The destructive events of the last few weeks rolled around endlessly in Jina’s mind. Everything she loved in her life had come crashing down around her. Tossing and turning, she watched each hour come and go, rolling on towards the morning. For a moment, her thoughts drifted to that time when all was right and she was filled with hope and promise. She recalled her journey down the aisle of the beautifully decorated, small country church. She thought of that walk upon rose pedals through the smiles and tears of joy filling the eyes of her family and friends. She had clung to her father’s arm, until they arrived at the altar where he gave her away to be married to her new husband Morris. There she promised love and faithfulness to him and they began their new life together. She will never forget the sound of his voice, reciting his vows to her… promising her his everlasting faithfulness, and to forsake all others as long as he lived. She never imagined his vows were doomed to be shattered just a few short years later. It was a somewhat stereotypical story. Morris had friends at work. On Friday nights, he would go with them as they celebrated the end of the week. She never doubted his faithfulness… until it was too late.
broken vows
Fortunately, the story in the preceding paragraph is fictional. Morris was the infamous star of another blog article, Born to be a Car Thief, but this was the first time we met Jina. I wanted to open with this story to illustrate an argument I heard recently. Someone was speaking against having a Convention of States. He presented the argument that, “In a marriage, if someone is breaking marriage vows, we don’t need to go back and change the vows – there is nothing wrong with the vows – we need both parties to keep the original vows they made!” Frankly, I thought the argument made a lot of sense. It made so much sense that it really made me think. Do we need to go back and change our marriage vows – our very Constitution – in response to the federal government failing to abide by the principles of limited government upon which our nation was founded?
divorcing the government
As I thought on that subject, I tried to create in my mind a tragic scenario like the one that Jina found herself living through in our opening paragraph. Realistically speaking, what will likely happen in Morris and Jina’s situation will be a divorce. When we speak on a national level, a “divorce” between parties of the United States Constitution starts to look like states taking sides against the federal government. We have seen that kind of thing in our country before. May we never repeat it!
something has to change
Alternatively, in our fictional story, what would need to happen for Morris and Jina to NOT have a divorce? Morris has clearly broken the vows – the terms of the marriage covenant where he had promised to forsake all others. How can he make that right again with Jina? I am no expert on relationships, but it seems clear to me that if they have any chance to make it, at a minimum they are going to need some new rules in their family. I promise you Jina is not going to try this thing again with Morris continuing to go out with his friends! And if he ever goes anywhere near that other woman again, there’s a good chance someone is not going to make it! So, I agree their relationship is in dire trouble. Their marriage may not make it. But if their marriage is going to have any chance at all, there will have to be some new rules. These new rules will not be to introduce new concepts or in any way to “fix” something wrong with their marriage vows – but to restore the original heart and spirit of those vows. That is exactly why our nation needs a Convention of States. We need to restore the heart and spirit of our original Constitution.
13 Independent countries
Our nation is in trouble. We started out as 13 independent countries – all fully capable of governing ourselves. These countries came together to make a contract – a set of vows, if you will. Each country would retain almost all of its autonomy, except a short list of specific items they thought would be better delegated to the federal government to be done on behalf of all of them together. They were vows that would ensure faithfulness of the parties to this agreement. They were vows that activities and behaviors destructive to the relationship were “off limits”. What kind of marriage can exist when either party ignores the vows that bonded them together? Yet, that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today as we see our “vows”, the limits of the federal government’s activities, being ignored, or even actively attacked in our society today.
convention of states
Ladies and gentlemen, we need an Article 5 Convention of States. We don’t need it because something was wrong with our original vows. We need the convention because the parties to the agreement have not been faithful to what they promised! It is not reasonable to think that Morris and Jina will be able to just keep going and pretend none of this happened, and to just quietly resume their commitment to their vows as if all is well. Nor will “We the People” be able to pretend the federal government has always stuck to the principles of limited government as found in our original Constitution.
change the locks
At the very least, Morris should expect the locks to be changed, and to not to be allowed back into the home until he agrees to new rules around here. No more running around with his buddies and picking up strange women. Our federal government should expect the locks to be changed and the States to use the Constitutional authority granted by our founders to enforce limited government. Term limits, a balanced budget, and fiscal restraints to control spending, are common sense starting points that the states should require to begin the process of healing the damaged relationship with the federal government.
limit behavior
Morris’ behavior is limited – by design – by the vows he made to Jina. Our federal government’s behavior is limited – by design – by the vows made at the Constitutional convention, and the ratifying conventions. We need a Convention of States not because something is wrong with those original vows, but because they are not being kept. If we don’t use the tools our founders gave us, if we don’t do something to enforce limited government, then our nation – like Morris and Jina’s marriage – will likely soon be lost.
Good article. Just don’t think COS is safe to do with our current state of things. If we cannot trust the officials we keep getting then how are going to entrust the selection of delegates to the COS.
Thank you for your comment. One of our family’s favorite movies is “Facing the Giants”. When they are in the big game at the end the coaches are discussing whether to use “trick plays”. One of them is afraid to do that because if their opponent catches on, they will be toast. The coach Grant Taylor says if they don’t get some points on the board, they will be toast anyway! So they decide to use the trick plays… I think that is kind of where we are. Sometimes it is dangerous to pull out the trick plays and do the flea flicker, or the double reverse, or the fake punt, or whatever. Things can go wrong when you play at that level of desperation. But I am afraid if we don’t take some chances and get some points on the board, then I am afraid it will soon be too late and we will lose our country and our form of limited government. I wish the events of the game were not such that was making it desperately necessary. Fortunately, whatever a convention would propose, there is still a high bar to ratification – 3/5 of the states have to ratify anything for it to become part of the Constitution. So, that is a built in safety net, thanks to the foresight of our amazing founders. So, I guess I share your concern, but I am of the opinion that we gotta try it before it’s too late. Thank you for reading and for your comment!
Great article! Love the easy to understand analogy; makes it easy to then turn around and use that in conversation with others about COS.
Thank you! Yes, when I first heard the argument against COS on this basis, it really made me think. But the more I thought of the analogy, the more it convinced me we need a convention! Thank you for your comment!
This is an understandable article as to why we need a Convention of States; thank you for taking time to put this together.
Yes Maam! You are very welcome. Thank you for your kind words and for your comment!
Thank you for taking the time to formulated the words, thoughts and justification for utilizing Article 5 of our United States Constitution. Our forefathers painstakingly spent many hours, weeks, and months to pen a document that would be a guide to rule one Nation of people under God with various backgrounds. They did this at a personal cost.
As I read this article, I thought of the covenants God has had with mankind. Writings of our forefathers show their convenant relationship with God was paramount in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. So, what is different today from that period of time? The heart and spirit of the people. Our faithfulness and personal relationship with God, as a people, is not the same. Independent, self-sufficient, moral corruption, and lack of accountability for personal choices have become the fault of the actions of others. Leaderships at the federal, state, and local levels are not held accountable for their indiscretions. Bureaucracy has become the medium that feeds on the freedom of the people to which it is to serve.
Returning to the ways of our forefathers would be returning to God. The people must recognize the errors of their ways and repent. Today, believers in God repent whenever they recognize they have veered from God’s Word. To repent encourages a stronger, more meaningful relationship. To do so is an avenue to a stronger and healthier United States of America.
Amen and amen Glenn! I told RaShell we should copy your comment here and post it as a blog article! Yes, I agree with your assessment of our current position, and I totally agree we as a nation must repent and turn back to God. May we do exactly that! Thank you for your comment.
Jason and RaShell, May you see God’s blessings in your lives. As you continue the important role of encouraging individuals to study and understand the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution may they, as well, see God’s righteous involvement. May God be glorified by our actions and words as we encourage others to see His majesty in our Nation.
Amen – thank you so much. Your comments are so encouraging. Yes, may God be glorified in this nation again that all may see His amazing hand at work throughout our history. Thank you!
While I support the COS, “We the People” are in the final down with one second left on the game clock. I am also in full support of TEXIT, along with over half a million other Texans. One way or the other, the people will prevail. Weather we work things out by utilizing Article 5 or precede with the Divorce via TEXIT. The answer is the same. Something MUST change!
Thank you for your comment! I have not spent a lot of time looking into TEXIT. I know the heart of it is similar to the Convention of States. My biggest concerns (and again, I haven’t really looked into it) are: the last time states seceded, things did not go peacefully and I want to make sure we don’t repeat that scenario. Secondly, from what I have seen of the Austin swamp, it is just as bad or worse than anything in Washington. I also love our Constitution and would not want to lose it. For these reasons, I believe COS is the better course of action, but I also do appreciate good conversation between those who know and love our Constitution, so I welcome the discussion. Thank you again for your comment!