Preserving Our Freedom: Nullification vs Article V Constitutional Convention

The United States of America is a nation in trouble and in decline. We continue to travel down a path that is the very antithesis of the principles on which our country was founded. The bold entrepreneurial spirit that fueled our growth and prosperity is now maligned and punished, and the rugged individualism of the frontier is scorned, while collectivism and mediocrity is praised and mandated.

Only the truly ignorant or those totally disconnected from truth and logic fail to understand the consequences of what is happening.

Our nation is ensnared in the Death Spiral that has destroyed dozens of societies before us over the course of history.

Trapped in a Spiral of Debt, one month we use our national Visa Card to pay the interest on our MasterCard; the next, we use the national MasterCard to pay the interest on our Visa.

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. ~John Adams, 1826

Equally lethal is a Spiral of Dependency that has trapped millions on welfare in a state of poverty from which escape is neither possible nor desirable. Why work or seek employment when the welfare “benefit package” far exceeds one’s income potential? After spending $17 trillion over 50 years on programs claiming to eliminate poverty, the result has been the establishment of a permanent recipient class for whom dependency is a way of life . . .  The real goal all along?

Worst of all, however, is a Spiral of Immorality . . . Lying, cheating, and stealing by the arrogant elitists, who have become our rulers instead of our peers, serves as a behavior model for all of society.

Before the ink was dry on our Constitution, those with greed and a lust for power were attempting to centralize governmental authority at the expense of the States and their citizens. During the 19th Century, these individuals were held in check by the explosive growth and westward expansion of the nation. Having only primitive transportation and communications, the federal government did not have the means to exert more than a general level of control over the pioneers and the new territories into which they migrated.

The industrial revolution, however, with the advent of electricity, automobiles, airplanes, radio, television, computers, and the Internet, shifted the balance of power away from the people by giving the federal government the ability to scrutinize and control individual citizens. The arrogant elitists wasted no time eviscerating and eliminating the constitutional guarantees that protect the sovereignty of the individual in order to fulfill their utopian socialist dream of world domination.

Today, the gang of interchangeable thieves and liars we send to Washington to represent our interests pay hollow lip service to the Constitution. They enrich themselves financially and have allowed the federal government and its chief executive to amass absolute power that is no less than that of the English monarch we overthrew during the Revolutionary War.

If I were to ask you if our nation can be saved, if our Constitutional Republic and our Individual Freedom can be salvaged, I wouldn’t be surprised if half of you resoundingly said, “NO”. Many believe that our government is irretrievably broken and that the solemn compact made between the Constitution’s framers and the citizens of the original thirteen colonies, our birthright of Individual Freedom, is gone forever.

There are, however, those who truly believe that it is still possible to restore the United States of America to a nation with a small federal government, strictly limited by the powers enumerated in the Constitution, by which individual citizens can engage in the free market exchange of goods and services without the regulatory fist of government controlling every aspect of their lives.

Because America is the home of ingenuity, there is no shortage of specific proposals to achieve that goal. Since the Nullify Now! Symposium in Raleigh last October, Dr. Dan’s Freedom Forum and Freedom Forum Radio have hosted discussions of Nullification as a means to combat and end federal tyranny.


The concept of Nullification is solidly grounded on the written words of our Constitution, an understanding of their meaning, and a knowledge of the framers’ philosophy based on a study of historical documents from that era.

Our national entity was created by the Constitution, a legal compact ratified by individual sovereign States. The federal government, as the creation of that compact, is most definitely not an equal partner. If one reads the proceedings of the state ratifying conventions, it was clearly their intent to limit severely the powers of the federal government to those specifically listed in Article I, Section 8. The States and their citizens, suspicious of absolute central authority, would never have ratified a Constitution that re-instituted a monarchy like they had just defeated in the Revolutionary War.

The Tenth Amendment specifically gives the power of Nullification to the States and their citizens. There is no article, clause, or amendment in the Constitution that in any way abridges or eliminates that right.

Nullification of legislation and regulations contrary to the Constitution is the absolute duty of the governments of the sovereign States who derive their authority for such action from their sovereign citizens.

Moreover, the individual States, not the Supreme Court, has the authority to determine if the federal government exceeded its authority, and, as sovereign entities, could remedy the usurpation of power by Nullification, interposition, or even by secession. The Supreme Court was never given the authority to interpret the Constitution, only to determine if laws and regulations enacted by the other two branches of government comply with the dictates of the Constitution.

Nullification is, simply put, the act of saying “No” to any law, rule, regulation, or decree of the federal government that is beyond its constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8. A sovereign citizen can initiate individual action on his or her own behalf or join with fellow citizens to force their sovereign state to resist federal overreach and tyranny by this simple act of disobedience.

The Constitution’s framers firmly believed it was a citizen’s absolute right and obligation to do so.

Opponents of Nullification base their opinion on a series of Supreme Court decisions and historical events in which attempts at Nullification were denied or unsuccessful. A careful and complete reading of these articles, documents, and court decisions, however, indicate Nullification was considered constitutionally permissible.

In essence, to oppose Nullification, one would have to believe that the thirteen newly sovereign States willingly signed a compact that created a federal entity with nearly unlimited power over which they had no control.  For additional information, visit the Tenth Amendment Center.


There are several groups promoting the concept of a Constitutional Convention or a “Convention of States” as outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it 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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; . . .

One such group is the Convention of States Project, a project of Citizens for Self Government.  Its website begins with this statement:

The Federal Government is broken.

Washington D.C. will never voluntarily relinquish its power. Left unchecked, the government will continue to bankrupt this nation and destroy the liberty of the people. It is time for citizens and the States to act, and we have the solution.

These groups intend to have thirty four state legislatures (two thirds of the states) force Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Many different sets of amendments have been proposed. Most would address balancing the federal budget and eliminating clauses in the Constitution that have allowed the federal government to amass power.

There are, however, groups proposing amendments that increase federal power by rewriting or eliminating the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. Some of these proposals, many of which have be around for decades, would rewrite the entire Constitution to include “positive rights” such as the right to a home, job, healthcare, etc., for the purpose of forming a socialist society run by the arrogant elitists in a central government with absolute control over its citizens.

There was a time in our nation’s history when men of good will and honest intentions convened to create a government that would protect and secure individual freedom based on Natural Law Rights. Today, those promoting the liberal/socialist/fascist agenda dominate the press, education, regulatory agencies, legal system, and federal government. In the absence of an unbiased media, public opinion has been molded to support this agenda that has already led to the tyrannical welfare state under which we now live.

Those favoring some form of Constitutional Convention deny the risk that a progressive/socialist/fascist cabal supported by a compliant press and millions of people whose lives depend on some form of governmental welfare program will use the convention to write a new ‘constitution’ creating the socialist utopia of their dreams. The “runaway” convention, fueled by the desire to steal wealth and redistribute it, would be impossible to stop.

It is the obligation of Dr. Dan’s Freedom Forum and Freedom Forum Radio to facilitate the free exchange of ideas and to promote a discussion of all proposals that seek to achieve the goal of a free America inhabited by free sovereign citizens.

Publius Huldah
Publius Huldah
Jacquie Peterson
Jacquie Peterson

Beginning the weekend of February 8-9, Dr. Dan’s guest on Freedom Forum Radio will be Jacquie Peterson of the Convention of States Project. Part 2 of this interview will air on February 15-16.  Part 3 will air on February 22-23.  Program times are Saturday 8:00am and 9:30am and Sunday 2:30pm and 7:00pm.  Listen to PODCAST.

Beginning on March 1-2, Dr. Dan’s guest will be Publius Huldah, a strong proponent of Nullification and an opponent of any form of Article V Constitutional Convention. Listen to PODCAST.

Dr. Dan invites you to listen to these important interviews, do your own additional research, participate in discussions here, facebook, and twitter @ddfreedomforum, and form an educated opinion about this crucial subject.

Show More

Related Articles


  1. Our population is at a loss and has no idea what we must do. We do need leadership. Thanks Dr. Dan. Keep leading and informing.
    Lowell Presnell

  2. Dr Dan, excellent article and I’m looking forward to the upcoming interviews. However I also see nullification as preferable to a Convention of the States. Why?

    Even if we could get perfectly wonderful new amendments, the socialists/globalists/liberals would still over step their power – and we would still need nullification.

  3. Thanks Dr. Dan. I am one of those that believes that it’s over, stick a fork in us, we’re done. The United States of America that we were no longer exists and the Genie is never going back into the bottle. But, I’m willing to listen, and I’m willing to fight… keep talking!

  4. While nullification works for Laws, it cannot overturn Amendments. For example, XVII, Senator elected by the public, cannot be nullified, yet XVII is imperative to repeal; otherwise, the States work against themselves, nullifying what Senators legislate. As another example, XVI, establishment of income tax, cannot be nullified, yet we can do nothing to stop the thievery (short of widespread revolution) until we repeal it. Another example is XXVI, which provides the socialists with their greatest ally, university youth; and this too needs repeal.

    I agree with Nullification. But I also believe that the States have a right to hold any Convention they like, whether Article V or some other, due to the strength of the Tenth.

  5. I’ve read a lot of Ms Huldah’s newsletters and am currently examining the Convention of States approaches (there’s apparently several). Personally, I’m not ready to have a fork stuck in me.

    At some point, and it looks like it may be sooner than later, WE THE PEOPLE will have to prepare for using force, whether it be the force to stand behind Nullification or the force to “Make DC Listen” as Ted Cruz calls it. We need to come to the reality that rhetoric may not get us what we demand. We’re dealing with children in our Government. What did we do when a child misbehaved in the past? I believe we need to keep an open mind and not allow ourselves to be limited to ONLY Nullification and COS amendment processes.

  6. A fellow named Dave Lari wrote in a Tenth Amendment Center post suggests reading Federalist 44 to see that Madison’s beliefs about nullification are no different than those he held in later years. According to Madison,:

    “The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor.
    In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors.

    In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution.

    In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others. In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.”

    I fully support the calling of a convention by the states, reject the comparison of an Article V convention to the convention of 1787 and believe that the former was an extralegal body without power while the latter is a legal body with one clear and specified power: to propose amendments. I believe the specified requirement for ratification by 34 states has no comparison with the process of of altering the Articles of Confederation. The Articles’ amendment clause required that all of the states ratify the holding of conventions to approve the Constitution or not. When the thirteenth did so, only then did the Constitution’s ratification process begin. The new Constitution was a revision as requested, albeit a dramatic one. Early in the convention, it was clear to the delegates that only a radical revision would suffice to make the document workable. As they said in the Preamble, this was done to “establish a more perfect union.” In other words, the powerless convention of 1787 was not a runaway.

    I believe the long and grinding process of trying to re-establish nullification as a practical solution, almost certainly doomed at the outset, confuses and stifles efforts to take a clear and constitutionally sanctioned path to the people exercising their sovereignty. We tremble like deer at the people’s most powerful constitutional power, one that was created by courageous people. They too held extreme political beliefs, but they knew they had to set those aside to maintain the Republic. They too faced great dangers in this experiment, but they were men of courage, and willing to take the risk, however grave, to overcome the graver risk of doing nothing.

    Article V’s discussion within the convention, and the Federalist writings that later defined its meaning and utility, are open for all to read. If you do so, its mystery vanishes. Visit the Friends of an Article Convention website ( for its vast resources in the Article V debate.

    I thank Dr. Dan for this forum. I don’t agree nullification is a solution, but only in the spirit of mutual love for country. When in the foxhole, partisanship and stubborn adherence to one idea or another go out the window in favor of the clarity on how to survive and destroy the enemy. If it truly is nullification, that will be borne out and I will join the ranks. I can only pray that others believe the same about an Article V convention.

  7. Dr. Dan,
    I attended a presentation in Akron a couple of years ago when we were at Dr. Cindy’s seminar. Your message of the difficult condition our nation faces has taken on a new urgency in recent months. I received one of the normal Internet stupid emails, but the part the bothered me the most was the part of opening a Constitutional Convention to “cure” our problems. Below is my response. I realize this is your area of passion, but without critical thinking, the sheep cannot be trusted to think long-term.

    Kirk Boyd
    Moscow, Iowa

    Subject: Just 3 states!

    Oh boy – be careful of a Constitutional Convention as it is really a
    Pandora’s box situation. Once convened, there is no way to control the

    A better solution is to enforce the Constitution as written and not
    allow presidential orders to exist. It seems the sheep do not realize
    it is the sworn duty of all members of CONgress to uphold this
    document. The same goes for the highest kangaroo court in the land.

    Every time a convention was held, bad amendments were added to a great document. Our history has suffered each time by the likes of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and Johnson. The founding fathers did not add bad amendments like these presidents did, contributing to the current mess we are in. Each convention was held by the power elites imposing more control . . . in small ways at first . . . Wilson ignored the Constitution and instituted the FED and income taxes at a convention without even a whimper from the sheeple.

    Who would run the convention? Jerry Brown from California or someone from Massachusetts? Would a Ron Paul or Ross Perot be allowed to have free reign? How realistic is an effective convention whose end result is a correction of this mess with 330 million citizens, many of whom do not speak English well enough to understand the dynamics (but can vote), and many of whom exist on the backs of taxpayers via massive government entitlements?

    I believe in the math of the “step function” to right the list. The step function was well executed in the Republic in 1776 or Bastille Day in France, Bolshevik in Russia, or Mao in China. The 3% will need to work flawlessly to perform the correction.

    Our Founding Fathers were far brighter than given credit . . . they studied history and arrived at a conclusion that cost countless lives, often including their own. Through great sacrifice, these men secured life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for future generations by passing on to each of us the United States Constitution. It was our job to protect and defend it.

    Just 3 states!

    This is what Mark Levine has been talking about–a constitutional convention by the states to get back to the laws of the Constitution. This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

    Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

    For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Their latest stunt is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that they passed … in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite ruling class that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

    If each person that receives this will forward it on to 15 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

    Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress
    shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators, Representatives of Congress; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States……”

  8. Dr. Dan, a German survivor of the atrocities Hitler and the Nazi Party inflicted on the German people, reflecting on how they got duped into supporting Hitler, summed it up this way:

    “If you can get people asking the wrong questions, the answers won’t matter.”

    Nullification vs. Article V fits that wisdom at some level. Unconstitutional laws are not laws in the first place. They are null from inception as if never written. There is nothing to “nullify.”

    The Constitution isn’t the problem, so amending it is not the solution.

    The “rightful remedy” is to “interpose,” and to uphold the Constitution, even when the feds don’t. Work to impeach or replace oath-breakers, and be vigilant in that effort.

    On nullification:

    How many times did Madison, Hamilton, or Jay use the word “nullify,” or any variation of it in the 85 essays comprising the Federalist Papers? ZERO.

    How many times will you find the word “nullify” in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, penned by Madison as adopted by the Virginia Assembly? ZERO.

    How many times will you find the word “nullify” in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, penned by Jefferson as adopted by the Kentucky Legislature? ZERO.

    The Kentucky legislature “rejected” the language which most nullifiers deploy as “the rightful remedy.” You will only find it in the draft.

    How many times will you find the word “nullify” or any variation of it in his Madison’s 1800
    Report on the Virginia Resolutions? ONCE, and it was past tense (nullified), denoting not an action to be taken, but rather, the “status” of the Sedition Act.

    How many times did Madison, Hamilton, or Jay use the word “interpose” or any variation of it in the 85 essays comprising the Federalist Papers? FIFTEEN.

    How many times will you find the word “interpose” or any variation of it in Madison’s 1800
    Report on the Virginia Resolutions? TEN.

    That’s 25 to 1: Interposition v. Nullification.

    The Framers, including James Madison, understood that a law not written “in Pursuance” of the Constitution was no law at all. They understood there was nothing to “nullify.” They also understood their duty was to stand between rogue federal agents and the people.

    The duty is to “interpose.” Under the oath, and duty of “allegiance and protection,” actively
    defending the rights of the people is neither optional nor a form of nullification.

    James Madison, in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, recognized the states’ right and duty to
    stand between rogue federal actions and the people by including this:

    “that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not
    granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are
    in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining
    within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

    The duty of a state to “interpose” on behalf of its citizens existed long before the Constitution. By adopting the Constitution, the states did not surrender or negate their duty to “protect” the folks within their respective jurisdictions; they added another layer of protection.

    In your article, you state “The Tenth Amendment specifically gives the power of Nullification to the States and their citizens. There is no article, clause, or amendment in the Constitution that in any way abridges or eliminates that right.”

    With all due respect, the Tenth Amendment gives NOTHING to the States or their citizens.

    It merely clarified what the States and their citizens “retained.” If we repealed the Tenth Amendment, it would change nothing. Since the people, and the States on their behalf, only delegated certain limited and enumerated powers to the federal government, logic dictates that they kept everything they didn’t delegate to the federal government.

    To prove the logic of what I’ve just explained, how many Articles in the Constitution, or clauses thereof, would need an asterisk under them denoting *changed by repeal of the Tenth Amendment.”? NONE.

    The question posed being “Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention” is easy to answer:

    NEITHER is the “rightful remedy.”

    I’d love to come on your show to discuss this in more detail.


    Jeff Lewis
    Co-founder, National Director, Patriot Coalition
    National Director, FIRE Coalition
    Director, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER
    DefendNotAmend Coalition

  9. I think that Jeff Lewis has caught on something important. But unless WE THE PEOPLE figure out ways to be civilly disobedient to the current government’s extra-constitutional blather (blather is a law or laws that change so often as to never rest), there is no action to stop this government’s atrocities. To work, successfully, the individual states must act to stand by and protect it’s civilly disobedient citizen patriots.

    I’m still not at all comfortable that the State governments will perform this protective function.

  10. Say no to a CON-CON. If the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court won’t adhere to the Constitution now, what makes anyone think they will adhere to any new amendments? In forming a convention, by appointing the delegates, the majority of individuals today are not liberty minded like our nation’s Founders were. A Constitutional Convention becomes it’s own authority and cannot be limited and therefore can become runaway and destroy our entire Constitution. Since our nation’s present problem is due to rampant usurpation of powers and not a defective Constitution, it would be very dangerous to expose the Constitution to this inherently unlimited Article V convention process, especially given the extremely low level of understanding of constitutional principles among the electorate and elected officials. See for scholarly work on this.

  11. In response to the commentary by Charles Hooper.
    Thank you for your commentary.

    I would take exception to one point you make concerning the Convention of 1787:

    “The Articles’ (of Confederation) amendment clause required that all of the states ratify the holding of conventions to approve the Constitution or not. When the thirteenth did so, only then did the Constitution’s ratification process begin.”

    The Convention of 1787 was called under Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation for the purpose of “amending” the Articles. Article 13 specified that any changes must be approved by all thirteen states AND congress.

    Even though the Articles of Confederation specified 100% acceptance of any alterations made at the Convention of 1787, the delegates changed that requirement, specifying that the new Constitution (not the amended Articles of Confederation) would take effect upon ratification by NINE of the thirteen states. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the new Constitution. At that point the Congress of the Confederation set a timetable to institute operations of the central government under the new Constitution which began on March 4, 1789.

    As a student of history and in light of those events of 1787, it is impossible to overlook the significant risks if a Convention of States or Article V Con-Con were to be held today, considering a biased media, an elitist ruling class hungry for power, and millions of dependent citizens who depend on the minority provider class for their daily existence.

  12. As George & Khris alluded, there are several problems associated with an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments.” While the proponents of such a convention like to tell the folks that “their method” of controlling the convention through the application process, delegate resolutions, etc… is settled law, it simply isn’t true. There has never been an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments.” There is broad disagreement over the particulars of how much control Congress or the States have over the convention, including the rules, who picks the delegates, etc…

    Patriot Coalition has identified nearly 100 amendments being proposed by various governmental and non-governmental organizations from the left and right.

    Some factions promote an open convention, some a single issue convention, such as controlling the national debt and federal spending, and others promote a specifically worded single amendment convention. There’s an organization promoting an Article V Convention to appeal to every issue, and every scope from pigeon-holed single amendment to open convention.

    It’s easy to get caught up in any of these factions based on the strong allure of “my issue” being one of the amendments they are promoting, but if it sounds too good to be true, and too easy compared to the old-fashioned, roll your sleeves up engagement required to “keep the Republic,” it probably is.

    Would you risk an amendment giving government control over your children in exchange for the possibility of repealing the 17th Amendment? Are your kids worth the risk of a convention?

    Michael Farris, who heads up Convention of States, has a Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) he’s been promoting for years that would make governmental interests an excuse to replace you as “parents.” (See section 3, )This proposed amendment currently sits idle in Congress as HJR-50. I would be surprised if it didn’t come up at a convention under the application Farris is promoting.

    Would you risk “climate change” or “carbon credits” amendments in exchange for a term limits amendment?

    Progressive Agenda 21/Sustainable Development fanatics in and out of government are proposing these amendments.

    Would you risk amendments making “Obamacare” and socialized medicine part of the Constitution in exchange for a “tax reform” amendment?

    See Hawaii’s current Article V application, and you’ll find the Affordable Care Act being added to the Constitution as part of the reason for their application. Although it didn’t survive committee, Hawaii’s application also included the repeal of the Second Amendment.

    The Convention of States Article V application is being marketed as a convention “limited” to a single subject, but the scope of the subject is so broad that no Article in the Constitution would be “off the table” of a possible amendment, germane to the topic of their application.

    There would be no fear of a “runaway” convention under that model since there would be nowhere for it to “run away” to that the application didn’t already authorize. Even that requires one to believe state applications must be on a single subject, which they also claim, yet no such restriction exists in the Constitution. NONE.

    Numerous ivory tower constitutional attorneys and ivy league scholars posit they “know the rules,” and have figured a way to gerrymander the process with legal mumbo-jumbo as if they’ve finally figured out a way to defeat Perry Mason by invoking George Mason.

    There are more rabbit holes of process and strategy to debate than Carter has liver pills, and all of it is an interesting distraction away from the core questions we should be asking.

    What is the root problem we are trying to solve? Does the solution solve the problem?

    Is the Constitution the problem? If not, why is amending it the solution. Don’t be fooled into believing the Constitution needs amending by dishonorable scoundrels refuse to support it, and refuse uphold it.

    Socialized medicine has been one of the crown jewels of progressive socialists and communists for nearly 100 years, with serious efforts to make it law every couple dozen years over the past century, included among the contemporary efforts areHillaryCare, RomneyCare, and ObamaCare, which is designed to fail after destroying the free-market private insurance industry such that “single-payer” socialized medicine is the only choice left.

    The same multimillion dollar strategy is afoot pushing for an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments” to our beloved Constitution.

    In fact, the current effort is the most well-funded, choreographed and sophisticated push in the past 30 years, if not ever. It did not originate in the hearts and minds of Joe and Jane Citizen, but rather, in the backrooms of the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, George Soros, the Koch Foundations, and other big money special interests elitists who know how to market products to make them appealing to a customer base who might not otherwise ever consider their products. The psychological propaganda (snake oil) being deployed against the American people to convince them that amending the Constitution is our last and only hope (of course, with amendments as dangling carrots to lure us into getting excited about the concept of getting “our issues” addressed if we’ll just help them trigger a convention.

    Remember all those politicians who lie through their teeth on the campaign trail to get your vote, but then get into office and don’t uphold their oath? Same thing. These professional hucksters will tell you whatever they think you need to hear to get your support for amending the Constitution.

    Please think with your heads and not that “thrill running up your leg” that Chris Matthews spoke of explaining how Obama’s “hope and change” rhetoric made him feel.

    That is the change agents’ strongest weapon, your emotions. Listen to your gut, but think with your head.

    Before we start writing “Be My Valentine” cards to an Article V Convention, we had better know what we are risking, and that amending the Constitution will NOT make oath-breakers become oath-keepers.

    Patriot Coalition’s legal and constitutional research arm has put together an Article V resource sheet with articles, videos, slideshows, and more, along with links to pro and con organizations, which can be viewed/downloaded here:

    Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry, and our Colorado Director Judy Spady have launched to educate folks about the dangers of an Article V Convention, and why it isn’t a solution to our “real problem.”

    You can also find us on Facebook; just search for Defend Not Amend.

    Until We the People learn the principles of Liberty, our Founding Documents, vet candidates based on their knowledge of and commitment to uphold the Constitution, and then hold them accountable to that oath, restoring Constitutional governance will continue to be a pipe dream. Quick fix band-aids such as amending the Constitution will not fix the problem, and we may very well lose what few Rights and Liberties we have left if we fall for the snake oil and trigger a convention.

    Jeff Lewis
    National Director
    Patriot Coalition
    [email protected]

  13. I urge you all to read Jeff Lewis’ commentary. He has outlined in no uncertain terms and with great precision the risks of ANY form of Article V Constitutional Convention or any state-sponsored Convention for amending the Constitution. I also urge you to read my response to Charles Hooper in which I state: As a student of history and in light of those events of 1787, it is impossible to overlook the significant risks if a Convention of States or Article V Con-Con were to be held today, considering a biased media, an elitist ruling class hungry for power, and millions of dependent citizens who depend on the minority provider class for their daily existence.
    Our Constitution is a document created by design to protect and secure the Natural Law Rights our founders knew to be the basis of Individual Freedom. The Constitution is not flawed. The interchangeable thieves and liars we perpetually send to Washington DC in ALL branches of government with their progressive agenda of world domination by international tyranny are the architects of the “Second American Monarchy” under which we are now all living. (There actually may have been previous “American Monarchies” but, by far, this one is the most damaging to our Constitutional Republic). The intentional shredding of our Constitution, perpetual acts of treason against the American people and the Constitution, can only be stopped by the concerted action of American Patriots, i.e., the sovereign citizens of the sovereign states who understand history and their role in ours.
    Dr. Dan of Dr. Dan’s Freedom Forum

  14. Jeff Lewis, National Director, Patriot Coalition, has succinctly outlined the problems of changing our Constitution. All please study it carefully. Khris Locker’s Feb 11 comment addresses my constant concern; after it’s amended, what will force Congress to follow the new law any better than the old? The answer to date? Nothing!

    If WE THE PEOPLE could force our elected officials to follow the present Constitution, we would not have the problems we have today. Both these gentlemen advise us to better define the real problem before amending anything.

    I’ve discovered that the best way to get government to act properly is for ourselves to get “activated”. We all need to get “connected” to our representatives in order to become “credible” and to be taken seriously. What’s our backup plan? We need to develop one, for there’s a good possibility we’ll need one.

  15. I have been an advocate of Nullification and I see others have. However, we have a BIG problem:

    Article 1 Section 5 of the North Carolina Constitution:
    Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.

    This was pointed out to me by a very bright young man who is running for NC House of Representatives in my district (119) Aaron Littlefield.

    We need to get our state legislators to address this with a referendum to change the Constitution of the state. Under our current State Constitution we Cannot Nullify.

    There is plenty of history to suggest this constitution is De Facto rather than legitimate but it might be easier to change the current wording than to start a new constitutional convention.

  16. Article V remains as the only legal recourse available to the People of the USA. Nullification has its various utilities among them are some environmental and medical are being exercised in various states now. As a citizen and resident of Cherokee County; I am volunteering for COS NC as District Captain since 2016. Without Term Limits on Government officials elected or otherwise appointed,there is no end to what Washington D.C. will do to oppress the electorate nationally. A Convention of States is the only answer that we have been given by the Founders that is a Solution as Big as the Problems we are faced with in the 21st Century

Leave a Reply

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

Back to top button

Cart Summary

    Product Price Quantity Total

Cart totals

Subtotal $0.00
Tax $0.00
Total $0.00