The Dirty Dozen Questions Pro-Article V Folks Refuse to Answer

1. Question: What problem are we trying to correct?

Answer: Out of control government.

2. Question: Who or what could be responsible for out of control government?

        1. We the People
2. The People we elect
3. The Constitution

3. Question: If you don’t believe the Constitution is the problem, how is amending it the solution?

Answer: People who are promoting an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments” usually say “Well, we have to do something,” or “This is our last and only hope.”

They seem to have forgotten Articles I, II, III, IV, VI, and the Bill of Rights.

4. Question: If the Constitution isn’t the problem, then it must be either We the People or the people we elect. Which has ultimate responsibility for the problem?

Answer: While the people we elect take an oath to uphold the Constitution, We the People are responsible for electing them, and for ensuring they keep their oath.

5. Question: Why is Professor Rob Natelson telling legislators the one-state/one-vote rule can be changed once an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments” is convened (see ALEC Article V Handbook), but is telling the public that it will simply be one-state/one-vote?

Answer: You’ll have to ask him that one, but the quotes below are just a sampling of Natelson’s ever-shifting position.

6) Question: Which Articles in the Constitution are NOT “subject to amendment” under the “limited” application being promoted by Michael Farris and COS?

Answer: The entire Constitution is subject to amendment if an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments” is triggered using the COS application. Considering some of the amendments Michael Farris is proposing, he needs the whole Constitution laid bare at his “limited” convention. If you think this conclusion is illogical, then reverse it.

Look at the amendments Farris is proposing, and imagine what type of convention he would need to have in order for “his” amendments to be considered.

7. Question: How can Michael Farris, Convention of States Director claim to want to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government” when his Parental Rights Amendment would “expand” it by giving the feds “unlimited” constitutional authority over your children simply by demonstrating a “governmental interest” of the highest order?

Answer: Besides giving Constitutional authority to the government over your kids, Farris is also promoting other amendments to transform our Constitution into something European, or worse. (See Question 9.)

8. Question: How can you believe the Convention of States has no intention of excessively amending the Constitution to the point of “re-writing” it as their own communications director expressed in the quote below?

Answer: The job of a communications director is to “communicate.” Mr. Sillars has communicated very well what they want to do, and why they need an “unlimited” application.

9. Question: How do you reconcile “Delegate” Farris’ desire to morph the U.S. Supreme Court into a European model?

10. Question: By what logic do you suggest that Soros, the socialists and Marxists won’t be bringing their climate change amendments, and abortion on demand amendments, or like Hawaii’s application, calls for making Obamacare constitutional?


11. Question: How can you trust state legislatures who themselves refuse to support the Constitution to amend it to make other oath-breakers (the feds) uphold it?


12. Question: What does Nick Dranias “mean” when he says the delegates will “initially” vote under the one-state/one-vote rule, if not that the rule could be changed?


13. Question: If people won’t follow the Ten Commandments, is the remedy to “amend” the Ten Commandments? If your spouse is cheating on you, is the solution to amend your marriage vows? If motorists keep running a stop sign, is the solution to put up a new stop sign? If public servants won’t uphold the Constitution, is the solution to amend the Constitution?

Answer: Obviously, the answer to all four questions is NO. We need to Defend, not amend, the Constitution!