There they go again. The latest missive from the Convention of States (COS) echo chamber reeks of recycled rhetoric and shallow sloganeering, wrapped in a false piety toward the Constitution they purport to defend but so plainly misunderstand. Their tired attacks on the John Birch Society — the last line of principled defense against the gutting of our constitutional republic — are not only dishonest, but profoundly dangerous.
Let us dispense with their clumsy propaganda and expose the COS scheme for what it is: a Trojan horse dressed in constitutional garb, promising “reform” while preparing the kindling for a political inferno that could consume the Constitution entirely.
A Permanent Fix or a Permanent Fraud?
The article opens with a back-patting paean to the Trump administration’s limited steps toward trimming bureaucracy — as if temporary political appointments are a substitute for real constitutional fidelity. But then comes the COS bait-and-switch: “We need a Convention of States,” they say, “to make these reforms permanent.” What they mean, of course, is a permanent rewrite of the Constitution, conducted not by the Founding Fathers but by modern politicians, academics, and activists who possess neither the virtue nor the vision of the men who gave us the greatest charter of liberty ever conceived.
Let me say this plainly: There is nothing “constitutional” about using Article V to do what the Constitution never authorized — open itself to revision at the hands of ambitious reformers operating under the illusion of control.
The “Runaway Convention” Myth Myth
COS mouthpieces love to scoff at the phrase “runaway convention,” as if sneering makes it untrue. Their rebuttal hinges almost entirely on an article by Michael Farris — a man who would do well to remember that publishing in a law journal does not render one’s opinion scripture.
Farris claims that the 1787 convention wasn’t a runaway because the Confederation Congress didn’t technically call it. But this is sophistry. The undeniable fact — recorded by the framers themselves — is that the delegates exceeded their commissions, abandoned the Articles of Confederation, and drafted an entirely new system of government. Whether that was good or bad is beside the point; the fact of it is indisputable. To pretend otherwise is historical malpractice.
Farris and his fellow COS salesmen dismiss this reality because it inconveniently highlights the very danger Article V critics have warned of: A convention, once convened, cannot be constrained — not by theory, not by wishful thinking, and certainly not by Michael Farris’s footnotes.
“Just Proposing Amendments?” Don’t Be Naive.
The COS crowd insists that because Article V says a convention “proposes amendments,” it cannot exceed that function. But that claim reveals a dangerous ignorance of constitutional history. Proposing amendments sounds harmless — until one remembers that every radical restructuring of government in history began with “mere amendments.” The 1787 Convention itself began as a mission to revise the Articles — and ended with a brand-new government. History laughs at those who believe they can uncap a volcano and control the lava.
Moreover, Article V does not prescribe the procedures, delegate selection, voting rules, or scope-enforcement mechanisms for such a convention. The COS movement is asking Americans to jump into constitutional quicksand based on speculative “assurances” and half-remembered precedents from 200 years ago.
On Interstate Convention Precedents: A Shell Game
The COS defenders point to “scores of historical state conventions” as proof that conventions stay within their limits. But this is sleight of hand. The state conventions of the past were not held under the auspices of Article V, and most importantly, none of them held the power to alter the national Constitution. The stakes were incomparable. To pretend these minor meetings are reliable templates for a 21st-century constitutional convention is to compare a campfire to an atomic bomb.
The Declaration of Independence: Misquoted or Misunderstood?
The COS team sneers at the JBS’s invocation of the Declaration’s affirmation of the people’s right to alter or abolish government. But their smug dismissal only reveals their unfamiliarity with the principles they claim to uphold. The Declaration affirms the inalienable right of a free people to remake their government — convention or no convention. That’s the very danger: Once you call a convention, you don’t control the participants; you don’t control the scope; you don’t control the outcome. The COS camp pretends otherwise because the truth would send shivers down the spine of any constitutionally literate American.
On Voting Rules and Undefined Terms: A Lawyer’s Ruse
The COS argument that “one state, one vote” will prevail simply because “it always has” is laughably naive. Article V says nothing about voting procedures, delegate limits, or enforcement. The Constitution does not define these terms because the Founders never intended for this path to be trodden lightly. To treat these gaping ambiguities as harmless is to play Russian roulette with our republican form of government.
Opening the Constitution Is Exactly What They’re Doing
The final and most absurd claim is that a convention wouldn’t “open the Constitution” or “rewrite” it. Nonsense. Once a convention convenes, there is no constitutional clause that prevents delegates from proposing sweeping rewrites, consolidations, or redefinitions of liberty. And if you doubt that, just read the proposals already floating in COS circles: term limits, federal marriage definitions, balanced budget amendments that constitutionalize debt ceilings, and more. That’s not reform. That’s reengineering.
Conclusion: The Real Threat to Liberty
The COS movement has become the false hope of the frustrated patriot. It offers the illusion of control, the appearance of progress, and the dangerous promise of permanence — all while laying dynamite at the foundation of our Constitution.
The John Birch Society is not “fear-mongering” — we are fear-telling. And the fear is justified. Because you don’t save the Constitution by circumventing it. You don’t restore limits on federal power by risking unlimited constitutional chaos. And you don’t defend liberty by trusting a political class that has already betrayed it.
Those who call for a Convention of States are not the defenders of the Founders — they are the unwitting allies of the very forces they claim to oppose. They offer counterfeit constitutionalism, backed by shallow scholarship and padded with platitudes.
Let it be known: The enemies of liberty don’t always wear robes and carry gavels — sometimes they carry pocket Constitutions they haven’t read and proposals they haven’t thought through.
And if — God forbid — the Constitution were ever gutted under the banner of “reform,” it will be the Convention of States movement holding the knife.
