COS Legacy: GOV 100 Reclaiming our Country with Michael Farris

Welcome to the Convention of States Legacy Podcast, a weekly program that looks back at historic content from our archives. We hope you are educated and inspired by today's edition. In today's episode, we give you a unit from Gov. 100 of COS University, an educational online platform for COS supporters. Executive states co-founder and senior advisor Michael Ferris shares how the Constitution empowers we the people to reclaim our country from the corrupt power brokers in DC. You can take the full course for free by going to www.cosuniversity.com. We return to George Nicholas, the Virginia hero of the American Warfare Independence, who said of the Constitution, an enlightened people will never suffer what was established for their security to be perverted to an act of tyranny. The government under the Constitution was designed for a particular kind of security. It was put in place to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. You might be tempted to think that our government is not operating under the Constitution. While this thought resonates with many reasonable people, it's not the most precise way of describing our current situation. The truth is, the United States does not operate under the Constitution as written, rather it operates under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Sadly, it's fair to say that the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, has in many respects been perverted to an instrument of tyranny. The President makes laws when the Constitution says only Congress can make law. Congress taxes and spends our money on issues that the Constitution says belong exclusively to the States. We have allowed international law to begin governing the domestic policies of the United States. The life of the unborn, the definition of marriage, and the rights of private property have all been invaded by judicial activism. While it's important for us to do everything we can to elect good people to be President, senators, and congressmen, I have become convinced that Washington D.C. is utterly broken and will not on its own ever reduce its own power in any material way. So what can we do to take our country back? How can we recreate government under the Constitution as written? George Mason, a Virginia delegate to the Constitution Convention, predicted that this day would come, and he also gave us the solution. And the delegates were debating the amending process for the Constitution itself. The proposal was on the table for Congress to propose all constitutional amendments while the States would ratify all amendments. But George Mason argued that there would arise a day when the federal government would abuse its power, and he believed that amendments to the Constitution could and should check those abuses of power. The convention records described Mason's arguments, saying, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people if the government should become oppressive as he verily believed would be the case. Accordingly, Article 5 of the Constitution was redrafted. It gave us two ways to amend the Constitution. The method that has always been used to date is the first one. Congress can propose amendments whenever two thirds of both houses of Congress approve a proposed text. Then it goes to the States for ratification. But the second method allows the States to propose amendments whenever two thirds of the States agree to call a convention to propose amendments. This method requires the State Legislatures of 34 States to approve formal applications for an amendments convention on the same subject. There have been over 400 such applications from 49 of the 50 States. But we've never had a convention because there's never been an agreement by two thirds of the States on the same subject matter. There are three kinds of applications that the States could employ if they chose to do so. First, there could be a call for an open convention. States could simply say, we want a convention to consider any and all amendments. States could also say, we want a convention for a particular amendment. For example, States could call for a balanced budget amendment convention. Third, the States could call for a convention for a particular topic that might contemplate more than one amendment. The very first application from a State was from Virginia in 1789, and it was primarily aimed at getting the Bill of Rights. Virginia's application for a convention of the States, the term that they used in this very first application, wasn't joined by other States because James Madison pushed the Bill of Rights through Congress. So the objective was accomplished in the alternative way that's provided in the Constitution. But the amendments that we need today will never be proposed by Congress. We need to stop the General Welfare class from being used to say that Congress can spend money on any full thing it wants. We need to stop the crushing regulation of our economy through the misuse of the Congress class. And we need to stop the debt that arises from inappropriate spending projects. And we must do something to stop the misuse of federal judicial power. The Supreme Court has said in approximately 30 cases that the only real check on the power of the court is its own sense of self-restraint. Now I just submit that that's not a sufficient restraint in a country that believes in limited power with checks and balances. We cannot count on Congress to restrain the Court's power. Congress and the Supreme Court are both an integrated part of the Washington D.C. power cabal. We will never obtain the structural changes needed if we try to go through the channels of Washington D.C. Now some people believe that the States should nullify federal actions, that the States believe are unconstitutional. Now without taking sides regarding the effectiveness of that idea, I hope it's obvious that there are thousands of federal laws, decisions and policies that would need to be nullified. State legislatures would have a difficult time passing the nullification laws fast enough to undo the damage. And I can tell you that such laws face an almost certain demise once they hit the judicial system, whether the state or federal courts consider any nullification acts. Really, there's only one realistic way to move away from government under the Supreme Court's Constitution to a government under the original Constitution. And that is to use Article 5 to effectively take away the usurped powers that have accumulated over time in Washington D.C. And to create new effective checks and balances to curtail the opportunities for future abuses. We need to balance budget amendment with real limits and strong protections. It can be written. But a balanced budget amendment without spending controls is simply not enough. We need to shut down the misuse of the General Welfare Clause to make sure that Congress can only spend money for its specific enumerated powers. All of the federal programs that are bankrupting this country are within the legitimate subject matter of the states. If the states want welfare programs and medical relief programs, they have the authority under the state constitutions to do so. But Congress has no such authority except by the misuse of the General Welfare Clause. Fix that clause and we shut off the spigot of money that is drowning us in debt. We likewise need to fix the Commerce Clause so that it is no longer possible to give the federal government the authority to regulate everything in our economy. It was only intended to give authority to regulate the movement of goods and passengers across state lines. We need to adopt an amendment that returns that proper understanding to the Commerce Clause. We must also achieve real checks and balances on the federal courts. This can be done. Term limits can be imposed on federal judges. Now, we want federal judges to be independent, so I believe that a term of approximately eight years with no opportunity for a second term preserves that independence. We can also consider measures that would either give Congress or the states by a supermajority vote the ability to vacate a decision of the Supreme Court. But how is all this possible? How can we possibly get the state legislatures to engage in this kind of plan? In the fall of 2013, I helped launch the Convention of the Stage Project along with Mark Meckler, who is the President of Citizens for Self Governance. Here's our plan. There are three phases to it. First, 34 states have to approve applications for a Convention of the States for the same purpose. Our purpose is to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to impose term limits on federal officials. The second phase is the Convention itself, which would be held to draft the formal language of the amendments to be proposed. Now, the most important thing to know about the Convention stage is it would be one state, one vote. And that is a really important protection. The third phase is 38 states must ratify whatever amendments come out of the Convention. For example, if seven amendments curtailing federal power are proposed, then the states can approve or reject each of these amendments as they see fit. It's just like the Bill of Rights. Twelve amendments were proposed. Ten of the twelve were approved by 1791. Because the ultimate goal is the ratification, we're focusing on 38 states. So we are building a political operation in 40 states. There are ten states where the political climate is very difficult. But even in there, we hope that some people will rise up and oppose federal power. But we're focusing primarily on 40 states. In these 40 states, there are 4,000 districts in the state houses of representatives. We want to have a district captain and at least 100 people supporting a Convention of States in 75% of these districts. That's 3,000 districts. I've talked to a few hundred state legislators about this plan. They respond nearly unanimously that if we can build this kind of infrastructure, then we can get the votes we need first in the 34 states to call the Convention of States and then to ratify these vitally important amendments. 3,000 districts times 100 people. 300,000 people are enough to make the success of this plan highly probable. But if we have 1,000 people in these 3,000 districts, I can absolutely guarantee you that this plan would be successful. State legislators never hear from 1,000 people about anything. And every state legislator knows that 1,000 organized people in his or her district are more than enough to remove them from office if they decided to do so. That's 3 million people, less than 1% of the American public. This plan can work if less than 1% of the people who believe in liberty stand up, speak up and show up. You know, this is a lot like rebuilding the wall on Nehemiah's day. We don't want a different country. We want the country that we see in the original text of the Constitution. We just want to rebuild the walls. But like Nehemiah in the Old Testament, there are people like sand ballot, naysayers who do not want to use the Constitution's own solution to the problems we face. At the heart of their arguments are the anti-historical claims that our Constitution was adopted by a runaway convention that was improper and illegal. You know now that these attacks on the integrity of the Constitution are false. And why would anyone suggest that they want to preserve the Constitution as the sand ballot forces claim if they think it was illegally adopted in the first place? Their views are self-conflict. It's like claiming that George Washington was a great American hero. But well, you know, he was also a British spy. The steps that protect the process are so clear and so difficult that it's impossible for any crazy runaway idea to get through the system. 38 states, for example, aren't going to ratify repealing the Bill of Rights. The fear of a runaway convention is based on scenarios that require 38 state legislatures to take leave of their senses. Imaginative, conspiratorial claims to induce fear are not to be countenanced in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Which fears more realistic that crazy people will take over the state-controlled process of the Convention of the States or that Washington, D.C. will continue to abuse its power? One fear speculative Washington, D.C.'s abusive power is not speculative at all. It is a clear and present danger that must be stopped. If you would like to help me take this country back, please go to conventionofstates.com As the date of this taping, we've begun to successfully pass our Convention of State applications in the state legislatures. Thank you for listening to the Convention of States Legacy Podcast to learn more about our grassroots movement, go to www.conventionofstates.com.