The Left Wants Us Too Frightened To Talk

The assassination of Charlie Kirk should have clarified one thing for all thoughtful Americans. Civil debate is a threat to the radical forces seeking to fundamentally transform America. They know that their policy positions are losers, when objectively considered. So instead of changing their ideas, the radicals seek to hush their opposition – as they did with Charlie.

Yet there are those in various state legislatures – including my own state of Idaho – who claim to value civil discourse, yet surrender to the radicals by voting to prevent a contest of ideas. They do this by voting to deny a forum in which ideas may be deliberated – an Article V convention.

Our country is facing a multi-axis crisis. Our debt will inevitably crash our economy, our government no longer serves the public, and politicians have become so secure they show no interest in fixing the problems. Fortunately, our founders provided a means for the states to act, even when the federal government remains reluctant – the second clause of Article V of the Constitution.

Article V allows the states to trigger the amendment process, without the consent of Congress, by calling a convention of states (not to be confused with a constitutional convention). Yet every time a convention is proposed, the opposition howls that a convention is far too dangerous. They argue that amending the Constitution could destroy everything we hold dear, and counsel that it’s better to follow the advice of the Soros Common Cause Foundation – vote against it.

But an Article V convention has no ability to amend the Constitution. That is a power reserved for the states via the ratification process. Thirty-eight states must agree, before the Constitution is amended – a very high bar indeed.

What the opposition never acknowledges, is that an Article V convention is merely a forum to brainstorm, debate, deliberate, and propose solutions for our crisis – not to enact them. A convention is a place in which the contest of ideas can take place. Even votes taken at the convention make no substantive changes. Convention votes merely decide if proposals are worthy of state consideration. Why is that considered dangerous?

Charlie Kirk was a champion of dialog. He courageously traveled from campus to campus, giving a microphone to anyone who wished to challenge his ideas. He understood that when civil debate is prevented, something decidedly less civil is likely to follow. The events of the past month have proven him prescient.

We are facing a crisis. Unless we change course soon, we will leave a country to our children which is less free, less prosperous, and less moral than the country our parents left us. Yet sadly, the Idaho House of Representatives voted 44 to 26 against calling for a convention in which solutions could be debated. I sincerely hope they reconsider in 2026. It’s what Charlie wanted.

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