We will never solve our political and fiscal problems if we continue in our present state of ignorance of the fundamental distinction between the federal Constitution and the State Constitutions.

During April 2015, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases, in support of counterfeit marriage for homosexuals via the 14th Amendment. Obviously the 14th Amendment says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality”. So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage?

What did our Framers really say we must do when the federal government usurps power? They never said, “When the federal government ignores the Constitution, amend the Constitution”. They never said, “File a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.” Instead, they advised two manly remedies. We’ll look at one of them – nullification – in this paper.

Everyone wants to think that delegates to an Article V Convention could be controlled by their states. However, a number of factors interfere with that scenario and make an Article V convention very dangerous.

In former law professor Rob Natelson’s recent paper, “No, the Necessary and Proper Clause Does NOT Empower Congress to Control an Amendments Convention”, he makes several untrue statements and commits the gross fallacy of making a circular argument which begs the question. Natelson is the intellectual guru of those pushing for an Article V convention.

Our Declaration of Independence says the Creator God endowed us with Rights, and that the purpose of government is to “secure” the Rights God gave us. What does this mean? How does a government go about “securing” God given rights?

This speech (video) was presented to Campaign For Liberty – Memphis on March 24, 2014. It exposes some of the false claims made by those pushing for the so-called “convention of states”.

Our Constitution is so simple that Alexander Hamilton expected us to be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority”; and he said the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution.” Well then, if our Constitution is something The People are expected to know and enforce; is it plausible to assert that the Representatives we send to Washington – and even supreme Court Justices – are incapable of understanding it?

For 100 years, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated to it in our Constitution. What should we do about it? Should we reclaim our existing Constitution and put an end to the usurpations? Or should we “modernize” the Constitution by delegating to the federal government the powers it has usurped – so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?

A question-and-answer session on our United States Constitution, how we got it, about amendments, about an Article V convention, and about the dangers of an Article V Constitutional Convention.