This amendment is unnecessary. There's no authority delegated in the Constitution for the federal government to do Medicare, Medicaid, FAA, CDC, etc. The Bill of Rights ensure that we are a free people. The courts eventually confirmed this, mostly. How they justified the mandates for hospital workers and military members, etc. is beyond me. Or, how an employer could mandate them as the vaccines were clearly not a requirement of any position. What is needed is an amendment banning the government from awarding lebal liability immunity to anyone (including corporations) for any reason.

Expand full comment

Now THIS is something to get behind!!! In addition repealing the PREP Act, WARP speed and all other laws used for this c19 scam and incoming that gives the HHS secretary the sole right to call a PHE on a real or perceived pandemic then order countermeasures he “believes” are effective. That’s it!! That’s all that is needed. No safety even mentioned. Doesn’t even need to be proven effective. Just the secretaries belief it is effective! It’s INSANE. So anything we can do to break up this killbox they currently have us in, let’s do it!

Katherine Watts & Sasha Latypova who was just on ur show have extensive information on all of this. I wish you were there to interview her. You have to have both of them on to talk about this. It’s ALL THAT MATTERS right now. Especially with incoming WHO stuff. We are running out of time.

Expand full comment

The idea of amending the Constitution is Fundamentally Flawed. The Problem is NOT any lack of fault in the wording of the Constitution. What is lacking is the Will of The People to hold their politicians & bureaucrats accountable for their actions, or inactions. ... As written, 90 or more percent of what the federal government does is NOT authorized by the Constitution, and is therefore ILLEGAL. But they DO it anyway. ... It is the Will of The People to GET EDUCATED and BE INVOLVED and KEEP the PRESSURE on the governmental people that is necessary. THAT is where the Power & Remedy lies. Otherwise, George Bush was, unfortunately, CORRECT when he said the Constitution is "just a piece of paper." The Constitution, in and of itself, can do or fix NOTHING. ... We the People need to be visiting our legislators & bureaucrats on a frequent basis and hold them to their obligations described in the State & Federal Constitutions. But to think "The Constitution," no matter how eloquent the wording, can "do it for us" is just a Shirking of Responsibility. ... The People get the government they deserve.

Expand full comment

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to

secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving

their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any

Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right

of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in

such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and

Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long

established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and

accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed

to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by

abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long

train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object

evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their

right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new

Guards for their future security.

Expand full comment

Keep phrase here is Among these.

Expand full comment


Expand full comment

Without Men to do their Duty, Nothing matters.

Expand full comment
Apr 10·edited Apr 10

All of the problems of past 4 years were already completely illegal according to any reasonable/common sense interpretation of the US constitution (and international law and laws of most countries). It didn't matter - the govt has been doing unconstitutional things for a very long time with impunity.

My guess is the only way to swing this is if the full details of the many horrors come fully into the open coupled with truly massive unprecedented givernmrnt-toppling public outrage. At that point I suspect one would suddenly find prosecutors competing in willingness to prosecute and judges willing to convict - all under the existing laws, which of course say you can't lock people in their homes, close their businesses, or forcibly inject them with poison, or any of the other nonsense we've endured.

But without mass public acknowledgement of what has happened, and 1945-level public outrage, it will be difficult to see any accountability no matter what any laws say.

Expand full comment

You’ll probably need a convention of states to amend. That has been in the works for years. Easier to get “medical status” or “medical records” and “vaccine status” added as protected EEO categories.

Expand full comment

As Mckeetitty (on this thread) said: "We don't need to amend the Constitution. We need to ENFORCE it. ... Nothing about the past four years has been constitutional... NOTHING!"

Expand full comment

A.) Steve voted D up until recently, which shows you that, even well into adulthood, he was mediocre-at-best in his thinking about the Constitution and the American political tradition.

B.) An Amendment to enact Steve's first four provisions, and an amendment to make amendment easier are two very distinct issues. It would be entirely consistent for someone to be very much in favor of the former, and very much against the latter.

C.) Ignore those who insist on the necessity or magic of a new Convention--the Article V provisions for any amendment., 3/4 of the state legislatures or STATE conventions, and 2/3 of Congress, apply regardless of which path you take. Having begun the process with a by-the-rules Convention of delegates doesn't change that.

D.) Originalism is the correct philosophy for judicial interpretation. Period. (This is why 30 years or so of voting D, which was always a vote for the illogical & corrosive philosophy of living constitutionalism, is evidence of civic irresponsibility.)

E.) To enact an easier path to amendment is to up the chances BOTH of very good outcomes, and very bad ones. It is not something to try unless the Republic is pretty sick. Even if your doing it allowed you to save the Republic circa 2020s/2030s, later on it is certain that some very stupid amendments would get enacted. (Of course, the stupidity would then be easier to repeal also.)

F.) The Republic is very sick. The depredations of the last 4 years, which have all taken place in the wake of the conservatives finally reaching the goal of a majority-originalist SCOTUS, shows you that the plans of the progressivist and technocratic tyrant-oligarchs could unfold entirely aside from the power of the Courts. It was a conservative delusion to have worked so hard to place originalist guardians in the area where the many of the most disturbing attacks on the constitutional order circa 1960s-2010s had been occurring, but to have done nothing to place similar guardians in the areas of administrative law-making, big media, education, and election security. Oh, and in that of pandemic policy! 2020-2024 reveals that the Constitution could be chucked even with originalists having a majority on the Court. The people could be so corrupted, so demoralized, so etcetera, that the grossest of anti-democracy power plays could be gotten away with. (Sure, the Const. still stands, but who has been punished? Were these not bids for tyranny?) And don't forget that the Dems in 2021 were one or two votes away from federalizing election oversight, and maybe ten or so votes away from packing SCOTUS.

G.) Thus, I do not think it is against conservative political philosophy or against proper constitutional reverence to be for making the Constitution somewhat easier to amend. As for whether it is good tactics, that is a question which shifts about. But I know--and this is where I pull out my PhD. in pol. sci. and my several years of teaching con-law and put them on the table--that it WOULD NOT CONTRADICT ORIGINALISM. Indeed, there are writings of Scalia where he comes close to arguing what I have, that in having made the Const. so difficult to amend, the natural pressures to adjust it would come out in judges doing defacto amendment under the cover of "Living Constitution" interpretation.

H.) Thus, even over a decade ago, I argued for what I called the "Responsibility Amendment," an amendment of Article V which would take the thresholds down to 55 and 66 percent, respectively, of Congress, and of state legislatures (or conventions). The present 66 percent and 75 percent are too high to allow anything but the most widely-backed amendments. No amendment of any partisan dispute can pass. Only amendments with widest popular support, or more likely, with widest "uniparty"/elite-class support, can pass. I provide more of my reasoning there. https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/08/mark-levin-meet-herbert-croly

I.) The chances of getting that Responsibility Amendment, however, are very slim. For the same reasons the chances for getting any amendment are. Generally, we are going to have to rely on statutes in regular legislation, national and state.

Expand full comment

I think you'll find that the Constitution is no longer what you think it is. Research US Corporation.

Expand full comment

Most of the "ideas" about a "U.S. Corporation" are based on the Organic Act of 1871 creating a local government for the District of Columbia. It is alleged that Act turned the entire United States into a nationwide, Totalitarian Corporation and "displaced" the original U.S. Constitution. But if you actually READ the Organic Act of 1871 (I read it three times), you have to REALLY stretch your imagination to believe that interpretation, and you have to redefine what a "municipal corporation" is. (A municipal corporation is a legal entity for a community to do regular, day-to-day business, although admittedly with the socialist elements of limited liability.) And you have to ignore the fact that at three places in the Act of 1871, they specifically stated that the Act had to conform to the intent of the original U.S. Constitution. ... I am NOT the only one who has come to this conclusion. There are several Constitutional scholars who have the same opinion. ... This is along the lines of saying we are all mini-corporations controlled by the BIG corporation because our names are in ALL CAPS on our Birth Certificate, and that puts us under maritime or admiralty law. Well, MY birth certificate does NOT have my name in ALL CAPS.

Expand full comment

Yes, but if the men/women (the people) living in a state of the union outside of the United States (Fed zone), confuse themselves with persons (legal fiction) subject to the United States (government) as U.S. citizens and follow executive orders and other Acts not meant for them, who is to blame? 99% of the people are unaware. The other 1% are in on the controlling. It is devious for sure, but I am not sure it is illegal when people provide their Consent.

Expand full comment

As noted below, the best way is likely via the States, not via Congress. You'll need 3/4 of the States approve it. Perhaps already underway, we desperately need another Constitutional Convention. I'd imagine most Republican governed states would be onboard to take back some power and then you'd only need 1/2 of 1/2 states (Democratic controlled) but there seems to be 9 of those that have some sort of public citizen referendum process.

Expand full comment

What "The Country" (or "We The People") NEED is to do is go back to the Original Limits of the U.S. Constitution — AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN — and bring EVERYTHING back down to the fully DE-centralized, localized activities within OUR communities, counties, and the States. We need to ALL become Fed-Free Zones. ... There is almost NOTHING the federal government does that we cannot do at local levels. ... Except start unnecessary, highly destructive wars, of course. EVERY war since and including the Civil War was NOT about "fighting for our Rights & Freedoms." ALL the wars were ALL about advancing the interests of the military / industrial / banking / academic complex.

Expand full comment

The states depend too much on money from executive branch. You’re right in saying we need to get back to De-centralizing. God knows we do! They’ll never do it though because they won’t get the funding. All the states let a lot of control go over the years so now it’s hard for them to assert independence. It’s so fucked up. I believe we should all be working on this vet thing. Getting laws changed & taking our states back!

Expand full comment

ABSOLUTELY, Heather! People in Prescott, Arizona are developing the Yavapai County Preparedness Teams ( YCPT.org ) to get a Parallel Economy going. We ALL need to RE-Learn what local, community-based living is and how to DO it. Until that happens, we will all be at the mercy of the centralized totalitarian authoritarians.

Expand full comment

YES! ... Robert Brown's videos on the Constitution at the John Birch Society website are EXCELLENT!

Expand full comment

BIRX WAS THE ONE who personally wrote ALL of the official White House Policy to every governor.

Listen and Watch this. I guarantee you learn something you didn't know!


Expand full comment

We don't need to amend the Constitution. We need to ENFORCE it.

Nothing about the past four years has been constitutional... NOTHING!

Expand full comment


Expand full comment


1st is to go through Devolution.

2nd is to take out the trash as Devolution is a huge enormous global way to gut the deep state of its working against the people and animals and the earth/globe.

3rd is we will be changing out elections worldwide to have a Global Constitution. Quantum all things learning going forward. We will have half a congress as the power will go back to the people of their states. Limited Government. All countries of people will be in the new realm of Limited Government. What will it look like? Glorious.

Expand full comment

Requires a COS (constitution of states)…a legal movement already underway. This is a very potent and powerful constitutional process for amending the Us constitution, and is led by a majority of states. A number of states have already passed state amendments to engage this process.

Expand full comment

You are mistaken...Last year, 2023, and so far in 2024, COS has been defeated in every state they tried to peddle their empty promises. Even yesterday they were defeated in Idaho. As the truth about the Article V Convention, meaning what actually is written in the text of our Constitution comes out, as citizens are fully informed, they want nothing to do with calling for an Article V Con-Con.

Expand full comment

As Mckeetitty above said: "We don't need to amend the Constitution. We need to ENFORCE it. ... Nothing about the past four years has been constitutional... NOTHING!"

Expand full comment

There is a movement for term limits on House of Representatives and Senators for two terms. See who is working on that.

I would contact Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore, Alan Dershowitz, Ron Paul, Dave Smith (comedian and libertarian), Bill Maher, Jose Vega ( from Bronx running for House of Representatives), Tucker Carlson, Rand Paul, Glen Greenwald and Governor Ron DeSantis to generate publicity.

It will require support from people in both parties. There are so many RINOs running around it is hard to know amongst Republicans.

Expand full comment

As I posted above, during all of 2023, COS has been defeated in every state they tried to peddle their empty promises. And, so far in 2024 they have lost every attempt. Just yesterday they were defeated in Idaho. As legislators are fully informed about how dangerous this process actually is, they want nothing to do with it.

Expand full comment

Constitutional Convention would be very risky

By Ed Regan

| November 27, 2022 12:00 AM

“I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that.” — Justice Antonin Scalia, April 17, 2014.

Two hundred and thirty-five years ago America held its first and only Constitutional Convention. A new constitution was born in 1787. It is considered to be a one of the finest legal documents ever written. One par with the Magna Carta and believed by many to have been divinely inspired. Holding a new constitutional convention today, as some are suggesting, could end up being a disaster.

Again, on Dec. 8, 2015, Justice Scalia repeated his warning against a new convention when he warned the Federalist Society that “A Constitutional Convention is a horrible idea. This is not a good century to write a constitution”.

An organization calling themselves the Convention of States has been promoting the idea that the answer to all our nation’s problems can be solved by having 34 states apply to Congress under Article V to convene a Constitutional Convention (Con–Con). To persuade conservative state legislators into supporting the convention, COS has promised that a convention would be limited to a single issue, such as a balanced budget. Montana has voted no on a federal Con-Con every session since the mid-1980s. Dark money is being spent all over the United States promoting this bad idea. The only defense against this onslaught of propaganda has been private citizens working to inform their neighbors and representatives to oppose the convention.

We can expect another attempt to push this through the next session that begins in January of 2023. Voters need to be contacting their representatives before the session begins and let them know your views on the Con-Con.

Both sides of the aisle have their pet proposals for making changes to the Constitution. Partisan proposals include such topics as a balanced budget amendment, reigning in government, public financing of elections, abolish the electoral college and revisiting the Second Amendment.

In each instance the promoters claim that their proposed convention could be limited to a single issue. Since 1787 all 27 amendments to the Constitution have been passed without calling a convention.

Though some of these ideas may have merit, the problem with using the convention method in Article V is that is poses a danger to our existing form of government with all its checks and balances. The Congress in 1787 tried to limit the Philadelphia Convention, however the delegates ignored those instructions and ended up rewriting the Articles of Confederation giving us a completely new constitution and different structure of government. To gain approval for their new constitution the delegates even changed the ratification requirements from thirteen states to nine. A modern-day convention would have the same power to change everything. Conventions are sovereign bodies representing the people at large, it has power and scope that supersedes established governments. An Article V Convention cannot be limited.

While our nation was blessed to have men the caliber and character of Washington, Madison and Franklin back in 1787, can we trust putting the fate of our constitution, including the Second Amendment, in the hands of today’s politicians and special interests? James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned in 1788 that a second convention “would no doubt contain individuals with insidious views seeking to alter the very foundation and fabric of the Constitution.”

Unfortunately, the convention promoters keep resurfacing at the start of every legislative session. One can only assume they are trying to catch the new people off guard. However, once these representatives start to hear opposition from their home districts, they usually pay close attention and do what’s right.

Please help defeat the second convention Madison warned us about by contacting your representatives and registering your opposition to any joint resolution that might come up in the 2023 legislative session that calls for enacting an Article V Convention or a Conference of States (same meaning, semantic head fake).

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 20, 1982 President Ronald Reagan stated: “Well, constitutional conventions are kind of prescribed as a last resort, because then once it’s open, they could take up any number of things.”

Ed Regan lives in Townsend.

Expand full comment

As I said in a Post up above about a Post above that: "As Mckeetitty above said: "We don't need to amend the Constitution. We need to ENFORCE it. ... Nothing about the past four years has been constitutional... NOTHING!"

Expand full comment