Wednesday, December 15, 2021

U.S. CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE V: A Little-Known Solution to a Tyrannical Government Gone Awry

The United States Constitution is perhaps one of the most well-known documents in our country. It is the foundation of government acknowledgment of our basic God-given rights to live and prosper as free individuals. It also exemplifies one of the most successful historical efforts to establish and maintain a national standard of moral and ethical integrity.

Though not perfect, the U.S. Constitution has been source of protection for countless American citizens and hope for the millions of immigrants that travel to this country every year for a better life.

In fact, there is so much privilege to be enjoyed by American citizens that despite how often and loudly some claim to hate this country, they never leave.


On some level, regardless of how loudly some people may complain about it, it is the Constitution that protects our right to safety, to own property, to earn a wage, and to buy all of the electronics some use to post their complaints about this country on Twitter (via free speech – when it's honored).

Those of us who do appreciate this document may be familiar with its various details. Yet there is one principle included within it that seems to have been somewhat forgotten especially in today's political climate.

This principle is found within Article V – the section which deals with alternative means of amending the Constitution.

Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application 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 Constitution, 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.

For further understanding, here is an explanation from

In the Convention, much controversy surrounded the issue of the process by which the document then being drawn should be amended. At first, it was voted that provision ought to be made for the amendment [of the Constitution] whensoever it shall seem necessary without the agency of Congress being at all involved.1 Acting upon this instruction, the Committee on Detail submitted a section providing that upon the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states Congress was to call a convention for purpose of amending the Constitution.2 

Adopted,3 the section was soon reconsidered on the motion of Framers of quite different points of view. Some worried that the provision would allow two-thirds of the states to subvert the others,4 and some thought that Congress would be the first to perceive the need for amendment and that to leave the matter to the discretion of the states would mean that no alterations but those increasing the powers of the states would ever be proposed.5 

Madison's proposal was adopted, empowering Congress to propose amendments either on its own initiative or upon application by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.6 When this provision came back from the Committee on Style, however, Gouverneur Morris and Gerry succeeded in inserting the language providing for a convention upon the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.7

According to the source, James Madison intended to create an alternative means to amend the Constitution (as stated). If for some reason, Congress could not come to a viable solution for a given vote or was unwilling to come to any resolution, this article gives the States the power to create and implement amendments themselves.


At present, many Americans are fed up with the way the country is being run. It has become apparent that those who are called our "leaders" are not actually leading or serving anyone but themselves. Instead of serving their country, it seems these public officials use elections to con their way into seats of power and then use their ill-gotten position to gain wealth for themselves while abusing and manipulating the general public to protect their profits.

A growing number of Americans have had enough of the profiteers, manipulators, and con artists who have now led the country down the path toward tyranny. These unsavory officials have attempted to erode human rights at every turn. Our right to speak, to assemble, to protect ourselves, to travel, to make our own medical choices, to earn a wage, and to live in general safety have all been eroded if not outright attacked by former and current administrations all in the name of "protecting the people."

The people have had enough. And it seems that Article V of the Constitution can provide the means to pass amendments that can put a stop to the rampant abuses of power we have seen over the last decade or longer.

One website/YouTube channel is known for teaching about the Constitution and spreading the word about the potential benefits of initiating Article V. Here is the YouTube channel The Patriot Think Tank which offers several talks on the subject.

* * * * *

Source: The Patriot Think Tank - YouTube

* * * * *

Published: November 28, 2021

By: George Gavares

Why Article V has never been used to call a convention of states.

If you are a supporter of using Article V to call for a convention of states you have probably come across quite a few of the same arguments against it that we have. We cover them in different pieces but here we want to tackle the notion that it has never been done before since the constitution was written. After you hear that it hasn't been used before. you will hear the other arguments tied to that notion as if they are the reason it has never been used in over 230 years.

While there have been those who were for calling a convention, previous efforts have fallen short of he 34 states necessary to actually do it. You will hear things like, "it has never been done before because legislators know how dangerous it is" or "it has never been done before because legislators realized that it would become a runaway convention like the convention that was called to write the constitution". Sadly, these statements demonstrate a lack of understanding of history on the part of our citizenry and even worse, our elected officials. 


When the founders drafted the first copy of the constitution not everyone was ok with it.  In fact, New Hampshire did not become the 9th state to ratify until June, 1788 and Rhode Island was the last of the 13 states to ratify it in 1790. The main issue holding up the process was the lack of clear language that protected the rights of the people. The biggest reason for writing the Articles of Confederation with such a weak central government was that, unlike today, these men had a very robust understanding of history.

They knew that a powerful central government would inevitably, begin to lose touch with the people and begin to infringe on their lives in ways it was never intended to have the power to do. Throughout history, this always ended badly for everyone involved. This is why you will often hear it said that "every empire eventually falls". These scenarios either ended in great tyranny or in revolution. In many cases throughout history it was both. 

Upon reading Article V, it was George Mason who made the case that it needed to be edited. Originally, Article V was written in such language that the constitution could only be amended through an act of congress. Mason immediately saw the problem with this.   Mason thought "the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive". Mason clearly believed that this would become the case. 

It is important to understand that Mason was not asserting that congress should not have the power to propose amendments. His assertion was that congress should not be the ONLY body to have this power. Hence, in essence, what he was saying, and the rest of the founders agreed with in the end, is that knowing the nature of government, there must be a an avenue for the people to be able to be the ultimate check on the government should it expand beyond it's powers granted by the constitution. The idea was to give the people an avenue to revolt peacefully and lawfully. It was actually quite brilliant. 

Depending on what side of the political aisle you rest on, there have always been those who believe that the other side has done such wrongs that only violence is left as the alternative. These people do not represent the majority of any side. On the left you can think of organizations like Antifaschistische Aktion (ANTIFA) or others like them. On the right there are less well known groups but you can hear the calls on social media regularly that make reference to the second amendment in terms of using the right to bear arms to "take our country back".

In fact, the right to bear arms was heavily intended for that purpose, but in reality, it is completely unnecessary to attain revolution. Amending the constitution is not an easy task and that is by design. It is not a small action to take and can have massive impact. There must be agreement, in mass, by We The People for it to happen. 

Calling a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution  is essentially the same exact process as amending it as we have done traditionally. The only key difference is who proposes the amendments. As a result, there is only one, very limited, reason to even have to call for a convention. That reason is to address imposing restrictions to the federal government. That's it. For the sake of any other constitutional amendment there is no need to call for convention. This is why it has never been used before. 

Our government has been slowly testing the waters regarding how much overreach it can get away with. In each instance it builds upon the victories in this effort until, eventually, it will reach critical mass. Critical mass can be defined as that moment in history when We The People realize that things have gone too far. Both left and right have cheered on the government expansion of power when it is their side that is doing the expanding. Of course, as has always been the case throughout history, it is "our safety" that they use to move forward with the power grabs. Most conservatives were perfectly ok with the passing of the Patriot Act at the time it was enacted.

A disgusting expansion of federal power that infringed on our rights like few others in history. Since it was done to protect us from terrorists, people fell in line. It was supposed to be temporary yet, almost 20 years later, it is still with us. The recent vaccination "mandates" are another great example. This one taking the power grab by government to yet another level as the government is now threatening our employers to destroy us financially for non compliance. This too, of course, is for "our safety". Also in line with history, many of those that align with the left are cheering it on. Like The Patriot Act, you can expect these inexplicable losses of freedom to continue for decades unless, We The People stop them. 

Calling a Convention of States under Article V, as explained earlier, is simply a method of giving the people a legal avenue to restrict the power of government. Until now, it has never been so obvious that the media is no longer the people's watchdog. For decades the government has been able to slowly take away our freedoms, just a little a bit at a time, and rather than the media investigate and shine light on these events, they more often than not simply explain why these events were ok and that there was nothing to worry about.

The call for a Convention of States was designed to be used when the government stopped listening at the federal level. We have reached that point in history. The issues that are up for discussion during the convention are issues that a majority of all political parties agree with. There is no call in any of the resolutions written to date for the bizarre assertions that have been made by Article V opponents. No resolution authorizes delegates to speak on things like ending abortion, overturning the Bill of Rights etc.

Think of most people you know and put party lines on the side for just a moment. Are you adamantly opposed to imposing term limits on government officials? Does the idea of forcing the government to be fiscally responsible disturb you? Are you truly ok with the government taking away your freedom to make a living or eat in a restaurant because you won't comply? If you are good with that, are you also ok with the NSA and CIA having expanded powers that include the ability to spy and collect data on our citizens? 

These are not radical concepts but rather axioms. They are portrayed as radical because those in power are putting the full weight of that power into an effort to scare you away from the understanding that, in reality, it is not they who actually have the power but rather it is We The People who hold the power. We have been trained to focus on what divides us. At some point we need to see the things that we agree on because neither political party is in favor of those issues.

The more the government and media can convince us that we do not have our power under the constitution, the more we willingly hand that power to government. It is time to call the convention and begin this process. What is at stake should we decide to not call the convention is nothing short of our liberty. If there is nothing else that unifies us let it be that. Liberty. Once it is completed, let's hope it won't be for another 230 plus years before we have to flex that power again. If that should happen, they will have a precedent set by our generation to work from. 

George Gavares

Partner/CEO of The Patriot Think Tank

Read more at:
Discerning the Mystery is a website dedicated to awakening and educating the people to their true potential of mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical growth. It can be difficult work, but if just one person benefits from these efforts, it is entirely worth it. 

If you enjoy what you read here, please give the post a like and share on social media. Also, if you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a donation.

Feel free to send us an email and tell us what you think. If you have any suggestions or subjects you would like to see discussed, please let us know.

Thank you for your support.

No comments:

Post a Comment