An Article V Convention Would Harm the Republic

Richard D. Fry
November Patriots, Founder
General Counsel, Patriot Coalition
The Patriot Coalition

The John Hancock Committee’ Makes a Feeble Attempt to Answer the Question: “If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution, Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution?”

The John Hancock Committee for the States (JHC) gives numerous justification (excuses) for why the federal government cannot seem to follow the current constitution. (Again, failing to note the states are guiltily of such as well.) In short, JHC excuses could be summed up by saying the Framers were inexperienced, naive, simpletons who had no clue as to the (real) nature of mankind.

All of its excuses are anemic at best and some would be downright laughable if not involving such a serious matter as its proposed re-write of our federal Constitution, the firewall of our Liberty. These excuses count on the ignorance of the American citizens and the corruption of our public officers, who have taken a solemn oath to know and defend the Constitution.

Embedded in its deceptive assertions is its number one lie: that there is such a thing as a “Convention of States” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Hancock says: “When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology.”

This is complete nonsense. The Framers were very aware of the nature of man and mankind’s inherent weaknesses, such as a lust for power and need to dominant over their fellow man. Many of the Framers were very well educated and very familiar with the history of governments going back millennia and familiar with the more contemporary political philosophy of the time such as that of John Locke.

Regarding trusting their fellow citizens in political office James Madison and Thomas Jefferson said:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
James Madison, Federalist No. 51 (1788)

“In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions (1798)

In speaking of one of the delegates, James Wilson, it was said:

“He is well acquainted with man, and understands all the passions that influence him…”

Does this sound like men who had confidence in their public servants to toe the line set down by the Constitution? The Framers knew that politicians would indeed try to get around the Constitution for their own purposes. And, they knew the formation of “factions” (political parties) would only make such corruption worse.

Jefferson advised :

“On every question of Construction [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning man be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

George Washington, in his farewell address as President, stated:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no changes by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

In fact, it did not take long for the usurpations to begin. Washington, as President , was advised by Thomas Jefferson (Secretary of State), James Madison and Edmund Randolph (Attorney General) that the creation of a national bank (privately directed) by Congress was unconstitutional. Such was being pushed by Alexander Hamilton(Secretary of Treasury). Washington did end up signing the charter for the bank, in part because it was set to automatically expire in twenty years.

President Adams violated the Constitution when he signed into law the Sedition Act of 1798. In response, the Kentucky (Jefferson) and the Virginia Resolves (Madison) were passed by their respective state legislatures and the upheaval around the Sedition Act resulted in the ” Revolution of 1800″ which swept Jefferson into the Presidency and many of his party members into office.

Jefferson knew he was violating the Constitution when he made, through James Madison, the Louisiana Purchase.

JHC admits its pretense in this regard when it says:

“Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language.”

If such illegality is “obvious to all reasonable Americans” then our public servants are even more apt to be aware of their Constitutional violations. They simply do not care. Our public servants no longer fear the people, for whom they work, nor the God, in whose name they take their oath of Support.

The Second Amendment is a prime example of the folly of this assertion by JHC. It is twenty-seven words long and about as direct as one can get. It clearly says the federal government may not infringe on the people’s right to “keep and bear Arms”. Yet, since 1926, over 130 years after the Constitution took effect, the central government has been infringing on such right in a wholesale fashion. And, the states have been going along with this Constitutional violation.

Then JHC pretends to be a soothsayer when it declares:

” The language they [the re-writers] use for these [future] amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken.”

How in the world can JHC possibly know this assertion to be true before a “convention” even starts? It is an absurd assertion.

JHC tells us our political system is broken and then tells us we must rely upon our political system to fix itself.

JHC gives us flimflam, doublespeak, and chicanery as usual.

It is “We the Peoples'” job to hold our public servants accountable. Until we do that no change in the constitution will do any good. Once we hold them accountable no change in the Constitution will be necessary.

Alex Jones now endorses an Article V Constitutional Convention

On the Alex Jones Show of 7/29/14 Alex interviewed NSA whistle blower William Binney. In the course of the interview Binney mentioned that his solution to stopping federal tyranny would be to hold an Article V convention. In his brief support for an Article V convention Binney made a number of erroneous statements.

First let’s review what Article V actually states:
“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.”

Binney was under the impression that an Article V convention would be controlled by the states and completely independent from Congress. It would appear that Binney’s errant interpretation of an Article V convention has been shaped by the Convention of States (COS) project. (COS is a project of Citizens for Self Destruction.) Article V is clear that “Congress… shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” after receiving applications from two thirds (or 34) of the States. Binney also claimed that if a COS was held such a convention could not only propose amendments but also ratify them at the same convention. Article V proscribes that after two thirds of the states submit a petition Congress would call the convention. At the convention amendments may be proposed but any proposed amendments would have to be ratified by three fourths (or 38) of the States or conventions of three fourths of the States. Congress would decide the mode of ratification.

Alex Jones admitted that he had previously opposed a Constitutional convention because it could be hijacked. Article V apologists take issue with calling an Article V convention a Constitutional convention. Their objection is an attempt to underplay the magnitude of such a convention which has never been held in our history. An Article V convention is by definition a Constitutional convention because its express purpose is to propose amendments to the Constitution. Article V does not limit the number or scope of amendments that could be proposed – Article V proponents denial of this fact helps to discredit their position.

Alex Jones is obviously frustrated with the corruption in DC that fosters tyranny. The solution is decidedly not an Article V convention for several reasons.  I’ll list a few.

1.) States currently have vast power in the Constitution to nullify and interpose against any and every federal law that lacks Constitutional authority. The 10th Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” States can pass laws that invalidate federal laws that are not Constitutional, that is, laws that do not conform to Article I Section 8, the enumerated powers of Congress which are very limited. For example, nothing is now stopping West Virginia or any other state from passing laws that permit coal burning power plants to continue operating or to even construct new coal burning power pants. Congress has no legitimate Constitutional mandate to make laws about the environment and the entire EPA lacks any Constitutional basis. Also consider the clarity of the Second amendment – all federal gun laws lack Constitutional authority yet no state has yet refused to submit to the BATFE and the law to license gun dealers and require a federal form to be completed when purchasing a firearm.

2.) The logical fallacy of trusting Congress to be involved in a process that is supposedly designed to limit the power of the federal government in general and Congress in particular. The vast majority of those in Congress are oath breakers – they openly violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution. There is no reason that the current occupants of Congress would immediately take their oaths to uphold the Constitution seriously if the Constitution was amended in a positive fashion. It’s as if Article V proponents think an Article V convention would have some mystical power to make corrupt oath breakers repent. The problem is not with the Constitution, it’s a moral problem with those in Congress and the federal government. Article V advocates resist answering a simple question, If Congress currently refuses to follow the Constitution why should we expect Congress to obey the Constitution if it’s amended?

3.) There is a very similar logical fallacy in trusting the current occupants of the state legislatures with an Article V convention. The vast majority of those in the state legislators are also oath breakers – they do not uphold their oaths to the federal Constitution. If those in the state legislatures did uphold their oaths the Constitution we would see many federal laws nullified with state laws interposing against their enforcement at the state level. For example if the GOP super majority in the NC General Assembly was not corrupt we would see the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) nullified and NC laws passed that would ensure Obamacare was rendered null and void in NC, such as arresting any federal government employee who attempted to enforce Obamacare in NC.

I think Alex Jones is sincere in having reversed his position to now endorse an Article V Con Con. Hopefully Alex will reconsider the implications of a Con Con. I would like to see Alex interview Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers about the implications of an Article V Con Con. Alex has interviewed Stewart numerous times in the past but has yet to discuss Article V with him. Another guest who would provide detailed information critiquing an Article V Con Con is Jeff Lewis of the Patriot Coalition. Jeff has worked tirelessly in defending the Constitution at the federal and state levels.  Activist Publius Huldah would also provide an excellent opportunity to hear from a bona fide Constitutional expert who has rejected the arguments for an Article V Con Con.

Some Thoughts On The Article V Issue

by Tom DeWeese
February 25, 2014

I’ve written many articles in the past concerning my opposition to a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). I’ve also helped in successful fights in Ohio and Kansas to stop Con Con Resolutions. But recently there is a new twist in the effort to amend the Constitution to preserve freedom. It’s called an Article V Convention of the States.

Proponents say it answers my concerns over the dangers of a Con Con, and so many activists have asked me where I stand on this new effort. So here are a few thoughts.

I certainly feel the pain of patriotic Americans over the state of our Constitution. The original document has been basically put in a museum on Connecticut Ave. in Washington, DC and forgotten. We are told it is old and outdated. Not relevant to today’s age of technology, and moral reality. Old guys in powdered wigs wrote it. They knew nothing about instant communications, international terrorists, and besides, they were slave owners. How could their ideas possibly be relevant to us today? I’m sure Nancy Pelosi never read the Constitution because she would have had to pass it through Congress before she could find out what’s in it. For Obama, it’s just a road block keeping him from his need to change the country.

Well, you’ve all heard those arguments. The result is a government out of control. Spending is skyrocketing. Gun rights are under siege. Obamacare…right! Property rights, American industry, the dollar, personal privacy, and even our ability to choose the foods we want to eat, are all disappearing under an out-of-control government.

Something has to be done. There are those who argue that we can’t wait to try to elect the right kind of representatives in Congress and the White House. We have to take matters into our own hands immediately.

We have to see that the Constitution is strengthened to assure a balanced budged. Some have gone so far as to declare 10 Amendments for Freedom, including a plan to repay the national debt, enforce legislative transparency, a line item veto, term limits, immigration control, English as the national language, only U.S. laws over America, no socialism and a government bound by “In God we Trust.” And there are amendment ideas floating around to assure the Constitution is sound and strong for future generations.

Few of us would disagree with most of these ideas. They are put forth by respected leaders who have a record of promoting limited and Constitutional government. But how do we put these plans into action?

Radio host Mark Levin wrote a compelling book suggesting that there is a pressure valve written into Article V of the Constitution that shows us the way, through a convention of the states – an Article V Convention, as it is called. And we are assured that this is not a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) through which states call on Congress to convene. Too dangerous they tell us – and I agree.

No, an Article V Convention is different. We are told that the term Constitutional Convention or Con Con is inaccurate. That an Article V Convention is designed to precisely avoid the need for a Con Con. Specifically an Article V Convention is a meeting of the states -out of the control of Congress and the Pelosis of the nation. Each state will get one vote, and that will prevent a runaway convention that could result in the gutting of the Constitution. And through such a process, the states can control the agenda of the convention and therefore pass Mark Levin’s freedom amendments. It’s that simple. Moreover, the idea has captured the support of major Conservative leadership, including Sean Hannity, Home School leader Michael Farris, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, commentator Tim Baldwin, the Goldwater Institute, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and many more. All well respected leaders and advocates of limited government and Constitutional law.

I won’t begin to question them, their integrity, or their honorable intentions. I believe most are sincere in their concern and desire to save our Republic. But I have a few questions and observations.

First, what is the real issue here? What is the real reason why we have to even consider trying to redefine what the Founders meant our government to be? After all, it’s all in the Constitution already. Article V advocates, and Conservative movement in general, will readily tell you that the real issue is that our government, from the White House, to Congress, to the Supreme Court, are failing or refusing to follow Constitutional Law. They ignore it. So, say Article V proponents, that’s why we must amend the Constitution to assure our freedoms are guaranteed.

But, here is my real question for Article V advocates: If government today refuses to follow the Constitution, what will change once it is amended with the Articles of Freedom? What motivation will suddenly drive the Obamas and Pelosis to say “oh, the Constitution is the law of the land and we must follow it?” Especially when they oppose those freedom amendments for the same reasons they today ignore the entire Constitution. The Progressives who are in charge simply do not believe in balanced budgets, gun rights, and control of our borders. In addition, they really don’t care what a majority of Americans want, either. So an argument that the passage of the amendments will confirm that Americans want such a government cuts no ice with them.

Frankly, I believe that if we don’t change the atmosphere and mind set in the nation to one that supports the ideas behind our Constitution (free markets, individual liberty, limited government, and private property rights), then all the amendments in the world aren’t going to change the drive toward more and more government. The place to start that effort is by working to take back control of our local school systems, out of the clutches of the Federal Department of Education. Then, if we do first succeed in changing the mind-set of the nation to accept our ideas, a convention won’t be needed, We will have the necessary support around the nation to elect the right kind or representatives to restore Constitutional law through their legislative action. That, I believe, is the real task that lies ahead of us. There is no short cut or silver bullet around it.

Second. As I listen to Article V proponents make their arguments about how they’re going to bring about change – that they are going to bring all of these states together, hold a convention and pass their amendments, they seem to ignore the very existence of the Progressive movement that today controls nearly every aspect of our governing process. What do Article V proponents think these forces are going to do while the convention process is going on? Here’s what my research has found. Progressive groups like the Open Society Institute, the Center for American Progress, and the American Constitutional Society, to name a few, all groups funded by George Soros, are behind a movement for a more “Progressive Constitution.” They are simply not going to let conservatives have the playing field to themselves. They will use every trick, spending every dollar in their bulging war chests, to assure they control the process. Tim Baldwin has written with great vigor in support of the Article V Convention. But I think it is interesting to note that his father, Chuck Baldwin, former Constitution Party presidential candidate, author, columnist and a personal friend of mine, was quoted in a World Net Daily column in 2009, entitled “Globalists ‘Salivating’ over Collapse of America,” said, “The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C., and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially dismantle America’s independence and national sovereignty, and establish North American Union — in much the same way that globalists created the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they need to cement their sinister scheme into law.” Yes, Chuck was talking about a Con Con, but what will be different in an Article V Convention of the States if the Progressives get into the process?

Third I have a great concern over how the Article V Convention is being promoted. I have been an activist all of my life. I have seen pretty much every tactic used by powerful forces who are trying to railroad the people. The tactics always seem to be the same. Use the facilitation process to bring people into the fold, control the debate, and attack the opposition with accusations of deceit and fringe ideas. I have many times been awarded a tin foil hat by such forces for advocating ideas contrary to their vision for America. So, I’m a little sensitive to such tactics when I see them. And I know that the Tea Party is well aware of such tactics. That, in fact, is one of the things that motivates true Tea Party patriots to take action against rich, powerful, DC based groups which try to usurp or control the Tea Party. Yet, these are exactly the tactics I see being employed today by Article V proponents. Some of my associates have attempted to speak out at meetings where Article V is being promoted, and are not allowed the floor. That should sound familiar to Ron Paul supporters who have had microphones yanked out of their hands or turned off at state conventions. A couple of my friends have even been asked to represent the anti-Article V position. But, while the Article V proponent is given all the time he wants, the opposition is usually allowed only a few minutes to make their case. If the TeaParty is opposed to such tactics by County Commissioners, legislative committees, or Republican leadership at state conventions – then why don’t they question it at their own meetings? A full, open debate is always healthy in a free society. A deliberate attempt to silence opposition should cause people to question the motives of the perpetrators.

Finally, the proponents of Article V take great comfort in reciting the powerful names of those supporting their efforts. As I said, many are very respected leaders of the Conservative movement. But, how dare they deride in such nasty fashion, those who oppose them? They’ve called Phyllis Schlafly an old lady and out of touch. Phyllis was fighting for the Constitution when most of these Article V proponents were still in school. She risked everything she had to stop the Progressives’ Equal Rights Amendment. Home school advocate Mike Farris has called the John Birch Society evil. JBS has been unwavering in its dedication to the Constitution through the dark days of Communist infiltration of the 1950’s to today’s fight against Agenda 21.

The fact is, I was forced to part ways with Mike Farris and his tactics in the 1990s [bold italics added] . At the time I was heavily engaged in a three year war to stop the destruction of our public school system through the “reforms” known as Goals 2000, School-to-Work and The Work Force Development Act. Today, these “reforms” have morphed onto Common Core. When we had a chance to stop them in the 1990s, Mike Farris refused to support my efforts against the Work Force Development Boards, saying they didn’t affect home schoolers! I considered that a betrayal to every student in the nation.

It is with great pain that I acknowledge that some people I really respect have joined the Article V effort. But I can’t join them because, to me, something really smells about this Article V movement. Its arguments don’t past scrutiny. Its tactics are underhanded. Its source of funding is not in the open. I think honest Tea Party members and dedicated freedom activists should ask a lot of questions before risking our precious Constitution to their lot.

© 2014 Tom DeWeese – All Rights Reserved 

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report

For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911



Is the solution to federal tyranny a Con Con?

Rocco J. Piserchia

There are many reasons to reject all calls for an Article 5 amendments convention or a Constitutional Convention (Con Con).  I’ll list four arguments.

1.) There is no way to limit the scope of an Article 5 convention once it begins.  Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken.  The language of Article 5 does not include any limitations to the number and type of amendments that could be adopted,

“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…”

2.) Consider the implications of how the original federal Constitution was formed – it was illegally adopted.  The Philadelphia meetings that drafted the Constitution were only authorized by Congress to amend the Articles of Confederation but they produced a completely new compact.  “That it be recommended to the States composing the Union that a convention of representatives from the said States respectively be held at on for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the United States of America and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled and to the States respectively such alterations and amendments of the said Articles of Confederation as the representatives met in such convention shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union “

The Articles of Confederation also established a perpetual union that could only be dissolved by Congress and the unanimous consent of all the states that ratified it.  Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation reads, “…And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State…”  Only 9 states were required to ratify the Constitution while all 13 were required to abolish the Articles of Confederation.  Furthermore Congress was required to first alter the Articles of Confederation followed by the ratification of 13 states but Congress never consented. “Congress unanimously left the decision to the states, without any recommendation for or against adoption.”

So if an Article 5 convention is convened we should expect the very real possibility that the Constitution would be replaced by a completely different compact.

3.)  It’s beyond unrealistic to think that the current occupants of Congress as well as the current occupants of the 50 state legislatures would consciously choose to limit the power of the federal government and expand the power of the state governments.  Today we have the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” However no state yet has nullified and interposed against the federal government to completely ban the PPACA  (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare).  If the states refuse to use the Constitutional authority they now have under the 10th Amendment why should they be expected to utilize any new amendments?

4.) The federal government today does not even remotely reflect the federal government as expressed in the Constitution.  In other words the vast majority of all three branches of the federal government refuse to obey the Constitution in its current form – the federal government is no longer legitimate.The President is a de facto dictator.  Congress continually passes laws outside the bounds of the limited delegated powers of Article 1 section 8.  And the Supreme Court as well as federal courts violate their jurisdiction beyond those areas specified in the Constitution. Logic dictates that there is no reason to think that merely changing the Constitution will result in corrupt people obeying it.  The President, the vast majority of those in Congress, the Supreme Court Justices and federal court judges are currently oath breakers –they do not honor their oath to defend the Constitution.  Changing the Compact will not mystically result in their Constitutional repentance.

It’s very disturbing to see how many prominent people are advocating that a Constitutional convention should be held.  Mark Levin supports it and is actively promoting this idea with his book The Liberty AmendmentsLevin has no Constitutional credibility since he completely rejects the validity of the states now using the 10th Amendment to nullify and interpose against federal laws that are not Constitutional.

Senator Tom Coburn has called for a Con Con.

Senator Rand Paul wants to amend the Constitution.

Constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman supports a Con Con. “I finally conceded, if the gigantic inertial force of 200 years of jurisprudential and political tradition could be overcome, we might actually use a remedy the Founders gave us: Article V. Via Article V of the Constitution, we could perform an end-run around the legal establishment and the self-serving Washington elite and restore decentralized, republican government in America…Thus, on April 9, 2010, Randy Barnett, the late Tony Blankley, Bruce Fein, and I participated in an Article V Amending Convention Town Hall on The Mike Church Show. (Here’s the transcript.) In the course of that two-hour event, the leading libertarian legal academic of his generation, a prominent Republican political operative, a one-time top official in the Reagan justice department, and Your Humble Historian touched on every question one could have about the unused portion of Article V of the Constitution.”

Robert Natelson who authored the book The Original Constitution supports a Con Con which he and other advocates now insist on calling an Article 5 convention.

I asked Tom Woods if he supported Mark’s Levin’s call for a convention to amend the US Constitution.  Surprisingly Tom Woods was open to holding a Constitutional Convention. Considering his knowledge of US history  and the Constitution I expected him to oppose a Con Con.

I interviewed Mike Church when he was at Nullify Now in Raleigh on 10/19/13.  I asked him if he supported the calls for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) since Mark Levin and others were supporting the call for a Con Con.  Unfortunately he did support it even though he admitted that an Article 5 convention could not be limited in its scope, i.e., there would be no limitations to what an Article 5 convention could address.

Mike Maharrey, Communications Director of the Tenth Amendment Center, was interviewed at Nullify Now in Raleigh NC on 10/19/13.  I asked him if he supported the call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) which is being advocated by Mark Levin, among others.  Mike said he was neutral about the idea of amending the Constitution but he expressed healthy skepticism as to the potential benefits of amending the Constitution when the Constitution in its current form is ignored by the federal government.