from Brent Smith for World Net Daily:
A few years ago, former South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint said: “The United States is a terminal patient on an unsustainable course. Calling an Article V Convention of States would be too risky not to attempt.”
He is more right today than even then.
The left has always been opposed to a Convention of States (COS), provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, but over the last several years, as the COS movement has grown in popularity, conservatives too have come out against it.
Both sides of the aisle are trying to convince Americans that a COS would end up in a free-for-all rewriting of our founding document.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
The fact is that the left and right of the deep state live in the gray areas of the Constitution – areas that they claim are left to interpretation. And, as is always the case, that interpretation ends in increased central authority and decreased freedom of the states and the individual.
Unlike what big government statists constantly propose, the purpose of a COS is not to rewrite the Constitution, but to restore the document to its original intent, i.e. a check on federal authoritarianism.
There is risk in all things in life, but the potential benefit of an Article V Convention of States far outweighs the miniscule risk, as it takes two thirds of states, 34 of 50, just to convene a Convention, and a full three quarters (38 of 50) of all states to amend the Constitution.
And lest you think that a state’s delegates could “go off the reservation” once the convention convenes, each state legislature has the authority to recall such “rogue” delegates.
Of the ratification, George Washington said that it was “little short of a miracle” that the delegates had agreed on a new Constitution – and that was only 13 states.
The founders knew that as the size of the United States expanded, encompassing more and varied opinions, it would only be more difficult, not less, for a majority to form amongst the states.
And that was their point. They wanted the amending of the Constitution to be a slow, deliberate and arduous process, so that reason would prevail over the passions of the day.