preceding Articles of Confederation under which the United States were operating from 1781 until superseded by the Constitution in 1789. Term Limits were part of the Articles of Confederation and left out on purpose due to their experience and judgement. Term Limits keeps the good folks out too, limits the pool of good candidates; would result in politicians with final terms who could go scorched earth, and as blocks not just individually; and worse, really creates more of a bureaucratic class the really runs things and just cycles in political figureheads. I don't agree with Presidential Term Limits any more than other offices. Agree some politicians we don't like should have been voted out by their districts, but I'd say there is probably a deeper election integrity issue at hand which is something that the focus should be on. There are 15 states with term limits, worth taking a look at which states and how they have fared, and at least one repealed their term limits I believe.  D) *There WAS an amendment ratified for term limits on the President, and it has been followed ever since. So it's inaccurate to say that no one would follow any amendments that such a convention would propose.* - There are good amendments and bad amendments. An amendment putting in "common sense gun control clarifying statements" I expect would not be something we would follow should something like that become an Amendment. - Again, we already don't abide by the Constitution in many aspects. , 1) ie, 16th Amendment on Income Tax,  and the Federal Reserve System Act - both in 1913.  The Federal Reserve System is none of those - it delegated Congress's money responsibilities to Central Bankers and created a printing press to finance government, with income tax in place to make sure it's paid for by us. Prior, government worked off of tariffs, government bonds - people voted with their money.  i 2) ie, 17th Amendment on Direct Election of Senators, which subverted the State's representation in Congress to preserve States rights. Had the Senate for the last 100+ years done their job in defending State sovereignty vs campaigning for popular votes and special interests, Federal overreach would have been kept in check. Also, 1913.  i 3) ie, Trade Promotion Authority, aka Fast Track, which subverted Congress' Article 1, Section 8, Clause 31 authority “To regulate commerce with foreign Nations”, and granted that to the Executive Branch.   4) ie, Foreign Aid, which wasn't even a thing until we began providing foreign aid after World War II, with the implementation of the Marshall Plan in 1948.   5) ie, Declarations of War, last time was 1941, and of course since then the U.S. has engaged in military conflicts through other means, such as authorizations for the use of military force or other resolutions, rather than formal declarations of war.  E) *The Constitution is a great document, but even the Founding Fathers recognized that it would need to be ratified at times.*  - Yes, they put the amendment process in place make corrections, and there are obviously more well-intentioned amendments than not, but the process has been subverted for Amendments that are contrary to original intent. F) *They also recognized that the federal government might become tyrannical at some point and overstep its authority, and the states would need to step in and limit it. That's why they included the provision for an Article V convention.* - Agree. However, let's keep in mind how States conducted themselves during COVID, including "free states", and how many States continue to conduct themselves. Again, let's not forget how our State of Delaware's Governor conducted himself, and how efforts like EV Mandates are being propagated outside of legislative channels now, via State agency regulations.  - Delaware is among a block of states which operate in unison. And while we can hope there are more Conservative Republican States that may save the day, let's be real about Establishment Republicans and RINOs. E) *THE DANGER OF A RUNWAY CONVENTION IS NOT NEARLY AS GREAT AS THE DANGER OF A RUNWAY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!* - The Federal and State governments have already run away. I agree, the prospect of Convention for proposing Amendments coming out with an entirely new document is perhaps unlikely, however, it doesn't take a rewrite to take us down - it can be done with amendments that continue to chip away at the Constitution.  And again, who would Delaware send as a delegate if it were up to State Legislatures, or the Governor, or even some electoral method?  I agree with [[Article V - Glenn Beck]]'s assessment when he **publicly withdrew his support of Convention of States®** on his podcast, September 15, 2022: > "I have been a supporter of the Article V Convention of States, I've been a pretty big supporter, vocal supporter. I'm reversing that today, because after some real thought and prayer, we are not the people to open up this sacred document....I’m sorry to say that, but I withdraw my support. But it is because of the fact that this Constitution is wholly inadequate for anyone other than a religious and moral people. We are not those people and we should not stain this document.”   This echos John Adams: > "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Convention of States continues to propagate Glenn Beck's early position but of course does not share his withdrawal of support - that is disingenuous.  Again, there are many Article V efforts that have been attempted for many decades. David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, founders of the Trilateral Commission, members of Council on Foreign Relations, etc, worked towards a Constitutional Convention in the early 1970s though failed. But they did not give up and found the Trade Promotion Authority did more for their goals. And if there is any doubt that there is no limits on what an Convention of proposing Amendments can address, convention supporters in Congress have been filing legislation for Congress to count all applications together – regardless of the Amendment specified in the States' applications: - The legislation filed in Congress during 2022 - HR 8419 provided that all non-rescinded applications would be counted together to get to 34 States. - [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8419](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8419) - The Legislation filed in Congress during 2023 [HCR 24] provides that all applications on any "national issue" or for a balanced budget Amendment - whether since rescinded or not - are counted together. - [https://legiscan.com/US/text/HCR24/id/2749074](https://legiscan.com/US/text/HCR24/id/2749074) Keep in mind California Governor Newsom has laid his groundwork for 2A with his resolution for a call for a Constitution Convention for a 28th Amendment on "common sense gun control" - be assured Democrats have a plan for that effort, and if the Democrat progressives can't twist their agenda items into this particular Convention for proposing Amendments effort they'll seek their own on the precedent set on a quick turnaround no doubt. The Constitution has already been subverted in numerous ways, including through amendments. There is no need to take the risk of changing it — we need to focus on forcing our government to follow what is already in the Constitution: the Constitution as it stands has the constraints we require to rein in government. We need to focus efforts there, not on the hope that some Amendments will fix everything, particularly when such a process would certainly be a protracted and arduous effort. It's a distraction from efforts we can continue to undertake today. I urge everyone take a look at the forest, not just the trees here. There is far more going on for a far longer time than any of us would have imagined 4 years ago - and it's happening in plain sight and most are just not seeing it at all. Stay free.