Time to Amend the Constitution

Posted on March 6, 2018 by Robert Ringer


There’s no question that democracy is a more compassionate tool than brute force when it comes to controlling people.  Unfortunately, however, the chains of democracy come in the form of so-called entitlements, a nasty little hallucination dreamed up by scoundrels who are willing to do anything to achieve and maintain power.  

The chief distinguishing feature of a democracy is that it is based on majority rule (a.k.a. “tyranny of the majority”).  Contrary to what powerholders would like us to believe, in a democracy neither the individual nor the minority has any real protection against the virtually unlimited power of the state.  

A republic, on the other hand, is a form of government with the ostensible purpose of controlling the majority and, in so doing, protecting the inalienable rights of the individual and the minority.  Like a democracy, a republic is a representative form of government, but, in theory at least, it limits the power of the government through a written constitution.

On the surface, the United States Constitution appears to be of utmost importance when it comes to protecting our liberty.  The problem, however, is that the Radical Left refutes the authority of the Constitution, and the Deep State for the most part ignores it and does as it pleases.  

That being the case, the question becomes whether we need a constitution at all.  Perhaps an even more fundamental question is, does the Constitution have either the moral or legal authority to bind us in the first place?  

While most, if not all, of the founding fathers may have acted with the best of intentions, the sobering reality is that by creating the Constitution, then forcing people within a given geographical area to abide by it, it was, on its face, an act of aggression.  The man most often credited with initially pointing out this seemingly self-evident fact is Lysander Spooner, a 19th century apolitical maverick.  In his 1869 essay No Treason, Spooner wrote:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.  It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man.  And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing.  

It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago [in 1789].  And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts.  

Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner.  Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years.

AND THE CONSTITUTION, SO FAR AS IT WAS THEIR CONTRACT, DIED WITH THEM.  They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children.  It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they COULD bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them.  That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.   

While one can certainly challenge Spooner’s position on the grounds of practicality, if he believes in the sanctity of liberty and the sovereignty of the individual, it is morally and legally all but impossible to argue against.  

Even so, can’t one argue against Spooner’s “extremism” on the grounds that a constitution was needed to protect “the people”?  After all, the U.S. Constitution is purported to limit the government, not the people.

True, but, as we all know, when it comes to so-called representative government, theory and reality are two very different propositions.  The sad truth is that the Constitution has not protected U.S. citizens from government aggression.  On the contrary, such aggression has become worse with each passing year.  

The reality is that no matter who is in power at any given time, citizens are always controlled by the state.  Which means redistribution of wealth, invasion of privacy, a loss of civil liberties, an appetite for foreign military adventures, and debasement of the currency.  

Winston Churchill was quite insightful when he opined that “[Democracy is] the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.”

I reluctantly agree with Churchill.  Until a better form of government is invented (preferably one that makes it impossible to get elected to public office by promising to redistribute wealth and granting favors to special interests), I opt to support the Constitution.  

The problem, however, is that elected officials, government bureaucrats, and judges do not support the Constitution.  At best, they ignore it; at worst, they pervert its meaning to suit their personal beliefs.  

Of course, purist anarcho-libertarians would argue that people don’t need government at all, but that’s an impossible sell in our age of victimization.  Through gradualism and an addiction to living beyond their means, most people feel they need government to act as an enforcer to protect their lifestyle and/or give them an even better lifestyle.  

Would that Washington, Jefferson, and the rest of the white-wigged crowd could return and explain to the populace what they had in mind when they started their unique experiment in representative government.  Had they known what it would evolve into, they might have just taken a pass on the revolution and gutted things out with King George III.

One final, important point:  While the Constitution, technically speaking, has no inherent right to bind anyone who did not sign it — certainly not anyone living today — the reality is that without it the Radical Left would have long ago established a dictatorship.  That being said, if we’re going to be bound by the Constitution, it’s time to invoke Article 5 and hold a Convention of the States to amend it in ways that take as much power as possible away from the federal government.

Never kid yourself about how hysterically angry the Dirty Dems are about losing most of their power and how determined they are to do whatever it takes to regain it.  Should that occur, you can be certain they will try to dramatically increase the size and scope of the federal government and move quickly to shut down conservative and libertarian voices.

Pass the word to all who will listen:  The time to play the Article 5 card and amend the Constitution is now!

Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

33 responses to “Time to Amend the Constitution”

  1. ellis baxter says:

    The only thing here I would suggest is that Deep State is a new term. In political science terms, the correct condition of the Neo-Fascist Democrat Party is that that party has been taken over by the Soros [Real name is Schwartz Gyorgy]-Obama Sub Rosa Government. I so far identified 60 organizations run under the Soros gambit. He has three inside players to help him, Peter Lewis [progressive insurance], Morley Schafer, and Harold Ickes. These are his three go-to folks. There is a second circle also with a lot of very rich New World Order players, then the leadership of some 60+ organizations. Then the leadership of the current Democrat party. The Obama side is for the move for Obama to become Sec. General of the UN. Soros idea is to use the UN as a stepping stone to a new 'alliance' of nations under Soros command. As someone asked the other day "where do you get this" my stock answer is I have read Soros' books! His goals are not hidden they are on the table. It is the Soros-Obama Sub Rosa Government inside the US Government. 97% of the staff of the US government are employees, Union Members, and Democrats. No one will be indited in D.C. or the 3 counties around D.C. as the jury pool is 10 to 1 Democrats. Now what? Article 5 is our last hope.

  2. John King says:

    This is where you are wrong sir, The Constitution was a deceleration or document based on stopping “tyranny of the majority” buy an English king's rule, and written to see that it wouldn't happen in the creation of a new country (America) The founding fathers knew that there would come a time when “tyranny of the majority” would come once again. Even Benjamin Franklin stated that the tree of liberty must be shaken and the blood of patriots must be spilled to ensure a free nation, of the people and by the people. These documents are self evident and must be obeyed by those in office, I fear though that a civil war is once again coming to America, and that the left is going to got what's coming to them. There are a few thing that has triggered this, the first is the taking away of parent to discipline their children when needed, and the second two are as follows, they took god out of the school and the pledge of allegiance and the standing of our national anthem out of the schools, and after a few decades this is the result, a spineless know nothing, act as you want children with no respect for anyone or anything but what they want..

  3. chris m Lang says:

    Robert, be careful what you ask for– there would be politicians at the convention and whether democrats or republican they would talk in benefit of the people but behind closed doors they would only be interested in increasing their power. I use to think this would be the answer, but when I look at our political make-up ie the people in charge, I realize that we may need to stay with what we have.

    • Seth says:

      What we have is a government that is unwilling to place term limits on Congress, fiscal fraud waste and abuse of American tax payer money and out right restraint of state sovereignty.

      That doesn't sound like a good deal. The power should belong with the state. The people should decide what is best for their state, not some politician in Washington DC who doesn't give a damn about my state.

      I firmly believe my liberal constituents liberties and rights are just as important as mine, however we must come to the conclusion the the government is no longer working for the interest of the people.

      Once we realise this (or maybe we have) we can now discuss placing power into the hands of the state.

  4. The LookOut says:

    There is one thing you can count on, the Lefties will never give up
    on their quest to install a dictator. That's the reason BHO was
    their dictator of choice, he was the perfect puppet of the DS
    (black, amoral, and a deep hatred of America). His eight
    year reign will unfortunately continue to yield dividends for the
    freedom haters for a very long time.

  5. factandlogic says:

    1) So, if you buy a house from me, and you die, and I die, my kids can come evict your kids because the contract bound only the signatories? 2) We already have Constitutional limits which Presidents and members of Congress disrespect. What magical language will alter that? 3) Since 1792 we have ratified only 17 Amendments, one of which was needed to repeal a prior one (Prohibition). The most recent Amendment took a mere 202 years from the date of its drafting to the date of ratification. Try again.

    • Kaizen says:

      Indeed and James Madison would probably be somewhat put out at the time interval! That aside, what is being proposed here is unlikely to progress further than beyond this posting. Your analogy is spot on and demonstrates very clearly why.

  6. Rick G. says:

    The Radic-Libs hate the U.S. constitution, as they do everything else, because it is just something that gets in their way from establishing an ultraleft totalitarian dictatorship and the abolution of American freedom. That's why they look at the document as a "living entity" that can be changed and altered at will to justify and push forward their oppressive agenda.

  7. Jon says:

    Actually, there is an alternative to yet another "Constitution." If you accept that everyman is his own sovereign, then the solution is to allow him to establish whatever he chooses – as long as that choice does not interfere with the property of others. The term "property" is basically defined as a person's life and all non-procreative derivatives of that life. Hence, what is currently identified as the United States would become voluntary associations of like minded people. Rather than an "Us vs Them" perpetual conflict, all associations would be voluntary. No more concern regarding "I didn't sign the Constitution" argument. You might want to check out Civilization Engineering at http://www.civilizationengineering.com for more information on how this might work.

  8. Sovereign Mary says:

    NO to a Convention of States, or a Constitutional Convention.
    There are far too many dubious and deleterious characters who have been planning for years to shred and totally obliterate the true intent of the U.S. Constitution.
    — "Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, I would tremble for the result of the second."
    – James Madison – Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the United States.

  9. Sovereign Mary says:

    No to a Convention of States, or a Constitutional Convention:

    Brilliant men have warned that delegates to a convention can’t be controlled

    James Madison, Father of our Constitution, said in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that if there were an Art. V Convention: “the most violent partizans”, and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country.

    In Federalist No. 49, Madison warns against a convention to correct breaches of the Constitution. He said the legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention and would be in a position to control the outcome of a convention. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

    In Federalist No. 85 (last para), Alexander Hamilton said he“dreads” the consequences of another convention because the enemies of the Constitution want to get rid of it. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

    Our first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay wrote that another convention would run an "extravagant risque" http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1787-jay-address

    US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 editorial in The Miami Herald that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution; and that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda would almost certainly be unenforceable.” https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2014/12

    US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly :“…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention…” http://eagleforum.org/topics/concon/pdf/WarrenBur

    "After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop theConvention if we don’t like its agenda…”“…A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”

    US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on April 17, 2014 at the 1:06 mark of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4&f

    "I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. I mean, whoa! Who knows what would come out of that?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4&f

    HERE are additional letters and articles by eminent Jurists and scholars to the same effect. http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2007/Minutes/Senate/Exhib

    Yet convention supporters ridicule these warnings as “fear mongering .”

    And they quote law professor Scalia in 1979 , before his decades of experience as a Supreme Court Justice, to “prove” otherwise.
    Any person who does NOT seriously consider these warnings from these 6 men is a fool.

    One must ask, “Is it possible that James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Justice Jay, Justice Goldberg, Justice Burger and Justice Scalia understood something about the plenipotentiary powers of delegates to an Article V convention which I haven’t yet grasp?"
    # # # #

  10. kauai_mike says:

    The march to a global, totalitarian government is well underway and unstoppable. Technology is too sophisticated & in the hands of power brokers. The populace is too weak, scattered, and dumbed-down to care or fight. Prepare for a MadMax world of dog eat dog. Or not.

  11. Mark Preston says:

    From Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Getting the States to act is factitious. When every Supreme Court decision rests on which side has more of it's members on the Court, the only reasonable course for "belongs to the people" is to dismember their institutions and try anew.

    • Seeking Truth says:

      Interesting book, "Southern Independence. Why War?", by Charles T. Pace. Shotwell Publishing.
      Lincoln in 1858, argued in Congress that states had the right to secede. Isn't that what he said in the quote in your comment? The people have the right to change their government.
      Once elected President he denied the Southern states that right to change their government. Reading the above mentioned book you will find Lincoln provoked the war for the benefit of the Northern wealthy businessmen. He mentions in the quote, "constitutional right", and as we know, the Constitution does not grant rights; it is supposed to protect our inalienable right. Lincoln swore to uphold the Constitution, but he lied. In fact he lied about a lot of things. His actions destroyed the Republic, and instituted the Empire.
      As for a con-con, it can't be trusted. But it wouldn't really matter. The whole situation of the Constitution is so confused that few really understand it.
      The Constitution that people commonly believe we have today is not the Constitution of the United States of America. That was taken away through the 14th amendment. What we have now is the United States Constitution. There is a difference. Check out: http://noconstitutionforyou.blogspot.com/

  12. notpropagandized says:

    So true. And even declared constitutional conservatives reveal irrational paranoia that an Article 5 Convention of States can lead to a runaway convention and make our condition even worse. HOGWASH! We now live in a Runaway Constitutional Convention, every day. The time is now. If you do not want someday to be lifting arms against others to preserve you own freedoms, organize now!

  13. JIMBO says:

    Strictly speaking, the United States of America does not enjoy a constitutional republic. The U.S. Constitution has been altered throughout the nation’s history and continues to be changed by what is referred to as “judicial tyranny”. Thus has the Liberal or Statist myrmidons in the Legislature and mostly unknown administrative departments, manned by them gained gradual control of governance of We the People.
    Surely the Hegelian dialectic and thinking espoused by certain 19th century philosophers, including Karl Marx and later expanded under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao has had a crippling effect. Hegel’s concept that “…the state has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state…” is at once anathema to the Constitution. Moreover, it negates our two most revered documents- The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution- which define who we are and what we are, respectively.
    The principles contained therein provide a remedy against tyrannical regimes and governments. Those eternal principles provide We the People a Bulwark of Freedom which should never be tampered with. The exception lies in the provisions of Article Five in that Constitution, although fraught with opportunities for considerable chicanery. However, if government of, for, and by the people is to prevail, then such remedy may prove to be a distasteful medicine. Americans once pledged their Lives, their fortunes, and sacred honor to that end. Can we do any the less?

  14. Jim says:

    The starting place is to raise the voting age to 25. Change comes in baby steps.

    • Richard Lee Van Der says:

      Definitely YES! After the human brain is fully formed and experienced.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      That would be a start, and eliminate all the snowflakes residing in delusional academia, but I know many between the ages of 25-40 that are still infected with the Bernie Sanders "something for nothing" communist philosophy, as long as someone ELSE is footing the bill. Fact is, we have the remedy built into our Constitution, but the Radic-Libtards and their conspirators have so hoodwinked the masses, that the people think govt. is the remedy, when in fact it is the VERY ROOT OF THE PROBLEM, and is immoral, incompetent, and inefficient!

  15. Mic says:

    I agree with what some others have expressed. Be careful what you wish for you just might get it. While the concept of an Article 5 convention sounds good I doubt you would have a Jefferson, Washington, etc. there. You would probably end up with a bunch of statist and leftist that would use the occasion to rip away rights we want protected, i.e. the 2nd Amendment would be the first to go I am sure. It would also be used as an occasion to ADD power to the federal monster, not strip it away. If you doubt this simply look at the make up of the vast majority of politiicans and see for yourself because try as you might THOSE are kind of idiots that would end up making up the representatives to an Article 5 convention.

    I simply don't trust anyone to have the power to modify the existing Constitution when I know there are so many people who absolutely hate it and want to get rid of it. Finally, let's say you were successful in only getting real freedom loving liberty activist to a convention, which is a dream, but let's say you could do it. What is to keep the government and politicians that follow from simply ignoring or interpreting it differently as happens today.

  16. Rocketman says:

    I'm formally against a new convention. First off, name for me any living American politician that has the courage of a George Washington or the intellectual capacity of a Thomas Jefferson. You can't because there are none. The deep state would slip into the convention individuals like Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton, if not them directly, then their clones. And once the Convention began then EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE. Ignore the promises they would make to only go after a few topics. The Constitution was only introduced because The Articles of Confederation was too restrictive to the wishes of the big government types back then like Hamilton and Adams. This is their big chance to complete the final destruction of the Constitutional Republic and introduce a communist government and they are going to take it if they have the chance! What will work is to split up the country into about a dozen new countries and give the people five years to decide exactly where they want to live. This would prevent the next civil war and would hopefully save some part of what still exists of the Republic.

    • Patricia says:

      Your final comment is, of course, the only real solution – and it will happen, but not quickly. Throughout history nations, empires and countries have fallen because of corruption. It will happen. There are far too many people with far too many diverse interests on this piece of the continent called the United States, to be fairly governed from a spot on the map that is smaller than a pinpoint. Order comes from Chaos. Universal law of nature. Our present system is really not fixable anymore than the Roman empire was. We live in a revolutionary time. A convention of states would not work in this environment simply because the representatives to the convention would be, by their very ability to be "elected"(which means spending a lot of money influencing their "constituents"), already corrupted by monied interests and not listening to the silent majority who are the working class people who don't have time or money to spend pandering to the ego of yet another type of politician.

  17. D Frank Robinson says:

    In theory an Article V convention is a sound idea. Unfortunately, it comes a century too late. Our ancestors voted to accept serfdom in the Progressive Era as necessary and proper for imperial grandeur. Today, if an Art V convention would serve as a catalyst for a popular uprising, then it could be considered seriously while the Deep State secret police infiltrate and disrupts the effort.

  18. Common Sense says:

    As I see it, the simple fact is that we are all bound by the contract called the constitution–IMPLICITLY. It's the law of implied contracts, and the consent is derived by the conduct of the parties. You stay, you obey.

    As for the founders, they were acting on behalf of a legal artificial entity known as the Federal Government, NOT in their own personal capacities. Corporations, individual states, and the federal government all have legal rights in themselves.

  19. Seeking Truth says:

    If a Constitutional Convention were to be held, any alterations to the United States Constitution would be done by citizens of the United States. Those alterations would not apply to the Constitution of the United States of America.
    The United States is not the same as the United States of America. They are two different places.
    The United States Constitution is different from the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Long story; details here; http://noconstitutionforyou.blogspot.com/

  20. Jay says:

    Going to have to get together and do something, there are no more New Worlds left.

    Matthew 12:46-50
    46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

    48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

  21. smucko says:

    RJR, this is the most surprising and disappointing blog that I have ever seen from you in over 30 years. Why would you open up a Constitutional Convention in today's climate that would allow the barbarians inside the gates to legitimize their version of an "anything goes democracy"? And for what reason? Other than a goal of "taking as much power as possible away from the federal government", you don't cite one problem with the Constitution itself that needs correcting. We don't need to change the constitution, but we do need to change out the people in government, starting with Congress and the President. They could then take care of the Deep State. Of course, to change out the Congress, you have to convince the voters that our only hope is to elect constitutional candidates, and the only way to get people to change their attitude is a "life-altering event" that changes their lives. THAT is coming, in spite of your previous efforts to win them over to our side. Only after the average citizen is walking around in a daze asking himself "How did this happen in our country?" will people be ready to change. Probably take 20 years to come out on the other side. Better stick with your guns and religion, and find like-minded people to associate with.

  22. Paul Herring says:

    This seems to be a radical view of government/s, Robert. Are you suggesting that no human government is capable of ruling over its citizens? And is that because those making up government, including politicians, are imperfect, therefore subject to looking after themselves, first, second, third and thirty-third to the detriment of those they rule over?

    You quoted Winston Churchill as being “quite insightful when he opined that ‘[Democracy is] the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.’” And there have been many forms of government tried down through the ages aside from democracy. Dictatorships, plutocracies, communism, fascism, Islamic republics, absolutely monarchies – the list goes on. Have any of them worked to the good of their citizens? Have any delivered peace and security to ALL of their citizens, not just to those who administer the government and who also control the money supply?

    That said, to some degree even these provided the essentials: water, power, roads, a police force and laws ostensibly making those countries liveable, if not exactly secure.

    By contrast, will anarchy do that? Or will that bring the law of the jungle, dog-eat-dog, every man for himself?

    The only one not considered here is theocracy – rule by God. The Israelites had that form of government for 1,500 years and it worked for them. As long as they held to God’s laws even larger nations couldn’t conquer them. But when they left off doing God’s will―what he wanted them to do―their communities fell into disarray.

    So what am I saying here? The Bible is clear when it says in two places what effect man’s rule has brought. For example, at Jeremiah 17:23 it says: “I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” What does that mean? That God didn’t purpose for man to rule himself in the first place – ‘to direct his step or someone else’s’.

    This has been largely ignored, delivering what outcome? The second place referred to above is at Ecclesiastes 8:9 “All of this I have seen, and I applied my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, during the time that man has dominated man to his harm.”

    Thanks again for the chance to write. Interesting subject and a very serious one.

  23. Nasdaq7 says:

    Redistribution of wealth:

    "Vote for me, I steal for you"…

  24. Jack Wibby says:

    For those of you who oppose a COS, please remember that any suggested amendments emerging therefrom must be ratified by 38 states in order to become a part of the U.S. Constitution. And I would ask you, given that the federal government is spending us into bankruptcy, what other choice do we have? Or do we just give up and say to hell with our posterity?

  25. JIMBO says:

    Mr. W:

    A tip of my hat to you, sir. You understand. I believe there are 12 states who have signed to this thus far. A long way to go but hope springs eternal. I think the entire political process is in a state of limbo pending certain economic outcomes viz a vis pushback from the Chinese re: the inplacement of tariffs on their goods. I would rather see an attack on their banks and currency. -JIMBO

  26. Charles N. Steele says:

    I completely agree that we need an Article V Convention of States. Where I disagree is your claim, a common one, that "… elected officials, government bureaucrats, and judges do not support the Constitution. At best, they ignore it…"

    Remember when President Hillary Clinton was sworn into office because she won the popular vote and had the support of the Washington establishment, the MSM, the university intelligentsia, and the rest of the political class, despite losing according to the Constitution? Neither do I. In fact, much as they hate it, the political class grudgingly follows the Constitution. The problem is that the Constitution is a manmade document and hence has flaws and ambiguities (e.g. poorly defined Commerce Clause or "general welfare") that the exploit. An Article V Convention (not a Constitutional Convention) can rectify some of these problems. In particular, it can eliminate the administrative-regulatory state and impose a balanced budget amendment.

    The statists will always find new ground to exploit — the struggle for liberty requires eternal vigilance, and utopia is never acheiveable — but this would set them back a good century or two.