Honest answers to a few basic questions will lead the faithful to the inevitable conclusion that we have a moral duty to use ALL means available to prevent government overreach from encroaching on our God given rights.
Are our freedoms gifts from God?
The framers of our Constitution were originally reluctant to document our liberties in the text of the document. They considered our rights inalienable – not granted by men nor subject to human regulation. They believed that as creations in God’s image, our yearning for freedom meant that we are intended to live in a state of self-determination. Thus, our freedoms are gifts from God. Tyranny may infringe on our freedoms, but they remain our birthright.
The framers of our Constitution found an elegant solution to address our freedoms without implying that they are granted by men. The Bill of Rights does not grant our freedoms, it prohibits the government from infringing on them.
Does God expect us to prosper from his gifts?
In Genesis 1:26-27 God said:
Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.
Our mission from God is to use the wealth of resources he provided to prosper.
In Matthew 25:14–30, Jesus reinforced that mission with the Parable of the Talents. As he made clear to his followers, our master – God – is pleased when we use his gifts to advance his mission. Conversely, allowing his gifts to languish earns his scorn.
If God’s gifts are intended to serve our mission on Earth, it becomes a disservice to him, to allow his gifts to be infringed upon. Therefore, we have a duty to defend our inalienable rights from encroachment.
Were our founders under divine guidance when they established our republic?
Few true patriots question the inspired wisdom of our Constitution. The key word in that statement is “inspired.” The implication is that our founding fathers were instruments of the Almighty when they defined a form of government that facilitates service to him. Ours is the first government in history that places the individual above the collective – as prescribed by the Ten Commandments – and protects our right to serve God.
If the framers of our Constitution were divinely guided, then it follows that our governing document – and everything in it – was provided to be used in service to our creator.
Are God’s gifts under attack?
All institutions tend towards self-aggrandizement, rather than service to a higher calling. Our government has spent 237 years wiggling free from the checks and balances that were intended to keep it from infringing on our rights. It is now becoming hostile to the faithful.
- Thou shalt have no other God but me – unless the other god is a secular government.
- Thou shalt not kill – except for “reproductive health care.”
- Thou shalt not covet – unless it’s a rich man’s wealth.
- Thou shalt not bear false witness – unless it’s to maintain a government narrative.
Along with violation of God’s laws, our government has been chipping away at our freedom to worship, express ourselves, and choose our own leadership, because those gifts give us the power to resist – if we choose to use them. The faithful are living in a defining moment of history.
What can the faithful do?
Fortunately, our creator has given us the tools needed to defend his gifts.
We can use our gift of expression, to convince our fellow Americans that our government has taken the wicked rather than righteous fork in the road. But that gift is under assault, and is by no means secure. Our “public servants” have been quietly working to implement censorship regimes. Eventually they may succeed, just as officials in our neighbor to the north have.
We can use our gift of self-governance to elect faithful leaders who will defend our freedoms. Unfortunately, wise electoral choices only provide short-term relief. Unfortunately, evil often presents itself as attractive. Eventually another stealth politician will seduce us with promises of “hope and change,” failing to disclose that “change” is a reversal of our founding principles and his “hope” is that we won’t notice until we’ve lost our power to self-govern.
Our Constitution provides a more durable solution to a government which has gone astray. The second clause of Article V allows the states to impose rule changes on the federal government – reestablishing the accountability which has been lost. But this gift requires substantial effort.
So, how much effort is “enough” when defending what God has bequeathed us? Have we done enough if we complain about the infringement of our rights? How about if we set aside a couple of hours every two years to vote? Or does God expect us to do the hard work also?
What will opponents say?
Opponents of an Article V convention inevitably default to the argument that our Constitution is sacred, and proposing amendments with a convention of states is much too dangerous. But how can the Constitution be both “sacred” and “too dangerous to use”?
Are opponents saying that the men who wrote the Constitution were not instruments of God and the document isn’t sacred at all? Or are they saying that God got that second clause of Article V wrong, and he is incapable of using 21st century humans as instruments of his will?
One cannot claim to believe in God, assert that he had a hand in the creation of our Constitution, and then argue that the tool he gave us will deliver evil.
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a contributor to American Thinker, The American Spectator, and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Aren’t you forgetting that a ‘convention of states’ would include states like Massachusetts, New York, and California?
A new Constitution would replace the First Amendment with restrictions on “hate speech” and “disinformation” and all of the other things that not just the left but many on the center believe should be restricted. We’d see restrictions on Christian churches, absolute protection for Muslims, Wiccans, and whateverians, and real restrictions, if not outright banning, of Judaism.
We’d see Affirmative Action written as a constitutional mandate, the Second Amendment gone, reparations for slavery and other past ills mandated. We’d see the United States Constitution become like liberal European ones.
Not just no, but Hell no!
I think you misunderstand what a convention of states is. It is simply an alternative method to PROPOSE amendments to the Constitution, which bypasses Congress. Proposals from the convention still require ratification by 38 states to become amendments to the Constitution. 29 states currently have constitutional carry. Do you really think 17 of those states would suddenly decide to eliminate the 2nd amendment? The same point could be made for freedom of speech and all of the other rights you’re worried about losing.
Personally, I’m more worried about losing my freedom due to government overreach, than 38 states deciding they no longer like the bill of rights. Have you forgotten that we came within an inch of having a Disinformation Governance Board? Are you sure the Supreme Court would have stopped it? I’m not.
The reality is that our systems of accountability have failed because the federal government has achieved supremacy over the states, which it was never supposed to have. It’s time for the states to reassert their power. I suggest you read “The Law of Article V” by Professor Robert Natelson to learn more about how a convention would work, and what checks are in place to prevent the doomsday scenario you predict.
John,
I have to respectfully disagree with you, and agree with Dana. An “Amendment to the Constitution” could conceivably be proposed to replace the entire Constitution. That is precisely what happened to the Articles of Confederation. The convention meeting in Philadelphia was to amend the Articles… instead they threw them out and rewrote the entire charter.
Our problem is not the Constitution… it is “loose constructionism” when interpreting the Constitution. Indeed, this is how we got in much of this mess to begin with, whether it was eliminating gold and silver as the payment of debt, or creating the massive welfare state under Article I, Sec. 8, or engaging in empire expansion and “forever wars,” which we have actually been doing for close to 130 years.
I see this same problem of “loose constructionism” regarding basic laws all the time. I have been involved heavily in state and local politics for many decades, and the typical politician is a RINO at best, and a leftist at worst. Those are the types who will go to such a convention of the states, even from conservative stronghold states like Idaho or Alabama. They “loosely interpret” anything and everything if it procures advantages to themselves and their elite buddies.
Moreover, I’m sorry to say but you are incorrect in saying that the federal government “has achieved supremacy over the states,” which makes it sound like the federal level usurped its authority. Rather, the states purposely gave such supremacy to the federal government, because state lawmakers don’t want to be accountable to voters on hot-button issues. In essence, state lawmakers “punted” to the federal level, making accessibility to lawmakers, now at the federal level, next to impossible for the average person. This has been mostly over the last 120 years. I have studied this phenomenon for many decades, and found that it was state lawmakers who gave authority to the federal level that it wasn’t supposed to have. Put another way, our real problem is at the state and local level, and NOT the federal level.
I do understand where you are coming from, and the frustration you feel. However, it took us over 100 years to get into this mess, and I submit that it will take us that long… or longer… to perhaps get out of it. Yet, if history is our guide, we will NOT get out of it. One of two things will happen…. either the federal government will slaughter 50 million+ Americans to keep power, or the nation will collapse into a series of fiefdoms similar to Europe after the decline of the Roman Empire, with constant war waged on the North American continent.
Finally, I would submit that a new constitution, no matter how good it might be, is useless considering the fact that our current crop of politicians, high and low, don’t abide by the current one. They don’t follow the current law…. what… and who… is going to make them follow a new one? The COS concept is a “silver bullet,” or as we would say in political work, a “trick play.” It’s an attempt to get a quick and easy fix for a very deep and serious problem that resides not in Washington DC, but among our own neighbors.