Convention of States Progress: 19 and counting...

Sign the petition and get involved to become part of the largest self-governing grassroots army America has ever seen! If you're a State Legislator trying to learn more about an Article V Convention of States,  click here for an overview by our president and co-founder Mark Meckler and former US Senator Rick Santorum

Let's see...Mark Levin, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Allen West, Sen. Rand Paul, Charlie Kirk, David Barton, Sarah Palin, Thomas Sowell, Gov. Greg Abbott, James O'Keefe, David Horowitz and many other like-minded patriots support the effort to hold an Article V Convention of States.

Your name sure would look good on that list too. Sign the petition today!

The liberal and conservative establishment only really care about maintaining the status quo and getting everything they can out of their political careers, so it's easy for them to claim to be "Constitutionalists" while opposing half of Article V put in the Constitution by the Framers in 1787.

David Horowitz is a former out-spoken leftist who has dedicated his life to "exposing the evils of the American left." Today, he is widely considered to be the lead scholar, expert and writer on the history, tactics, propaganda and operations of the American left. His work at the David Horowitz Freedom Center is unparalleled--and he's an out-spoken supporter of Convention of States.

Establishment politicians take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution," but many of them believe it was illegally adopted. Could this be why many of the decisions and votes they make don't seem to be congruent with the Constitution? Explore the nonsense they believe about the origin of the Constitution and why they're wrong about it, and you'll understand just how much creedence to give their opinion on constitutional issues, like Article V. Click here for an 18 minute video presentation explaining this well-documented, peer-reviewed legal analysis of the integrity of our Framers and the rock-solid legitimacy of our founding charter--The Constitution of the United States of America.

Legal wannabes among some liberal and conservative groups claim the absence of procedural guidance in Article V means the rules governing a Convention of States are unknown at best or would be controlled by Congress at worst. Yet the Constitution also mentions trial by jury, writ of habeus corpus, bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, etc. without providing any instruction on these procedures either. Have these concepts been "mysteries" to us? Has Congress been allowed to make up its own definitions and rules for those procedures too?

Our nation's premier Article V constitutional scholar unravels this supposed "mystery" in a peer-reviewed refutation of establishment folklore. 

Since critics and fearmongers about an Article V Convention of States have flippantly changed the language to call it a "constitutional convention," why shouldn't they just keep making up other falsehoods about a convention for proposing amendments?

Some self-styled "constitutionalists" manipulate the language in Article V to call "a convention for proposing amendments" by changing it to "a constitutional convention," and they imagine the 10th Amendment creates a path for States to selectively ignore federal laws they don't like. How's that working out for them?

Imagine a federal government that does what the states, who created it, tell it to do. Actually, it's settled law.

Isn't it interesting that fearmongers keep singling out supposed "dangers" to this Amendment? It appears they know who their target audience is, and they want to keep those with a whole-hearted commitment to the Constitution from trusting and following Article V. 

Decide for yourself whether it makes more sense to trust the motives and intent of the Framers of our Constitution and what they unanimously established in Article V, or the agendas and ambitions of today's establishment politicians and those arguing in favor of maintaining the status quo.

Some well-meaning citizens attempt to reason, "If the swamp in DC doesn't follow the Constitution now, why would they follow an amendment to it?" This perspective ignores the historical effect of the clarifying language amendments provide.