WA State Bill 4001 Could Take Down Our U.S. Constitution Overnight!

WA State Bill 4001 Could Take Down Our U.S. Constitution Overnight!


By Rich Loudenback


Washington State Bill HJM 4001 – 2021-22


Applying for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution relating to fiscal restraints on the federal government, the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and terms of office for federal officials and for members of Congress.


Companion Bill: SJM 8000



It can be easily said that our deep state controlled U.S. Congress is brazenly broken in this new puppeteer Obama driven ‘Biden World’ of socialism that’s making America last again.


So it is that the devious creators of the various calls for an Article V constitutional convention (Con-Con) and their naïve followers and useful idiots spring to the fore with loud proclamations that we must open a special Article V convention of caring citizens to right our wrongs.


Sure, things are a mess, because elected officials have gotten away from what brought us, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and what we are really about: a freedom loving, capitalist nation of limited government, concentrating on states’ rights with the people shouldering most responsibilities themselves. We are not supposed to be socialist serfs controlled by the federal government and that’s where our majority of legislators have been taking us for decades and now at hyperspeed in Biden World.


Progressives’ and RINOs’ intentions to call a Con-Con have been relentless for decades.  Because they know that once they get the convention door open, they will have literally unlimited opportunity to change any and all, no matter what they try to convince us of that they are limited.  Their funding comes from all the wrong deep pocket players who want to see the USA swept into the dustbin of history.


Article V of the U.S. Constitution


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the applicatiostitution, 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; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.n 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 Con




1. Adherence to, enforcement and prosecution of existing laws are what we need! WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE NEW LAWS WOULD BE FOLLOWED ANY MORE THAN CURRENT LAWS?


2. SECOND,  RATIFICATION REALITY: – You can count on this! A constitutional convention would NOT risk sending their results to 50 state legislators for ratification by 38 (3/4) of them since Article V’s option (Ratifying Convention) offers such a failsafe controlling alternative for ratification. (FACTOID: UTAH’S LEGISLATURE WOULD NEVER HAVE REPEALED PROHIBITION.  A RATIFYING CONVENTION REPEALED IT.)


When considering an Article V constitutional convention, let whoever’s ‘Constitutional Experts’ argue into infinitium over whose authority (Congress or the States) will prevail on convention issues, rules, credentials, and delegate selecting etc.  It’s minutia in the big picture and not what should be worried about.  The Convention itself is a Pandora’s Box for our future as a nation of sovereign states and free citizens.


Proponents of an Article V constitutional convention strongly assure us that their process is extremely safe because 38 state legislatures have to ratify amendments before they go to the president for signing into law.  They want us to believe that. They would rather us not be aware of the alternative in Article V after the word or.  Ratifying conventions.  They will try to downplay it when confronted.  But if you use the common sense God gave you, which way do you think they would go? Consider the following:


Regular amendments passed by the US Congress have a tough enough time getting ratified in state legislatures.  There also are actually 6 amendments that have been passed by Congress that have not yet been ratified which were proposed from 1789 to 1978.  Following is a list of existing amendments and their ratifications compiled by usconstitution.net.




1st – 10th Amendments – Sept. 25, 1789 Ratified Dec. 15, 1791 – 811 Days

11th Amendment – Mar 4, 1794 Ratified Feb 7, 1795 – 340 Days

12th Amendment – Dec. 9 1803 Ratified May 19, 1804 – 189 Days

13th Amendment – Jan. 31, 1865 Ratified Dec 6, 1865 – 309 Days

14th Amendment – Jun. 13, 1866 Ratified Jul 9, 1868 – 757 Days

15th Amendment – Feb. 26, 1869 Ratified Feb. 3, 1870 – 342 Days

16th Amendment – Jul. 12, 1909 Ratified Feb 3, 1913 – 1302 Days

17th Amendment – May 13 1912 Ratified Apr 8, 913 – 330 Days

18th Amendment – Dec. 18, 1917 Ratified Jan 16, 1919 – 394 Days

19th Amendment – Jun 4, 1919 Ratified Aug 18, 1920 – 441 Days

20th Amendment – Mar 2, 1932 Ratified Jan 23, 1933 – 327 Days

21st Amendment – Feb 20, 1933 Ratified Dec 5, 1933 – 288 Days

22nd Amendment – Mar 21, 1947 Ratified Feb 27, 1951 – 1439 Days

23rd Amendment – Jun 17, 1960 Ratified Mar 29, 1961 – 285 Days

24th Amendment – Aug 27, 1962 Ratified Jan 23, 1964 – 514 Days

25th Amendment – Jul 6, 1965 Ratified Feb 10, 1967 – 584 Days

26th Amendment – Mar 23, 1971 Ratified Jul 1, 1971 – 100 Days

27th Amendment – Sep 25, 1789 Ratified May 7, 1992 – 74,003 Days   (202 years, 7 months and 12 days)


Ratifying in state legislatures would be entirely too perilous for the Con-Con-ites with endless debate, filibustering, committee assignments, legal challenges etc. into ad nauseum, again, multiplied times 50.  The elixir of big money alone could not control all the states needed for such a monumental vote.


So no, ratification of a convention’s amendments would definitely not go to the states as proclaimed.


A convention would send hand-selected, like-minded, baggage carrying, special interest chumps, with the convention’s results to a special ‘Ratifying Convention’ where they would have their way with our sacred Constitution and it would undoubtedly disappear as we’ve known and benefited from it overnight.  Because that is what this Con-Con drumbeat is really all about:  UN deep state partnered globalists taking total control, and we will be the home of the free no more.  Why else do you believe they are so dogged about a Con-Con and spend so much money on it? The results of a Con-Con would not be the miracle fix they portray.  It is simply a well-designed deceitful ploy to open the door for their takeover scheme.




Applications for a convention are serious business only to be used if a legislature believes that the present Constitution is structurally flawed and in need of repair.  An unbalanced Federal Budget is not the result of a Constitutional Flaw.  It is the result of a Congress which refuses to obey Constitutional restraints upon its spending of Federal Funds.




The reason for these clarion calls for all these Con-Con ‘agendas’ is always the same and that is that Congress is awash with stalemate (actually generated by machine politics of each party, orchestrated by the Council on Foreign Relations, making it impossible to fix things in this incredibly complex, frustrating world of intense politics). It is by design. We are told to believe that somehow, if we will just call a constitutional convention and adopt whatever issue that particular injustice will right, that that same inept and corrupt federal government will all of a sudden change its ways and start following new laws like never before.


Many state legislators cannot get through their influenced minds what the many calls for a Con-Con are really all about. Or, are they smitten with the LOBBYI$T$’ trappings and money? These originating forces for the many different Con-Cons are run by very devious people, with a hidden agenda for our future, and their LOBBYI$T ORGANIZATION$ are extremely skilled at influencing the foolish, naïve, over trusting and those on the take.


Note that most states have strict rules about balanced budgets or have passed balanced-budget amendments, yet almost none have balanced budgets. We don’t need amendments to save our Republic; we need renewed commitment to the Constitution — as written — and to the timeless principles of self-government and republicanism that undergird it.                                                                 


These proponents of the many efforts to open the door to a Con-Con are dogged and Washington State is once again in their cross hairs. You must consider their true hunger and authentic motives and from whence comes their seemingly unending big money backing. It really isn’t about a balanced budget amendment, it’s about opening the door to an Article V constitutional convention.




Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Berger issued a stern warning:  ‘Nobody tells a Con-Con what to do.  Its powers to propose Amendments are unlimited.  In light of this information, does America, do you, really want to risk a convention?


“Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new constitutional convention could not be worth the risk involved.  A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subject needing attention.  I have discouraged the idea of a constitutional convention, and I am glad to seeing states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention.”


Similar views come from Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Arthur J. Goldberg who said:  “A few people have asked, ‘Why not another constitutional convention?’  I would respond by saying that one of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention.  There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.”


Justice Goldberg is not the only imminent legal scholar to be concerned about a runaway convention.  The late Rex E. Lee, former law school professor and later President of Brigham Young University has written“In short, if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is no, but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is yes.  In our history we have only one experience with a constitutional convention, and while the end result was good, the convention itself was a definite runaway.”




Beware of false Constitutionalist. The Federalist Papers are not government documents. Our Constitution reigns.


Again re-read Article V. It’s very short, explicit and again does not connote a single issue ability.  The Single Issue pitch cannot be guaranteed, the Con-Con can deal with whatever and as many issues as it wishes.


The topics to which a convention is to be limited are always designed to be appealing.  America’s leading jurists and legal scholars however, agree that Legislatures have no authority to tell a convention what subjects it will address in a convention.  See video: Change It or Obey It? — Why the Constitution is the Solution


Quoting the late Twin Falls, ID former assistant attorney general for the state of Idaho and practicing attorney, George Detweiler:  “United States Supreme Court Justices and the nation’s leading legal scholars have written privately that these single subject limitations cannot be enforced, that if a convention is called it will be free to propose any kind and number of Amendments to the same effect as if the limitations in the applications did not exist.  In other words, although the applications are effective, all such limitations must be ignored.”


Former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Berger also wrote: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a constitutional convention.  The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey.  After a convention is convened it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.”


Of the same mind the late Charles Allen Wright, Professor of Law at the University of Texas at Austin wrote“I feel quite certain that even opening the door to the possibility of a constitutional convention would be a tragedy for the country.”


In addressing the ineffectiveness of any legislature trying to limit a convention to a Balanced Budget Amendment Christopher Brown, retired Professor of Law at the University of Maryland wrote:  “In my view the plurality of ‘Amendments’ opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a Balanced Federal Budget.”


Bluntly put, the late Professor Gunther, Professor of Law at Stanford University declared that State Legislators have applied to Congress for a Balanced Budget Convention without knowing what they are doing.  “Having been misled and manipulated by special interest lobbyists, a small minority of legal scholars believe that a single issue convention can be called.  To support their position Con-Con proponents point to these scholars and ignore the majority view.  But the very existence of such substantial diversity of opinion among these scholars renders the dangers of a convention very real.


“I cannot support so irresponsible an invocation of constitutional processes.


 “The abject silliness of this argument is instantaneously apparent.  There are no reports of any scholar or university having lost any of their grants in the process of balancing the budget.”


The fear that a constitutional convention could become a ‘runaway’ convention and propose wholesale changes in our Constitution is by no means unfounded.  Rather, this broad view of the authority of a convention reflects the consensus of most constitutional scholars who have commented on the issue.



Quoting Christian Gomez’s article ‘Justice Scalia’s Warning of a constitutional convention’ in The New American.com: “During the question-and-answer session following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, he was asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation’s interest.


“’A constitutional convention is a horrible idea,’ Scalia replied. ‘This is not a good century to write a constitution.’


“Although COS would have one believe that a constitutional convention is a ‘different creature entirely’ from an Article V convention or ‘convention of the states,’ as they call it, this is simply not true.”  –  These were Justice Scalia’s most recent stated views.




A couple years ago the John Birch Society (JBS) reported, “Some constitutional convention (Con-Con) proponents have stooped to a new low: spreading the false rumor that George Soros is financing the JBS’s “Choose Freedom –Stop a Con-Con” action project. Unfortunately, this false rumor has helped turn the battle in at least one state (New Hampshire). And it’s starting to be used elsewhere.


“First of all, where is the proof? All of our top donors are members. Second, The Young Turks, which is behind Wolf PAC, is a paid member of George Soros’ Media Consortium network of progressive left-wing independent media. Wolf PAC is actively and aggressively promoting an Article V Convention! So Soros is indirectly involved in promoting an Article V Convention through Wolf PAC.


“The proponents are running scared! They have rallied supporters and increased staff activity of the organizations supporting the Con-Con in the wake of our members shutting down the Con-Con resolutions in the State of Virginia. Think about that: Virginia is the home state of at least one of the biggest Con-Con promoters!


“Plus, this is close to Washington, DC and it gave a wake-up call to all those in the vicinity of the Capital who are for a Con-Con to get busy. They have realized that for all of their committed efforts and money: they could lose.


“Con-Con proponents have been unable to mount a successful challenge to the overpowering logic of the majority view that a Con-Con cannot be limited to a single issue.  Driven by desperation, they have attacked the integrity of constitutional scholars by accusing them of bias and falsely accuse them of intellectual dishonesty.”   


See:  ‘Falsehoods Mark the Campaign for a constitutional convention,’ by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus.




Regarding a balanced budget amendment, do you realize that there is no standard Balanced Budget Amendment? It will be formulated in a convention.


The BBA scheme allows Congress to spend money on anything, no matter how unconstitutional, so long as the amount does not exceed the limits set in Section 2 of the BBA.


Can a budget be balanced if the Federal Reserve is not part of the process?


Can a budget be balanced if off-budget items are not included? (Such as the U.S. Postal Service, Social Security, Medicare, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, ObamaCare, etc.)


Proponents state that even though the federal government “is spending this country into the ground,” the best way to stop this abuse of power is to add new restrictions to those already included in the original contract (the Constitution) that forbid this type of overreach.


Those of us opposing an Article V convention, however, believe that the best way to stop the federal government’s constant disregard of constitutional limits on its power is for states (the principals) to enforce those limits. 


We realize that the federal government will treat any new amendment restricting its authority the same way they treat those already in the contract.


Despite the MILLION$ being spent by the various factions of the Article V to ensure that a convention takes place, there is yet time for concerned Americans with a better grasp of history and constitutional construction to speak up and prevent this from happening.


We cannot afford to entrust the future of our Constitution to a group of people who make blatantly incorrect statements about the power of an Article V convention and the history behind the adoption of our current Constitution.  




As Larry Greenly states in his “The New BBA Con-Con Threat” in The New American magazine, “This is not to say that having a balanced federal budget would be a bad idea; on the contrary balanced budgets should be the norm and striven for in all but truly emergency situations, such as when Congress has declared war.  However, the fact remains that a BBA would not address the real problem of multitudes of usurpations of powers by officials in all branches of the federal government.  Moreover, a BBA would tend to legitimize these usurpations by focusing on the goal of balancing the budget and ignoring the problem of widespread usurpations.  Furthermore, it must be emphasized that if the federal government would only follow the Constitution, then the budget would easily be brought into balance.”




Quoting Joe D. Wolverton, II, JD of The New American magazine in his article ‘Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention,’  “There is another uncomfortable aspect of the Article V movement that is not being discussed, however, but needs to be, particularly in light of the good people who have associated themselves with it.


“Within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.


Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Mark Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a Con-Con.


“On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “Convention of the States” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:


“To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.


“In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will:


“inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks.


“The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and I imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that has dubed itself the “world’s largest online news network.”


“As unfamiliar as they may be with the Young Turks, it seems certain conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills at this online purveyor of progressive ideology: George Soros (shown). Dan Gainor reports:


“In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization ‘is a network of the country’s leading, progressive, independent media outlets.’ The list is predictable — everything from Alternet to the Young Turks.


“That’s right. George Soros — the financier of global fascism —  is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen.


“What will those in Wolf-Pac do if they are able to get “their amendment” proposed and accepted by an Article V convention?


“Celebrate the fact that we had the courage and persistence [sic] to accomplish something truly amazing and historic together.


“Anything a group with this anti-constitutional agenda would do to our Constitution would certainly be historic — in the worst way.


“This should be enough to convince all true conservatives, constitutionalists, and friends of liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular and persuasive their generals may be.” – unquote Joe D. Wolverton, II, JD




“It will likely surprise these devoted, but deluded, Article V advocates that Wolf-Pac is just the tip of the iceberg. These good people would be wise to take a look at this heavily abbreviated roster of their radical fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered “founding member” of the “Move to Amend” coalition.


Alliance for Democracy

Center for Media and Democracy

Code Pink

Independent Progressive Politics Network

Progressive Democrats of America

Sierra Club

Vermont for Single Payer


“Mind you, hundreds more groups “committed to social and economic building a vibrant democracy” are gathered under this umbrella.


“This hardly seems to be a corps that most Levin listeners would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with in the fight for a “convention of the states.” In fairness, these allies likely don’t share their conservative cohorts’ love and loyalty to the Constitution.


“It’s time these right-minded men and women know with whom they are associating.


“It’s doubtful that Mark Levin’s legion of listeners would be as eager to get behind his Article V con-con agenda if they knew whom they were fighting beside and how radically their new allies want to change our beloved Constitution.


“And that’s the problem. Regardless of the soothing words of Levin or others in the con-con camp, they cannot guarantee the outcome of such a convention. In fact, in light of the lists of leftist groups provided above, the results of the convention could be an outright scrapping of the Constitution written by the Founders in favor of one more in line with the progressive ideologies of Wolf-Pac, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, and others.


“Remember, according to the history of Article V-style conventions, regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring them to consider only one amendment (a balanced budget amendment, for example), the delegates elected to the convention would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter or revise their government.


“The mind boggles at the potential proposals that could come out of a convention composed of such radical representatives.


“Don’t forget, George Soros’s billions are funding these fringe groups and politicians aren’t known for their ability to resist hefty campaign contributions.


“Conservatives should shudder at the specter of a convention endowed with power of this magnitude, populated by activists who have a Soros credit card in their pocket and a commitment to ‘social justice’ as their purpose. All the good intentions of the conservatives in the Article V camp would not be enough to force all these devastating changes to the Constitution back inside the progressive Pandora’s Box.


“Readers are encouraged to click the links provided in this article and to investigate for themselves the agenda of the various Article V advocates and to determine if it’s worth the risk to our Constitution that would be posed by the presence of these groups in the ‘Convention of the States.’


“Finally, the startling information set out in this article is not meant as an attack on Mark Levin or anyone else working to call a “convention of the states.” Rather, it is intended to help the thousands of committed constitutionalists who find themselves believing in the Article V gospel he’s preaching to realize who’s sitting in the pews with them and whose money built the church.”  – Unquote Joe D. Wolverton, II, JD




You should know that since applications have been recorded and tracked there have been over 400 various applications for an Article V convention. See most of them at FOAVC, and be dumbfounded that these proponents are still at it. And for so many different calls.


Since applications have been recorded and tracked, 49 of the 50 states have at one or more times filed for an Article V Convention. Washington has been listed for calls 5 times and Idaho 6 times all the way back to 1910.


Since 1988, 17 states have rescinded all of their constitutional convention calls. Rescinded Con-Con calls: AL 1988, LA 1990, OR 1999, ID 1999, UT 2001, ND 2001, AZ 2003, VA 2004, SC 2004, GA 2004, MT, 2007, OK 2009, WY 2009, NH 2010, SD 2010, and TN 2010. *Actually FL had rescinded its Con-Con calls in 1988, but passed a new BBA Con-Con call in 2010.


Given the numbers of applications it’s amazing that we’ve been blessed with forthright rescissions prevailing in most instances due to awakening to the reality of the fatal danger a Con-Con would pose to our Constitution once it’s called.


States The John Birch Society: “We are just six states away from the 34 states needed to force Congress to call a risky, runaway-prone constitutional convention. Members of The John Birch Society and their allies have worked with state legislators to prevent the calling of a constitutional convention ever since the movement to call a constitutional convention for proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment reached its high-water mark of 32 states in 1983 with “live” applications for such a convention.


“Thankfully, many states have canceled their applications for a BBA constitutional convention since 1983. However, enough states have also applied or re-applied for such a convention to bring us to 28 states with a “live” application. Still too close for comfort!”


In summation, we don’t have a Constitution problem. We have an adherence problem. The ‘fix’ is following law, law enforcement, prosecution and nullification (seeThe Nullification Alternative). Nullification is the real serious effort that would surely work and needs being done.


Citizens direct the fix by educating ourselves, informing others, watching Freedom Index voting records for the U.S. Congress and the Idaho Freedom Index for voting records for Idaho and culling the vermin at the polls.


And on the topic of being madder than hell and throwing them all out with term limits, please see my article: ‘Term Limits’ Sounds Right, But is Dead Wrong!


See following additional links for more information you can count on from The New American.com:

Constitution Under Attack: Article V Convention Greater Threat Than Open Attacks

Former Senator Coburn Finds Another Excuse for a Constitutional Convention

Federal Appeals Court: Warrantless Data Collection Is Constitutional

“Citizen-organized” Constitutional Convention Proposed

Nebraska, New Hampshire Rescission Resolutions Show …

Republicans and Democrats Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution

Nullification vs. Constitutional Convention: How to Save Our Republic

Article V: Con-Con or Nothing Is the Cry of This Cause Célèbre

Article V Group Ignores States’ Complicity in Federal Power Grab

Article V Convention: Dangerous Precedent, Dangerous Loyalties

Convention of States and Article V: Tearing Up the Talking Points

Compact for America Proposal Could Increase Federal Power

Convention of the States: Scholars Ignore History

Repair vs. Restore: Why Constitution Doesn’t Need Article V Fix

In Defense of Con-Con, Meckler Chooses Ridicule Over Rebuttal

Convention of the States: Wrong on History, Nullification

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”  ― Abraham Lincoln