By Rich Loudenback


Why should anyone believe that new laws created by a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) would magically be followed any more than present laws? 


Few state legislators seem to realize that our nation’s disastrous budget deficits have accrued out of disregard for constitutional restraints in the first place. Because had government been held only to its constitutionally authorized activities, no budget crisis could have developed. Nor would any other of the many fixes for other issues proposed by the Convention of States or other con-con groups to open an Article V Convention.


And don’t believe the folly about this not being an Article V Convention.  It most certainly would be, as it must follow Article V explicitly.  Black’s Law Dictionary is America’s most trusted law dictionary. Its definition of a constitutional convention: “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.” Renaming it a “Convention of States” doesn’t change what it is.


There are very bad people (The World Economic Forum) and the (Council on Foreign Relations) and nefarious people of the Convention of States Action (Mark Meckler/Rick Santorum and their propagandist minions) who want to have their way with our bedrock Constitution which is responsible for all our freedoms and the sole reason the United States of America has succeeded at more than any other country in recorded history for 247 years.




Quoting Joanna Martin, J.D. from her article ‘Why James Madison trembled at the prospect of an Article V Convention.’


“On December 7, 2023, the United Nations’ ‘Human Rights Committee’ issued it’s Final Report [click on “PDF”], wherein it praises the Biden Administration for its progress in complying with the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [3] by promoting abortion and transgenderism. The Report goes on to demand that the Covenant be applied in the United States’ “domestic legal order at the federal, state, local and territorial levels” (5). It objects to State Laws restricting abortion for women and girls (29). It objects to State Laws restricting voting by mail and ballot collection, and to “burdensome” voter ID requirements (64-65). It demands background checks for all private acquisitions of firearms and ammunition, and red flag confiscations. It demands bans on “assault rifles” and “high-capacity” magazines (35). It demands laws at the federal, state, local and territorial levels preventing schools from prohibiting biological boys who identify as girls from using girls’ bathrooms or competing in girls’ sports (24-25). It demands that the United States rectify past discriminations against Muslims seeking entry into the US (16-17). See Alex Newman’s article, UN Report Condemns U.S., Demanding Speech Control, Constitution Change and More Abortion.


“The above is antithetical to our existing Constitution. The structure of the global government is already in place and its policies are now being carried out [4]but it is not yet “legal.”  They have no legal authority to force the federal, State and local governments to submit to their demands. So, they need a new Constitution for the United States which moves us into the global government and strips the States and The People of their Rights and retained powers. Under the new system, we will have only the rights “granted” to us by government. [5]


To get a new Constitution, they need Congress to call an Article V Convention. A Convention isn’t about getting Amendments to our existing Constitution—that’s just the pretext for inducing State Legislatures to apply to Congress for Congress to call a convention. James Madison expressly warned that those who secretly wish for a new Constitution would push for an Article V Convention under the pretext of “getting Amendments.” He said that here, at endnote 3Beware of false friends and paid endorsers who are selling you into slavery.


“A Constitution which formally implements the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report hasn’t been released. But several other proposed Constitutions have been released:


  • The Constitution for the Newstates of America: Article XII, §1 provides for ratification by a referendum initiated by the President[6] The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. We are disarmed under this Constitution (Article I, Part B, § 8).
  • The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official agency of the federal government. Under their Constitution Drafting Project, they released three proposed new Constitutions (read them here
    • The Progressive Constitution,
    • The Libertarian Constitution, and
    • The so-called “Conservative” Constitution. This Constitution was co-authored by the above-mentioned COS Board Member Robert P. George. It creates a new federal government which has express constitutional authority to impose gun control and red flag confiscations.


James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four U.S. Supreme Court Justices and other legal scholars warn against an Article V Convention.  They understand that a Convention would likely result in the imposition of a new Constitution—after all, we have already gotten rid of one Constitution at an “Amendments Convention” and replaced it with a new one. Here’s what happened:


“Our first Constitution was The Articles of Confederation. It had defects. So on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress Resolved to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia,


“…for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…”


“But the Delegates ignored the instructions of Congress and similar instructions from the States, and wrote a new Constitution (our present Constitution of 1787) which created a new federal government.


“And the new Constitution had an easier mode of ratification: it would be ratified when only 9 of the then 13 States approved it (Art. VII); whereas Amendments to the Articles of Confederation had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States (Art. 13).


“In Federalist 40 (15th para), James Madison, who was a delegate to the Federal “Amendments Convention” of 1787, invoked the Declaration of Independence as justification for the Delegates’ ignoring their instructions to propose Amendments to the Articles of Confederation and writing a new Constitution which created a new Form of gov’t. Go here to see where Madison said it.


“The Remedy our Framers actually advised:


Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton wrote that because the States created the federal government [when they ratified the Constitution], the States are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other; and that when the fed gov’t usurps powers not delegated, each State has the natural right to nullify of their own authority all such acts of the fed gov’t. The refusal to go along with unconstitutional acts is the remedy they advised when the fed gov’t violates the Constitution.


“This is not a mere “constitutional right” created by our Constitution of 1787—this is the God-given natural right of self-defense, which pre-dates and pre-exists the Constitution.”                                                                – unquote Joanna Martin




The reason nullification is not popular with legislators is that most states could lose approximately 1/3 of their annual budget monies which they receive from the federal government including a myriad number of regulations the states must follow to qualify for it.  Without all that ‘extra’ money states would be doing just fine when they have to because they would adjust appropriately and work extra hard at succeeding.  States spend the federal money because it’s thought of as free money. Most Universities need their budgets cut greatly anyway in states’ budgets.  States should themselves develop their forests, mining, agricultural, manufacturing, technologies and other industries because of becoming more self-sufficient without having to follow federal regulations, which can be very costly. For instance, Idaho manages it’s state owned timber tracts much better than the federal government manages the tracts they claim to own in the state, resulting in a lot less fires in state tracts.  The feds don’t manage anything well.


Again, the federal money is all about control. Constitutionally, the federal government has no right to help states with anything.  Federal agencies and their NGO partners are a disease among the states since they are the Fed’s tools that bind us down. It could be thought of as an addiction, but unfortunately, it’s thought of as a lifeblood need.  States should get out of the federal candy store and start eating and living as smarter ‘state’ citizens providing for themselves entirely.


Re-read the Constitution and discover the great website which is all about nullification:   Get educated, and awaken others.


Also see:

Debunking “Convention of States” False Claims

Mark Meckler Lies About Rush Limbaugh Support Of The Convention Of States Project

Ron Paul Calls Rick Santorum a “Fake”

Convention of States group violated campaign law

Evan Mulch Confronts Mark Meckler For Kavanaughing South Dakota Representative David Johnson

Mark Meckler’s “COS” board member has drafted a new Constitution which imposes gun control

Dark money[1]—not the grassroots—is behind the Convention of States organizations


Why James Madison trembled at the prospect of an Article V Convention

Article V Convention – Yes or No?

The 3 Strong Points Against the Con-Con Con

3 More Very Strong Points to Say NO to the Con-Con CON

Convention of States Action Shenanigans

The Heart Of Convention Of States Action

Deeper Dive Into Convention of States Action

The ‘Real’ Deep State’s Leaders: The Council on Foreign Relations ‘In Their Own Words’