Where Do You Stand on a Constitutional Convention?
June 3rd, 2014 // 11:18 am @ Oliver DeMille
An Invitation to Join the Current Debate
Please participate in a conversation with us. Here goes:
Background
I received the two emails within a week of each other, and they really made me think.
First of all, they made me happy. I’m so glad there are two people out there so passionate and studious about a topic that most Americans don’t ever think about.
That’s great.
The fact that there are two such people actually making contact means there are certainly a lot more engaged with the issue, and actually these were only 2 of dozens of notes I’ve received on the same topic. Wonderful.
We need this kind of citizen participation in order for our freedom to work and last.
The Debate
Second, well…just consider these two notes:
“Oliver, why do you support a Constitutional Convention that will send delegates from each state to rewrite our Constitution? Don’t you know that the participants will be almost entirely today’s politicians and attorneys, and possibly a few famous Establishment Academicians from the Ivy League or Berkeley thrown in, and that they’ll reject everything in the Constitution, get rid of the three branches and the checks and balances and who knows what else? Anyone who supports this just doesn’t understand freedom.”
I had to respond that I have never supported a Constitutional Convention, in fact I have written against it on various occasions. Some readers got confused when I quoted a couple of well-known supporters of a Convention, thinking I agreed with them.
Actually, those who read my full article could see that I quoted them to show that they were up to no good—because these particular supporters of a Convention want to use it to reject the Constitution and go to a Parliamentary system. Bad idea for freedom.
I have to point out, however, that some people who support a Convention do so for all the right reasons. Still, if a Convention happens, its actions will all depend on who gets sent as delegates.
The second note was very different, though similar in tone:
“Oliver, how can you not support a Constitutional Convention? I know you think it will be hijacked by today’s lawyers and politicians and used to throw away the Constitution and replace it with something much worse, but how is that any different from what’s happening anyway? If we don’t hold a Convention, we’ll continue to see the politicians and special interest groups just circumvent the Constitution, and the President, Congress and Court just ignore it when it’s inconvenient.
“This problem is getting worse, and most people really think that we’re under the Constitution. But we’re not. It’s ignored or circumvented every day, and this trend is only growing. At least with a Convention the loss of our freedoms will be out in the open. People will know what’s happening. And there is a chance, a slim one I grant you, but a chance, that the people and states will send good delegates who really do something to refocus on the principles of the original Constitution and help restore our freedoms.
“Without a Convention, there is absolutely no chance of this at all. Why don’t you support at least a chance for freedom? Without a Convention, Washington will just continue to destroy the Constitution piece by piece until our freedoms are entirely gone. A Convention gives us a slim chance for freedom, while no Convention gives us no chance.”
I’ve heard this argument before. In fact, I heard it from one of my mentors, W. Cleon Skousen, who said almost exactly the same words. When he said this back in the 1990s, I argued that the Constitution was still mostly intact, and we should give the natural tension between branches of government the time it needed to correct the problems.
He countered that it was headed in the wrong direction and would soon become unsalvagable without either a Convention or some major world crisis that forced a Convention—or something like it. Most of his predictions have certainly come true, the Constitution is much less followed or valued than it was just twenty years ago when he and I enjoyed in a number of deep discussions on this topic.
For example, the Spring 2014 edition of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy has no less than 8 full articles on how the federal government is right now further ignoring or circumventing the Constitution and drastically encroaching on state’s rights!
Would such states now feel the need to send good, freedom-supporting delegates to a Constitutional Convention just to get their rights back?
Should those of us who have opposed a Convention change our minds before all of Cleon’s predictions happen?
Or will a Convention just speed up the loss of our freedoms and give us less time to do something else—outside a Convention—that really could work? After our long and deep discussions, Cleon and I agreed on how we thought this point would go.
More later on what we decided…
What Do You Think?
So, what do you think of these two arguments? More importantly, where do you stand?
Will a Constitutional Convention help us?
Do you think it gives us a slim chance for a restoration of freedom?
Do you think anything else realistically gives us a better chance?
I have a strong opinion on this, but before I share more about it I want to see what you think. Seriously, what do you think can turn our nation in the direction of freedom (and end our current direction of decreasing freedom and inevitable decline)?
Is a Convention the answer?
What, if any, other truly realistic policy answers are there? Specifically?
I’m excited to see how many people care enough to answer, and what great ideas you have.
How to Share Your Vote
Please don’t just rehash the two views above. If you think a Convention is a bad idea, for the reasons above, just write: “My vote is against a Convention.” If you think a Convention is needed for the reasons above, just write, “I’m for a Convention.”
But if you have any third ideas beyond a Convention that can really fix America, or different reasons for or against a Convention, please share them.
[Be civil and polite in this; I’ll just delete any name-calling or uncivil responses or words toward anyone or any view joining this discussion. Every view deserves to be heard.]
This topic is too important to turn impolite.
This is a very important discussion, and I’ll tally the responses and share some that really add to the topic, along with my own ideas on what needs to happen—in a future article.
I look forward to reading your thoughts!
Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Politics
Ammon Nelson
10 years ago
Oliver, in general I am not in favor of a convention. It would be populated by the credentialists of today’s government and academia who have proven not to have freedom, liberty, and morality as their primary motivation. However, I also see prohibiting or fighting against a convention to be curtailing the freedom of those who want to hold one. The constitution clearly provides for a convention to happen. If there are enough people that want a convention, it should happen, no matter if the result is a less free government. If it is, it’s no less than is deserved. The forms that government takes is ultimately just a reflection of the ability of the people being governed to govern themselves. The reason we have so many oppressive laws is because trends in our society indicate they are needed, and the fact that they are being implemented indicates that our society supports them, even if they are repressive of freedom.
Either way, our freedoms are being lost. The only answer is individual morality and entrepreneurship. We need to revitalize the local community and the primary governmental support of the family, the basic unit of society. We need to unplug from the electronic (and other) addictions and get to know our neighbors, make new friends daily, and pro-actively organize communities to support each other in our freedoms and especially supporting the family as the basic unit of society.
John Williams
10 years ago
The constitution has not become corrupt; the people have become corrupt. We need to fix the people, not the constitution. A corrupt people creates corrupt laws, and should not be trusted to rewrite the constitution.
The people must be fixed by returning to virtue. They cannot return to virtue unless they are taught virtue. Who teaches virtue? (Not the public schools!) No other organizations teach virtue as well as religions do.
Terry Moore
10 years ago
It isn’t a Constitutional Convention. It is a Convention for Proposing Amendments to the Constitution. Every state will be able to send what delegation they would like, but each state will only have one vote. A two-thirds vote is required for ANY amendment to be sent to the states for ratification. A three-quarters vote of the state legislatures is required to actually ratify any amendment that makes it out of the convention.
With these safeguards in place, I am very much for a Convention for the Proposing Amendments to the Constitution as our founders left for us. Such action is our last chance to reign in our government. I offer two web sites that point in the right direction though they do not directly sustain my assertions above.
http://www.americanthinker.com/robert_berry/
http://www.i2i.org/robnatelson.php
David Bessenbacher
10 years ago
I think I am mostly against the convention, though the other side has good points as well from what you posted.
Stephen Palmer
10 years ago
Not yet.
It’s an issue of timing. We don’t have the widespread knowledge and/or virtue to support it (see my book, Uncommon Sense: A Common Citizen’s Guide to Rebuilding America).
The battlegrounds for freedom right now are education, entrepreneurship, and media. That’s where freedom-lovers should be focusing their attention.
Julie Farnbach
10 years ago
Terry is correct. There is no danger in using the remedy our founders put in place for us. Stephen makes a good point, but I happen to believe that we still have a majority of Americans (mostly in the interior) who love their country, who see what the problems are and who are ready to stand and be counted in the effort to fix things. The longer we wait, the more we risk losing the numbers needed to pull it off. We may be raising a few good leaders, but our neighbors are raising kids who will NOT vote like their grandparents still do!
Cindy Redburn
10 years ago
Our founding documents are sound, we need no change there. We need an informed citizenry with leaders, who understand freedom, before we can expect any lasting changes. This will not happen overnight, it is a long term vision that I believe is in the hearts of many Americans.
In the meantime, a Constitutional Convention is not a fix; nothing is broken other than the people at the helm of the ship. Educate,educate and educate until we have candidates, who understand principles of liberty and economics that will restore law, liberty and prosperity, and have no allegiance to political parties or special interest groups. Nullification is a power tool that Jefferson and Madison identified a the “rightful remedy” to control the federal government, and certainly much safer than a convention. Let’s think about how to educate and work locally to affect change.
sue maxwell
10 years ago
I have read most of your books, and despite the fact that I spent years reading books about the founders and the founding of this nation, I have to say that I was totally ignorant of most of the things you talk about. I was startled by what Wilson did on 1913- had no idea; I was stunned by The Coming Aristocracy; I was moved by LeaderShift; I still have a few more to read. My thought is that there are few people who understand the things that you understand and teach. The general public doesn’t. My friends who write warnings about what is going on in the country on FB, all day long, don’t understand these things. There are many people who are concerned and many people who could care less. There are many good people doing good things in this country who are busy with what they are doing. My brother is convinced that we are just going to pot and there is nothing to do about it. Even if the Constitution was fixed up, the public would need to be educated, and we would need leaders who were educated. That can’t happen overnight. I can’t think that it could possibly change things very much. We would have the same corrupt things happening all over again, because there is more to the problem than just politicians. There is big money and hidden influence behind what is going on. It is dangerous business, just like it was for the Founding Fathers. Most of my friends are Republicans but don’t understand what you explained in The Coming Aristocracy. I think the suggestions in your books are the best there are. We may have to lose more before people really wake up.
S. Barnhill
10 years ago
I am against it, especially with the current government/representatives that seem to only want to take away our freedoms. “The Constitution is NOT NEGOTIABLE. Yes, it can be interpreted, but the Constitution clearly states what the government is and is not permitted to do. For too long, we have allowed our leaders to overreach and subsequently stifle our rights.” To many of our elected officials are siding with our enemies & not getting called out ((and not getting punished)) for the atrocities they are committing against America. The entitlement mindset ~ that believes “I am entitled” even though I do not work for what I get – you do. The everyone gets a trophy for participation culture we have produced is not tenacious & strong – they are takers. I do not want Any of them changing the Constitution to reflect those beliefs. I am disappointed & disgusted with our current government & a large portion of our society.
Ian Cox
10 years ago
I keep going back and forth of the pros and cons as I read this article and then the comments. My conclusion: It could go either way. 😉 I’m going to reiterate some of what’s already been said above, but it’s worth repeating!
I’m fully convinced of what Tocqueville said in “Democracy in America” that the strength of the Family, being the smallest societal unit, determines the strength of a nation. Any long-term, principled, virtuous and honorable change will only come from us The People being good and great.
Although, something else Tocqueville said hit me hard, he said that local community meetings are the schools of freedom. And then my train of thought led me to the book “LeaderShift” by Oliver DeMille and Orrin Woodward where (spoiler alert) the main character proposes their 9 amendments to congress which fail, but in failing it sent a powerful message to the people.
Maybe a Convention isn’t “the answer” but maybe it’ll be a tool to dust a lot of people off. With the foundation as weak as it is changing the top can’t be sustained, but what would send a powerful nationwide message like a Convention for each state? Most states are in a power struggle with the federal government right now anyway, what a great way for them to stiffen their spines a little and maybe even push back a little.
It would be exciting, engaging, heated, and flexing a lot of “muscles” (which makes great mass media) and maybe it would be the jolt needed for a lot of us patriots. Similar to what happened with Andrew Jackson when he got the people’s backing against renewing the National Bank. The bank flexed their muscles a little too much and the people realized how much power they had and took action to curb it, for a little while anyways.
I like the idea in “LeaderShift” and I think its conclusion is accurate. It might not “fix” anything soon, but it would get the State a lot of attention (maybe reining in the federal), it would get a lot of people within the states involved, and, I think most importantly, the media would spread the ideas, questions, and debate worldwide.
The trick would be hitting hard and fast with the right kind of message before it gets shot down and drowned out in all the other messages. But hey, it’s a shot at sharing the 9 amendments from LeaderShift worldwide.
I vote Yay.
Kimberly Aultman
10 years ago
At this time I am against a convention. It scares me. One thing I am strongly in favor of is the Repeal of the 17th Amendment. Restoring the representation of the states within the framework of our federal government would go a long way towards solving the problems we are facing.
Chauncy Childs
10 years ago
I’m inclined to agree with all of those above, adding that even if a Convention were held, the political atmosphere is so divisive it would not accomplish anything in the long run. The answer is to abolish all governmental agencies and bureaucracies at the federal level that are not specifically serving the purposes enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal. All other regulatory functions – including education, banking regulation for mortgages, loans, etc., social welfare, transportation, environmental concerns and many others – need to be returned to states responsibility or private industry. There’s really no other answer, and yet this solution would probably cause a lot of chaos and revolution. The people are wicked, and the land needs to be cleansed.
Raphael Gayle
10 years ago
It might not be the right time but Time stops for no man or nation. When will we have Virtue and Knowledge again? Are we even growing in these areas? A nation gets the government it wants. An evil nation will get an evil ruler, more times than not. God will not over trough a city if it has ten righteous people in it. But if the righteous people are not salt, or people who stand for righteousness openly, in word and deed, how will the city move in the right direction? How will righteousness again grow and fill the country? I think we do not need all the people to agree to righteousness, but if 20% push for it I think the others will follow. Many times one king of Israel would stand for righteousness and in his lifetime the people would follow and would be good. Look at Egypt 5% took over the leadership but could not keep it, even with outside money and help. But I think 20% can do it and make it last. Lot was a judge and ruler in Sodom, but is seems he did not talk about righteousness before the night the Angels came. If people want to change the old laws, they will, the question is can we find 20% to lead? God did not stop Israel from having a King, even if God and Samuel know this was not wise. God told them what it will cost them. Maybe we can make a movie to show this? Let the USA know what will happen if they go down this road of Changing the laws?
sue maxwell
10 years ago
I want to add that I have read Cleon Skoussen’s four most important books about this country and can understand why he said what he said and why he wrote what he wrote. That makes this a bit more complicated in my mind; but in general, I think that it would never work until people were highly educated- at least enough to take leadership positions, and whose children were also educated in the necessary subjects. I know this type of education is going on right now, but as for the very near future, I think things don’t look too good. I think that, perhaps, what one man said- the timing has to be right.
Allen Levie
10 years ago
I think we are ready but not in the traditional sense. The group that attends does not need to be geographically representative or even be temporally or fully-nationally confined. I do not believe it would need to initially be a convention to make decisions of representative collective force, but that the effect would quickly be of that caliber, having direct impact on the constitution itself—probably better that the form not make decisions of the old type.
We need to think not in strategic planning mode but scenario forecasting. There can now be a buffer allowing for expected but unknown loss in choices made. We would not be relying on the vote alone as we move forward; we would be dealing with different cycles on a different scope, but totally doable—difficult but doable.
The virtue building will have to be part of the form this time. I fully believe that it is time to constitutionally convene and that the form established will need to be a more liquid form based in new Internet capabilities.
I also believe the nature of the coming form is completely different, it may not matter who initializes it this time. In fact the checks and balances will likely even have personal components.
We do not, this time, need to lead with law. We can lead with chosen networked action in real-time. This does not omit or diminish law but could be fulfilling it on a connected ongoing basis.
Phillip Winters
10 years ago
Don’t know that a Convention needs to be rushed or held back. I do think however, that it is time for some major disruptive innovation to happen. A few months ago I had an “ah ha” experience where I started to wonder if disruptive innovation is the new civil disobedience. I have a sense that there is something obvious that we are not tapping into, but can’t put my finger on it. Any suggestions? Or thoughts about what I could study to better understand disruptive innovation?
Phillip
Janiece Sloan
10 years ago
I believe that a Constitutional Convention is inevitable in order to begin operating under the right form of government that perpetuates freedom, but I do not think that the time is right yet. … afterall, “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”. Historically, it seems that things were much worse than this before people were ready to make the sacrifices to properly correct their situation. I do not believe people are ready for the change yet. It is getting very uncomfortable, but not uncomfortable enough to really make the RIGHT changes by Constitutional Convention. People are still more interested in security than freedom. In the meantime, we can continue to educate ourselves and others, be the change we want to see and make the personal sacrifices needed to make a stand for freedom in our own lives. We can lead out. It is all a part of the process that will someday result in a better America and a better Constitution if we choose it.
Terri Hill
10 years ago
I sincerely wish I knew the answer to this as I have the same concerns outlined by Oliver DeMille. What I do know is that things are not working right now for the best interests of our country and preserving our Constitution. Most people think the largest problem is our president and the second is Congress which continues to either ignore or enable him due to their fear of losing their personal power, entitlements and authority.
I believe the greatest threat to our nation is the apathy of our citizens. Until “We the People,” can unite as one voice and demand accountability from the top down – including our OWN personal responsibility – there’s not a convention or anything else that will truly restore our Republic as our founding fathers intended it to be.
Richard Hardesty
10 years ago
After reading the thoughts for and against a Convention, I’m for it with the provision that the States send moral God fearing folks to it! That’s the only way it would work in the defense of freedom and the preservation of the Constitution. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
sue maxwell
10 years ago
I was just reading the additional thoughts and had a sort of odd one come to me. Oliver writes great books and articles, but the general public is not oriented towards reading. I often post some of his articles and books on my FB site, and there are lots of politically concerned people who are friends, but no one reads them, including those people. And most of these people post political warnings all day long- literally. I don’t know why they won’t read a good article. In general, they prefer my funny stories of things going on in my life, etc. These days the general public is drawn to media- movies and TV and youtubes, things you can see. I know that when Oliver ran GWC they did lots of simulations, and did them on the Constitutional Convention. I just barely learned about what the Freedoms Foundation of Valley Forge is doing. They send people around to schools, dressed as one of the founders and give speeches- probably other things I am not yet aware of. What if we could set up local simulations of various types to give people an idea of what could be done. There are plenty of concerned people who probably just don’t know the answers. It would be wonderful if some kind of movie could be made,but I know how expensive that is. I am just thinking that something visual might be the next step beyond books and articles.
Rob Robson
10 years ago
I think we need another 5 or 6 years. The ideas of Liberty are starting to really take hold. we need to continually focus on the three areas outlined in freedom shift (entrepreneurship, self-directed education, leadership) before we open ourselves up to faster change.
JosephS
10 years ago
My vote is against a Convention.
The driving issue in the Utah Legislature’s consideration of the convention is a balanced budget amendment. Utah legislators, and executives, love to highlight Utah’s “balanced budget,” but 40% of the money providing Utah’s balance comes from the federal government!?!
The Utah legislature had a really hard time this year deciding whether the city of South Jordan can take away its citizen’s pit-bulls.
Maybe a reconvening to examine our state constitutions would be a better approach.
Ammon Nelson
10 years ago
I understand and empathize with the sentiments along the lines of “we’re not ready.”
Question about that: Why should we wait till we fell we’re ready? Isn’t that like analysis paralysis?
As Guy Kawasaki says, “don’t worry, be crappy.” If we wait, we are giving those who are anti-freedom time to take charge and control the convention. We know what changes we want made to further protect our freedoms. The constitution is not perfect and could definitely stand for some amending despite claims to the contrary.
Randy Lawrence
10 years ago
Should we hold a Constitutional Convention or not? Yes!
If we can implement the ideas proposed in Leadershift, yes. If we can send wise men and women who understand the principles of Liberty to the Convention, yes. If the American people are willing to “see beyond the years” and sacrifice for tomorrow, yes.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening, at least not in major areas of the country.
Better we continue to educate ourselves and our posterity in the Principles of Liberty and make the changes starting with each individual and working our way up. Only then will we begin to resist the Progressive move away from Liberty and restore what we once had.
Blaine Taylor
10 years ago
Matthew 12:25
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Leiann Snyder
10 years ago
Our form of government was made for a moral people. I’m not sure any policy or convention will make a change for the better. So many of our people and our leaders have very little, to no integrity. I am against a convention for this reason. I do not trust that a better version will come from the delegates. Our Constitution was inspired of God. We the people need to change, not the Constitution!! – Leiann
Ammon Nelson
10 years ago
Leiann: I agree that we the people need to change, and that some of the men who participated in the convention were inspired in their efforts.
Do you feel that all of the constitution was inspired? Even the parts where it fails to abolish slavery at the beginning? Do you feel it adequately defines the role of the Supreme Court?
Camille Dille
10 years ago
What if a Convention was the trigger that kick started the education? Even without the support of those here and those you know, it could happen anyway. I’ve been on the ground level of the COS movement with their national organizer and it is going to happen. Maybe not this coming year, but soon. I’m certain that some of the founders worked harder on their education after they declared independence.
Oliver DeMille
10 years ago
@Phillip Winters: Great thought. I agree. A disruption is the thing. And probably a lot of disruptions, from a lot of entrepreneurial and out-of-the-box thinkers.
Bill Peavoy
10 years ago
Oliver, did you ever write your follow up to this article, sharing more detail on your own thoughts and the discussion you had with Dr. Skousen? If so, could you direct me to it.
Thanks.
Oliver DeMille
10 years ago
I had an email come to me expressing some difficulty believing that Cleon Skousen – a vocal proponent and great lover of the Constitution – would support a convention to “rewrite” it. In response, I wrote the below:
No, Cleon didn’t mean that we should rewrite the Constitution; he meant that we had strayed so far from it that the only way to get back to it was through a convention – which is the only way provided in the Constitution itself for the people of the states to revert to the original intent.
He and I discussed it at length on various occasions, and he was very vocal about it publicly – in speeches and seminars. I never met anyone who was more convinced of the inspired nature of the Constitution than Cleon. And it makes sense that the way he would see to solve America’s major drift away from the Constitution was to follow the constitutionally-outlined way to remedy this.
Moreover, the founders put the constitutional convention into the Constitution on purpose for this specific reason: in case government officials should move away from the Constitution, the people of the states would have the ability to do something about it.
For more on Cleon’s take on it, see Principle 206 in Making of America, pp. 647-649. He not only endorsed it in theory, he considered Article V:I to be a “safety net” that states should have been using all along to check the Federal government. He said that if the states had been using such conventions all along, they could have stopped many of the abuses of the Federal government – especially the Supreme Court. In the years after he wrote that, as he wrote therein, he said he hoped the idea of a convention would become more and more popular – especially as the Federal government moved further and further away from the original. He was surprised and even a little frustrated that more people didn’t see that the government was moving us further and further from the original Constitution, and that the only Constitutional solution was an Article V:I convention. This is my understanding of his position from our conversations. Of course, Cleon always maintained an optimism that we would all figure it out at some point.
Technically, he was right on. The Constitution does not give any other legal way for the people to revert back to the original Constitution. (The Supreme Court could – but yeah; like that’s going to happen.) He felt that this was the only way to “undo” what bad Supreme Court decisions about the Constitution, bad Executive Orders, and Congressional refusal to stand up for the Constitution have done to original intent of the framers. He hoped that a Convention on “a specific amendment”, rather than opening a convention to rewrite the whole Constitution, would allow the people to get back to the original in a way that the Federal government has refused to do.
Again, the Founders put this procedure in Article V:I on purpose, for this very reason.
I don’t consider someone wanting to do exactly what the Constitution said they should do any sort of an attack on the Constitution. He was following the Constitution in making this suggestion.
The question remains whether it would be a runaway in our day.
Hope this helps!
Oliver
Ammon Nelson
10 years ago
Should we be changing what we do because of the possibility that those who oppose what we want to do might hijack our efforts? Why not make preparations to prevent the hijacking?
Oliver DeMille
10 years ago
Bill: Not yet. I’m still getting interesting responses.
Camille Dille
10 years ago
After attending an event held by Micheal Ferris, who is leading the COS movement, I have to acknowledge that he not only has a leadership education, he has also spent years within the system in DC, inlcuding several appearances before the Supreme Court (he chaired the group of attorneys who won the recent Hobby Lobby case). His knowledge of the workings of the Founders and where we are today is as complete as one can get. When homeschooling was under attack in various states throughout the 70’s and 80’s, he went from state to state lobbying and organizing others to support the freedom to homeschool, against the most powerful lobbying organization in the country – the Teachers Union. He knows how to lead and organize and more importantly, he knows how necessary the organization is. In fact, a COS can’t happen without a strong political organization of the people backing it. His plan is for the people to make it happen, watch it happen, and then ratify it; for “We the People” to become “We the People” once again. The process is to get the complete support of ENOUGH people who care. He fights, through HSLDA and more, for the freedom and rights of many throughout the country and from this experience, he knows there are more than enough good people, who believe in and understand true freedom and would watch the proceedings of a COS to ensure its success. And on the chance that things did go terribly wrong, then that organization of people would not ratify. It’s our best AND quickest shot at securing our freedom before the implosion of the country, if we’ll face our fears as the Founders did. Did they feel that they had maybe bit of more than they could chew when they faced “all of London afloat” in Boston’s bay? Did they have sleepless nights wondering what was going to happen? People say freedom is worth fighting for. They say freedom is worth dying for. Is it worth taking a risk like this for? I believe so. Will we have sleepless nights? Will we feel fear? Yes. But will it be worth it? Yes!
Ammon Nelson
8 years ago
I listened to a YouTube radio show on this topic
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzY5K5p5a1GvWY82rtA3hExthAMXVPl1H