(Disclaimer: I realize this article is long. It is longer than any other article I’ve posted in the last decade. This subject has been on my mind since I worked at the Freedom Foundation over 10 years ago, and first met some of the original Convention of States activists – good people, trying to do the right thing, but unaware of the risks. I hope we can avoid the unintended, but inevitable consequences of their well-intentioned, misguided plans)

TO RECEIVE THE LATEST NEWS FROM WE THE GOVERNED DELIVERED STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX – SUBSCRIBE HERE
Support We the Governed – MAKE A DONATION HERE

Relentless Opposition: The Continuing Campaign to Undermine Trump

The campaign to unseat Donald Trump is nothing short of a national obsession for the Left. From the moment he stepped onto the political stage, Trump wasn’t just opposed—he was targeted, and with a ferocity that borders on pathological. Investigations, impeachments, and lawsuits became less about governance and more about theater—a four-year spectacle for those who viewed his presidency as an existential affront. While Trump’s supporters saw him as a disruptor, the establishment saw him as a virus to be eradicated.

What started with a minor Presidential phone call to Ukraine, became a convoluted affair which turned into absurd impeachment drama. Trump survived it, of course, but the process left the country more fractured than ever. Then came the storm of January 6, 2021, with Trump accused of inciting insurrection. The result? Another impeachment, another acquittal, but the twice-impeached label stuck, giving his opponents a shiny new trophy for their mantelpiece. And yet, that wasn’t enough. Even after leaving office, Trump has been buried under legal battles—from civil suits to criminal investigations, to claims about classified documents that feel more like the plot of a cheesy made-for-budget-TV political thriller than actual governance. Who actually believes that the various crews organizing this couldn’t co-opt a convention of states?

But this isn’t just a legal or political war. The cultural front has been just as relentless. #Resist. #NotMyPresident. Anti-Trump caricatures dominate Hollywood scripts, late-night monologues, and academic lectures. It’s not just opposition; it’s a secular exorcism. Trump, to his critics, isn’t merely wrong—he’s the root of all societal ills. His name evokes hisses in certain circles, as if simply speaking it might summon chaos.

The most troubling part? For some, the goal isn’t just to defeat Trump; it’s to erase him entirely, to rewrite history so that his presidency becomes a footnote, or better yet, a cautionary tale. And if achieving that requires blowing up the Constitution, so be it. After all, for these factions, no price is too steep. It’s not about reforming the system; it’s about ensuring Trump never has the chance to touch it again.

---

A Massive New Threat to Trump: The Dangers of a Convention of States

An Article V Convention of States may sound like the latest trendy pet project for hyper-caffeinated activists, living in dreamland, but make no mistake—this isn’t your typical Capitol Hill circus. It’s an existential threat to the Trump Administration and, more importantly, to the United States as we know it. Imagine a room full of self-appointed saviors rewriting the rules of the republic, all while the public cheers them on, blissfully unaware of the chaos that awaits. That’s what we’re discussing here.

The brilliance—and tragedy—of the Convention of States initiative is that it draws its lifeblood from the Conservative wing of the American activist class. Patriotic, well-meaning conservatives who think they’re fixing the Constitution are, in fact, handing the Left the keys to dismantle it. It’s the kind of unintentional collaboration Lenin would’ve toasted, calling these folks his “useful idiots.” And the Left? Oh, they’re loving every minute of it. To them, this is not a constitutional amendment process—it’s a constitutional do-over. A constitutional Monkey Wrench (See The Monkey Wrench Gang).  The radicals who dream of abolishing the Electoral College and turning every election into a federalized pageant of “equity” see this as their golden ticket.  They are probably right.

And here’s the kicker: Donald J. Trump is the Left’s lightning rod. He’s the polarizing figure that energizes their base like a triple-shot of ideological espresso. To these radicals, a Convention of States isn’t just a way to tweak the Constitution—it’s the ultimate Trump elimination strategy. What better time to strike than now, when the Right is helpfully serving up the means to their own undoing on a golden platter? If this freight train isn’t stopped, the Left won’t just derail Trump—they’ll derail America.

---

Competing Paths to Constitutional Chaos: Unwitting Allies on the Right

Ah, the Convention of States (CoS)—proof that the road to constitutional chaos is paved with good intentions and a remarkable and terrifying lack of foresight. Please go to their website linked here. Here we have a group of well-meaning, well-intentioned conservatives who, bless their hearts, think they’re saving the republic. Instead, they’re arming the Left with the very tools it needs to dismantle it. With resolutions already passed in 26 states, CoS is on the brink of achieving its goal: calling a Constitutional Convention. What they fail to grasp is that their noble-sounding initiative is little more than an engraved invitation for the Left to rewrite the Constitution in their image.

But wait, there’s more. Enter stage right: a band of cryptocurrency bigwigs who think the current Constitution is a bit too dusty for their modern tastes. Unlike CoS, these mavericks don’t even pretend a convention can be limited to amendments. No, they’ve got their sights set on a whole new Constitution, and they’re not wasting any time. This crew plans to have a shiny new framework drafted and ready to go—a framework tailor-made for a runaway convention.

Now, here’s the kicker: these two groups don’t even agree on what a convention should achieve, but their combined efforts could serve up America’s founding document on a platter for radicals on the Left. It’s the ultimate act of self-sabotage, a tragicomic alliance of the unwitting and the reckless. Together, they’re setting the stage for what may be the most catastrophic rewrite in American history.  The stakes are really this high.

---

History’s Warning: The Precedent of 1787

Now for those not poisoned by “Common Core”, remember the 1787 Constitutional Convention—the origin story of America’s governing document, complete with political drama, rule-breaking, and a level of improvisation that would make modern radicals green with envy. Conservatives today, bless them, look to Article V as though it’s a magic spell that will protect the Constitution from harm. “Propose amendments,” they say, as though those words could tether the ambitions of delegates once a convention begins. But history offers a less comforting reality because a Convention always makes its own rules.

Take the original convention. John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York stormed out, outraged that the delegates were tossing out the Articles of Confederation entirely instead of just tweaking them. The Articles required unanimous consent of all thirteen states, but who’s counting? The remaining delegates certainly weren’t—they simply dropped the threshold to nine states and carried on as though they hadn’t just rewritten the rules mid-game. Today, the same playbook could be dusted off and used to shift voting power from “one state, one vote” to a population-based model. Translation: California and New York call the shots, while Wyoming and Montana watch from the cheap seats – with binos, if they are lucky.

Even Madison, the great architect of the Constitution, couldn’t entirely gloss over the audacity of what had just happened. In Federalist Paper No. 40, he conceded that the convention had gone beyond its instructions, noting that the new framework would be ratified by the people—not the state legislatures—and could go into effect with just nine states’ approval. Necessary? Perhaps.  Most of us who care about Freedom and Liberty probably think so.   Was it a runaway convention? Absolutely. If it happened with Washington and Franklin in the room, what do you think will happen with modern-day activists armed with social media, click bait headlines, and an agenda? Spoiler: nothing good, assuming your definition of good includes individual freedom in the mix.

---

The Moral Authority of a Runaway Convention: Lessons from 1787

The Declaration of Independence isn’t just a dusty relic—it’s a ticking time bomb of revolutionary ideas, one of which declares that when a government tramples on the unalienable rights of its people, they have every right to “alter or abolish” it. This principle is the moral ace-in-the-hole for those arguing the legitimacy of a runaway convention, even if it barrels past its original mandate. Let’s be clear: the ultimate authority, as the Founders envisioned it, doesn’t rest with politicians or bureaucrats but with the people themselves. And history backs them up—the 1787 Constitutional Convention itself shredded its original instructions to merely “revise” the Articles of Confederation, choosing instead to draft an entirely new framework for governance. Why? Because the Articles weren’t cutting it, and the delegates leaned on the Declaration’s higher moral authority to justify their actions.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, never ones to shy away from a grandiose argument, defended the convention’s bold leap in The Federalist Papers. To them, it wasn’t mutiny; it was salvation. The Articles were a sinking ship, and the new Constitution was the lifeboat. They made their case with an air of inevitability: a government incapable of ensuring stability and liberty needs to be replaced. Simple as that. And by invoking the people’s natural rights as outlined in the Declaration, they painted their overreach as not just necessary but noble—a move beyond mere legalities to align with the unshakable foundation of human sovereignty.

Fast forward to today, and you can already hear the echoes. Modern proponents of a runaway convention are likely to grab this same rhetorical torch. Why wouldn’t they?  They’ll say that a convention is the ultimate act of the people’s sovereignty—a moment to correct systemic failures and reshape governance. It’s a seductive argument – I find it attractive myself, but in today’s political minefield, it’s also a recipe for disaster. What might have worked in 1787, under the stewardship of Washington and Madison, could become a chaotic free-for-all in the hands of today’s fractured factions.

---

Today’s Risks Far Surpass 1787

To be crystal clear, I am grateful the 1787 delegates exceeded their authority. I’ve read the Anti-Federalist Papers (opposition to the Constitution, mostly drafted by Patrick Henry) as well as the Federalist Papers, and while good points and genuine concerns were raised in opposition, I firmly side with the decision our forefathers gave us at the time.  Their audacity handed us the Constitution that has governed this country for more than two centuries—a necessary improvement over the Articles of Confederation. But let’s not kid ourselves: the conditions of 1787 are a far cry from today. Back then, we had Jefferson’s “assembly of demigods”—Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison—crafting a framework for the ages. Today? A modern Convention of States wouldn’t be graced by such wisdom or unity. Instead, we’d get a circus of division, short-sighted agendas, a bottomless pit of special interest cash, and power plays.

And here’s where the Founders, for all their brilliance, couldn’t see the future. When they drafted Article V, socialism and communism—ideologies crafted to destabilize and overthrow governments—didn’t exist (Rousseau was clearly laying some of the intellectual foundation for the bloody French Revolution, but that event was still in the future). Including the option for a Convention of States made perfect sense then. But now, with these threats entrenched in our own political and cultural landscape, it’s like leaving the keys in the ignition of a car parked on a San Francisco street. The risks are obvious—if you’re willing to see them.

But that’s the problem. Many conservatives refuse to see them. There’s a blindspot—a “law and order” mindset that assumes a convention would be calm, peaceful, and neatly controlled. Hubris only deepens the problem; my fellow conservatives think they understand the risks but are recklessly dismissing the possibility they might be wrong. I saw the risks firsthand in Seattle during the 2020 protests. Chaos wasn’t just present—it ruled. Neighborhoods were swallowed whole, businesses shuttered, and the streets became theaters of disruption. If you think a Constitutional Convention would somehow be immune to such tactics, you’re living in a bubble of blissful ignorance, and I suspect you’ve never been face to face with the modern crazed Left.

And blissful ignorance is exactly what Saul Alinsky relied on. His Rules for Radicals didn’t just lay out strategies; they weaponized chaos. Alinsky understood that “shock” and “disorientation” could cripple even the most robust systems, and his disciples have perfected that playbook. Conservatives who trust the law to shield them from these tactics are setting themselves—and the country—up for a rude awakening. If a modern Convention of States happens, the chaos of Seattle will look like a child’s tea party.

Radical activists don’t just protest; they leverage the chaos they manufacture. It’s not about airing grievances—it’s about forcing society out of its comfort zone. Violent demonstrations and deliberate disruptions create “pressure” that upends order and civility (Rule 8). As Saul Alinsky famously said, “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself” (Rule 9). In this artificially unstable environment, people cave, conceding to demands they’d never tolerate otherwise—like defunding the police or handing over a police precinct to a mob.

For most ordinary folks, who live in a world of rules and stability, this is uncharted territory. They really don’t know what to do when public order crumbles, and radicals exploit that confusion and paralysis. Alinsky’s Rule 13—“pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”—turns this disorientation into a weapon, directing frustration toward specific authorities. Public officials aren’t immune. Overwhelmed and isolated, they nearly always make choices they’d normally reject, as the chaos on the streets becomes impossible to ignore.

Once you see these tactics in action, you’ll recognize them. But by then, it’s usually too late. This isn’t just about the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ).  In 2013, I saw this play out in SeaTac, Washington. The $15 minimum wage campaign required a certain number of petition signatures to make it onto the ballot. But when duplicate signatures surfaced, state law required all of them—including the originals—to be thrown out. This strict rule left the initiative legally short of the required number of signatures, and the Superior Court tossed the initiative because according to the law the unions had fallen short. 

For the unions, that was just the opening round. They turned to Alinsky’s tactics, filing an “emergency” appeal and launching protests. Demonstrators blocked traffic, swarmed neighborhoods, and targeted the homes of three Appeals Court judges (Rule 8: Keep the pressure on). Chanting “This is what democracy looks like!” they used Rule 13 to focus all public outrage squarely on the judges. It worked. Under relentless pressure, the Appeals Court ignored state law and changed the rules, counting only the first signatures and allowing the initiative to move forward.

And here’s the kicker: it wasn’t just about the outcome. The unions’ approach was textbook Alinsky Rule 3—“go outside the experience of the enemy.” Nobody expected this level of intensity over a procedural ruling, and that shock forced the legal system to adapt. A dangerous precedent was set, one that showed how pressure and chaos can override the rule of law. If they could do it in SeaTac, if they can do it in Seattle, ultimately they can and will do it anywhere.

The protests of 2020 weren’t just reactions to high-profile incidents; they were a master class in modern disruption, building on tactics honed years earlier during campaigns like the 2013 SeaTac minimum wage initiative, and the earlier WTO riots of 1999, and the Occupy Wall Street projects. Back then, activists showed how Alinsky’s rules could be applied to target specific decision-makers and reshape outcomes, even when the law seemed to block their path. By 2020, those strategies had evolved into a nationwide well-funded playbook. What began as marches turned into occupations. Public squares became battlegrounds. Streets were blocked, sit-ins staged, and entire neighborhoods commandeered. In cities like Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis, protesters didn’t just march—they moved in, creating so-called “autonomous zones” like Seattle’s CHOP (or CHAZ – two cool names). It was Alinsky’s Rule 8—“keep the pressure on”—taken to a new level, and it worked. It usually does.  Officials, caught off guard, were forced to withdraw law enforcement and cede control of public spaces.

The secret weapon? Modern media. Social networks transformed every standoff and shattered storefront into a spectacle. Alinsky’s Rule 9—“the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself”—was weaponized for the digital age. Images of clashes, chaos, and impassioned demands reached millions in real time, creating a pervasive atmosphere of unrest. In Minneapolis, the demand to “defund the police” took center stage, fueled by Rule 13—“pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Law enforcement became the scapegoat, and public officials, battered by relentless scrutiny, made rash decisions that would have been unthinkable a year earlier.

Here’s the thing about a feeding frenzy: once it starts, it doesn’t easily stop. Every concession emboldened the protesters. They weren’t just making demands—they were playing the long game, like sharks “smelling blood in the water.” Alinsky’s “pressure cooker” wasn’t just a metaphor—it was the plan. Pressure led to capitulation, which led to more pressure. It was a cycle that reshaped public policy with breathtaking speed.  Please remember, nobody doing the front-line nasty work was held responsible in any tangible way.   They got away with it – no 4 year incarcerations in the DC gulag, like some dirty J6er for them.  

And yet, to the untrained eye, it all looked so… organic. Nothing could be further from the truth. The identical tactics employed across cities bore all the signs of centralized coordination. Blocking streets, occupying public spaces, declaring autonomous zones—these were not the spontaneous expressions of outrage they appeared to be. Somewhere behind the scenes, an organizing force—unknown but unmistakable—was pulling the strings. From Portland to Minneapolis to Seattle, these actions weren’t random; they were calculated, designed to exert maximum pressure and destabilize authority.

The activists of today are light-years ahead of the Founders’ imaginations. Remember, the Founders of our nation were generally shocked by what they witnessed just a few years later in France. The tools they deployed in 2020 weren’t just effective—they were revolutionary. And if those same tactics were turned loose on a Constitutional Convention, magnified by the reach of modern media, the results would be nothing short of catastrophic.

The protests of 2020 weren’t just about social justice; they were strategic theater, designed to shake public confidence and shape the election. For radicals, it was a two-for-one deal: hammer Trump’s presidency while turning swing voters into reluctant or at least intimidated allies. Fiery clashes with law enforcement lit up TV screens nightly, creating a pressure-cooker environment. The message was clear: this chaos only ends if Trump goes away. And make no mistake—the chaos worked. The protests weren’t just rallies; they were a full-blown sales pitch to influence the ballot box, and for a while, they delivered.

But then, as Alinsky himself predicted, the strategy became a drag. By the latter half of 2020, the protests lost their edge, their spark dulled by repetition. What started as electrifying action became tedious for both activists and the public. The same chants, the same streets, the same cycle of outrage—it all became predictable. The radicals knew it too. By the 2024 election, they didn’t even bother. Protests had become old hat—played out, uninspiring, a yawn-inducing rerun that no longer rallied the base. The tactic had served its purpose in 2020, but by 2024, it was a spent force. A drag.

Now, enter 2025, and the Convention of States. This isn’t just a fresh tactic—it’s the ultimate sequel. Forget sloganeering in the streets; this is a chance to rewrite the rulebook entirely. Permanently sidelining Trump? Reshaping the Constitution? It’s a dream scenario for radicals hungry for something new and exciting. For them, this isn’t “been there, done that”; it’s “let’s go where we’ve never gone before.” The thrill of a blank canvas, the stakes of redefining America itself—this is the stuff movements are made of, and for those familiar with the early days of the French Revolution, you will recognize eerie echoes of the past.

For the radicals, a Convention of States is the perfect opportunity to dust off their Alinsky playbook and launch version 2.0 (maybe it’s 3.0?). It’s fresh. It’s bold. It’s anything but a drag. Instead of a mere election cycle, they’re now angling for generational change. And the lure of a new Constitution, one that obliterates Trumpism and redefines America’s foundations, is irresistible. It’s chaos with a cause—a mission to replace the old guard with their utopian vision.

If you thought 2020 was bad, brace yourself. That was the warm-up. A Convention of States offers a stage so grand, so EPIC, it eclipses both 2020 and 1787. The stakes aren’t just the next election or the next presidency—they’re the very soul of the Republic. Alinsky would be proud.

---

Recurring Calls for a Convention: A Dangerous Cycle

Every time Washington changes hands, the calls for a Convention of States come roaring back. It’s the same playbook every time: the party out of power decides the Constitution needs fixing. Under Obama, conservatives couldn’t wait to rewrite the rules. Then came Trump, and suddenly the Left was leading the charge. Enter Biden, and—surprise—the Right is back at it, talking about restoring balance. And now, with another seismic shift on the horizon, the Left is undoubtedly preparing to make their move. But here’s the problem: this isn’t just political ping-pong anymore. This time, the stakes are existential.

Picture this: a Constitutional Convention in 2025. Forget 2020’s chaos—this would blow that minor disturbance out of the water. Every ideological faction would descend, armed with their agendas and a decade of experience in mass disruption. Radical activists wouldn’t just show up; they’d take over. With social media fueling the flames, Alinsky-style tactics would transform the process into a full-blown circus. The idea of a “controlled” convention? Laughable. The Constitution, the bedrock of our Republic, would be up for grabs, and the rule of law wouldn’t stand a chance.

But here’s where it gets even worse. When systems break down, people don’t cling to principles—they cling to power. History has taught us this grim lesson: when fear reigns, societies call for a “strong man.” That’s how Hitler rose in Germany, how Stalin cemented control in the Soviet Union. Could a Constitutional Convention, mired in modern unrest, bring America to the same breaking point? The thought is unthinkable—but not impossible. What could be more dangerous than trading our Republic for dictatorship, not through conquest, but through chaos? It’s not just the Constitution at stake—it’s the soul of the nation.

---

Every Amendment Can Be Achieved Without a Convention

All of this chaos, all of this risk—completely unnecessary. Every amendment the Convention of States organization clamors for could be achieved through the time-tested amendment process that’s served us flawlessly 27 times before. It’s reliable, it’s proven, and, most critically, it’s safe. But no, instead, some people are itching to roll the dice on a Constitutional Convention—a reckless gamble that could crack open Pandora’s box and unravel the very structure it pretends to protect.

Ah, the allure of novelty. The Convention of States sparkles like a shiny “Silver Bullet” to some, promising quick fixes and a shortcut to salvation. The drama invites the Hollywood screenplay.  Why bother with the long, arduous road of the traditional amendment process when you can leapfrog over it? Well, here’s why: shortcuts in politics tend to end where most shortcuts do—off a cliff.

Consider the eleven amendments proposed by Mark Levin in his book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. If you haven’t read it yet, I highly recommend it. Levin’s proposals are thoughtful, bold, and could indeed make a profound difference for the nation. You can find them neatly summarized in his book or even online (see this Heritage Foundation summary). But here’s the kicker: every one of Levin’s proposed amendments could be pursued through the regular amendment process. No drama, no runaway convention, no risk of radicals hijacking the entire system. So, let’s ask the obvious question: why would anyone take the dangerous route when the safer path is right there in front of us?

---

A Roadmap to Chaos: How a Convention of States Could Unravel America

Taking stock of everything we’ve covered—historical precedent, the rise of modern activism, and the bipartisan push to open Pandora’s box—it’s worth asking: how would a Convention of States actually play out in today’s political minefield? The notion of a runaway convention isn’t some fevered fantasy; it’s a perfectly foreseeable series of events, driven by ruthless tactics and the megaphone of modern media. So let’s consider the possibilities. Picture this: a Convention of States spiraling into chaos, fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and leaving its so-called champions staring at the wreckage, wondering how it all went so horribly wrong.

1. The Push to Reach 34 States

State legislative sessions in 2025 began with all the deceptive calm of a sunny morning before a hurricane. Activists from both sides charged into the arena, each side convinced they were marching toward their own vision of a better America. The campaigns to secure the remaining eight states intensified—each side oblivious to the storm brewing ahead.

On the Right, optimism reigned supreme. Conservatives see themselves as the architects of history, poised to restore constitutional principles and wrestle federal overreach into submission. After all, didn’t we just win a resounding victory for President, against all odds and expectations?  The Convention of States seemed like the golden hammer to fix what had gone wrong in the past. But there were nagging questions, barely acknowledged: Why was the Left helping? Why were progressives lending their muscle to a cause long championed by conservatives? These doubts were dismissed with the easy confidence that comes from thinking you hold the high ground. After all, the rules of a convention favored state equality, and with more red states than blue, what could possibly go wrong?

On the Left, the strategy was anything but naïve. Progressive leaders moved with the precision of chess grandmasters, treating the Right as pawns (as they usually do) in a much larger game. Like hunters watching a bear step toward a concealed trap, they dared not act too soon, lest their prey bolt. Every move was calculated: talking up “reform” and “equity,” while keeping their true agenda cloaked in secrecy. For the Left, reaching the 34-state threshold wasn’t just a milestone—it was the key to setting their plans in motion. Yet they tread carefully, knowing that any hint of their endgame could scare off the conservative states they desperately needed to seal the deal.  In fact, they even head-faked with Governor Gavin Newsom, a boogeyman to Conservatives everywhere (Gruesome Newsom) – make it seem like the Left is afraid of the Convention. 

Then, sometime in 2025, the moment came. The bear stepped down, and the trap snapped shut. The 34-state threshold was reached, and history’s first Convention of States since 1787 was triggered. Conservative activists erupted in celebration, not yet noticing the trap on their leg, toasting what they saw as a victory many years in the making. But the Left’s leaders were smiling for a different reason. The trap had sprung, and the real game was just beginning.

2. Manipulating Delegate Selection and Mobilizing Protests

With the convention officially approved, my conservative friends on the Right bask in the glow of perceived victory. To them, this is the culmination of grassroots energy—a hard-won, many year slog to get to this opportunity to restore the Constitution to its original intent. The assumption is simple: red-state dominance will ensure delegates who share their vision of limited government and strong constitutional reform. But a faint unease begins to whisper through conservative circles. Rumors of progressive infiltration efforts swirl, yet these are dismissed as paranoia. After all, the Right controls the majority of states, and the rules are clear—aren’t they?

On the Left, it’s a masterclass in strategic subtlety. Progressive leaders, schooled in the art of Alinsky’s playbook, work with laser focus to shape the delegate selection process. They zero in on swing states and those with large populations, like Texas, fully aware that if the rules change, those population-heavy states could hold more sway—just like in the Electoral College. Their approach is deceptively smooth: talk of “diverse voices” and “fair representation” conceals a surgical effort to stack the deck in their favor. Publicly, they treat delegate selection as mundane procedural housekeeping, a mere formality since every state has just one vote. Privately, they know this battle is the lynchpin for controlling the convention’s future.

Protests erupt, painting a vivid picture of chaos and urgency. Crowds chant slogans like “Democracy, not tyranny!” while waving banners decrying “backroom deals.” The Right dismisses the protests as leftist theater, convinced they’re just noise meant to distract from the real work of reform. But this “noise” begins to crescendo. The protests, meticulously coordinated, dominate media cycles and flood social platforms. Conservative lawmakers in key states feel the heat, some even questioning whether they’ve underestimated the Left’s reach.

For conservatives, the narrative begins to shift. Reports of highly organized campaigns targeting delegate selection are impossible to ignore. Viral videos show passionate calls for “fairness,” stoking public sentiment against traditional legislative processes. Moderates in swing states begin to crack under the pressure (they always do – just how “moderate” are they?), and conservatives start to grasp the stakes of this delegate battle. The once-assumed dominance of the Right feels less like a guarantee and more like a tenuous hope slipping through their fingers, just like when they kick you out of the vote counting room, cover up the observer windows and keep “counting” all night long without observation. 

Meanwhile, the Left revels in their tactical victories. Behind closed doors, progressive leaders toast the seating of more Leftist-leaning delegates, knowing full well the implications. Their public rhetoric of “defending democracy” becomes the smokescreen for a calculated power play. With each progressive delegate added to the rolls, their position strengthens. By the time the convention begins, they have already tipped the scales in their favor. For the Left, this isn’t just about delegates—it’s about setting the stage for total control.  It is all about power, and now they have it.

3. Changing the Rules Under Intense Public Pressure

At the outset, conservative delegates exude confidence. The traditional “one state, one vote” rule is their fortress, their safeguard against losing control. It’s been the backbone of interstate fairness for over two centuries, and they see no reason to doubt it now. Spirited debates are expected, sure, but the Right assumes they hold the reins firmly in hand. Yet, as the session begins, faint whispers of unease ripple through their ranks. Subtle hints of progressive maneuvering don’t go unnoticed, and some start to wonder if their confidence might be misplaced.

The Left, however, enters with an entirely different playbook. For them, the rules are just the opening act, a script to be rewritten. Progressive leaders have spent months preparing for this moment, crafting arguments that tie “equity” and “democracy” to population-based weighted voting. Inspired by Alinsky’s Rule 3—“Go outside the experience of the enemy”—they unleash a plan designed to knock conservatives off balance. To the Left, “one state, one vote” is a relic, and the time to dismantle it is now.

Outside, chaos erupts. Protests sweep the streets, strategically choreographed to demand a population-based voting structure. “One person, one vote!” echoes across the nation, as demonstrators flood the streets armed with banners, chants, and the power of social media. These aren’t grassroots protests; they’re a carefully coordinated show of force. Conservative delegates wave them off as mere background noise—until the clamor begins to penetrate their supposedly secure walls.

The protests escalate with surgical precision, targeting the home states of the most vocal conservative delegates. Thousands of activists descend, overwhelming law enforcement, stretching resources, and creating scenes of pandemonium. Police chiefs call for the National Guard. Citizens plead with their representatives for peace. Conservative delegates, once resolute, now feel the mounting weight of their own constituents demanding compromise. The chant for “fairness” grows deafening.

And then it dawns on them—the terrifying reality they’d ignored. A convention makes its own rules. What they’d dismissed as fearmongering now hits them like a gut punch. The Left isn’t playing by the same playbook; they’re rewriting it mid-game. The procedural shift to population-based voting, once unthinkable, becomes inevitable. The rules they’d relied on as their shield are erased before their eyes.

Progressive delegates seize the moment, proposing a radical change: voting power must reflect population, mirroring the Electoral College but skewed heavily in favor of populous liberal states. They present this as the dawn of true democracy, a necessary update to an “antiquated” system. Their rhetoric is polished, their appeals to inclusivity compelling. But beneath the surface, this is a calculated power grab, and it’s working.

The Right reels. Their strategy crumbles under the weight of protests and progressive cunning. Some delegates, overwhelmed by the chaos, capitulate, hoping to restore peace. Others, outraged, storm out, unintentionally deepening the Left’s advantage. What was once a balanced convention becomes a lopsided affair, with conservative voices drowned out in the uproar.

The new rules pass, and the transformation is swift. Liberal strongholds like California, New York, and Illinois take control, their influence dwarfing that of smaller conservative states. For progressives, it’s a watershed moment, a triumph of strategy and persistence. For conservatives, it’s a bitter reckoning. The trap they stepped into has now fully closed, and the scale of their miscalculation is painfully clear.

4. Radical Proposals, Federal Supremacy, and Altered Ratification

Confidence on the Right collapses. Conservative delegates, who swaggered into the convention with visions of glory, now sit slack-jawed as wave after wave of radical proposals crashes onto the floor. The Bill of Rights? Up for revision. Federal election laws? To be centralized. The Electoral College? Gone with the wind. Each proposal is more audacious than the last. These delegates had naively assumed the convention would tackle their pet projects—term limits, balanced budgets. Instead, they watch helplessly as their priorities are trampled by a juggernaut of far-left demands, their illusions of control shattered beyond repair.

The Left throws subtlety out the window. With the voting rules now thoroughly rigged in their favor, progressive delegates unleash their agenda with all the restraint of a teenager on a first solo drive. Guns? Outlawed. Free speech? Redefined. State sovereignty? Federalized. The 9th and 10th Amendments? Brushed aside as “relics of a bygone era.” The Supremacy Clause becomes their mantra, wielded to justify sweeping aside anything that smells like local autonomy. They dress it up in flowery language about progress and equity, but make no mistake: this is a hostile takeover, plain and simple.  We’ve seen this before, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how this plays out.

The anti-Trump coup takes center stage. For all the talk of “equity” and “modernization,” the Left’s true prize is finally unveiled—a proposal to ensure Donald Trump is permanently exiled from the political stage. It’s not just a feature of the new constitution; it’s the raison d’être of the entire runaway convention. Whether by banning anyone who served under the old constitution, prohibiting non-consecutive terms, or disqualifying any president with prior impeachment proceedings, the Left’s proposals are laser-focused on one goal: eliminating Trump. In the convention hall, progressive delegates cheer. Outside, the mobs roar approval. For them, this is the moment they’ve been waiting for.

On the Right, despair sets in. The realization is crushing: they’ve been played, and they know it. The procedural safeguards they trusted have been rewritten, leaving them powerless in a game they no longer understand. Conservative delegates, once full of bluster, now sit frozen as their opponents dismantle the nation’s founding principles piece by piece. Every protest, every objection is met with jeers of “progress!” and “democracy in action!” For these delegates, it’s not just a defeat—it’s an existential reckoning.

Then comes the ratification gambit. Following the playbook of 1787, the Left moves to redefine the ratification process itself. Gone is the three-fourths threshold of state legislatures. Instead, ratification will mirror the new voting rules—population-based and controlled by populous states like California, New York, and Texas. The smaller, conservative states are reduced to irrelevance, their voices drowned out by the roar of majoritarian “fairness.” Progressive delegates frame it as “one person, one vote,” but privately they know it’s the coup de grâce. Protests outside the convention create a drumbeat of inevitability, steamrolling what little opposition remains.

Two Americas emerge. The Left strides out of the convention triumphant, their vision of a reimagined United States locked in for generations. For them, this is history-making—a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rewrite the rules entirely. They finally can tear up that despicable document that has so frequently checked their power ambitions.  The Right, by contrast, stumbles away in shock, their dreams of reform twisted into a dystopian nightmare. The Constitution they swore to protect lies gutted, and they are left with a bitter truth: they set the stage for their own undoing.

5. The Aftermath: Nationwide Protests and Court Challenges

The convention ends, but the fireworks are just beginning. What emerges is a Constitution so unrecognizable to its conservative architects that they can barely contain their outrage. Across the country, conservative leaders lash out, branding the process a sham and the results a direct affront to the Republic’s founding principles. They head straight for the courts, armed with lawsuits that argue the convention exceeded its mandate and shattered constitutional norms. For them, this is no mere loss—it’s treachery on a national scale.

Meanwhile, the Left is basking in victory but not resting on its laurels. Progressive activists, ever the tactical pragmatists, know the fight is far from over. Court challenges loom large, threatening to undo their historic gains. With Alinsky’s Rule 4—“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules”—etched in their playbook, they go on the offensive. The narrative is spun with relentless precision: the convention, they insist, was “fairly called,” adhering to the same revered precedents of 1787. Conservative lawsuits? Nothing more than the last, pitiful gasp of an ideology clinging to irrelevance. And that archaic 2^nd Amendment you all held in such high esteem – conveniently that will be gone shortly.

And then the streets erupt again, like a déjà vu nightmare. Protesters, as well-organized as ever, descend on courthouses nationwide. Their chants—“This is democracy!” and “Honor the people’s voice!”—echo through the media like a battle cry. Judges, once cloistered behind their gavels, now find angry mobs gathered outside their homes. Social media is ablaze, painting conservative plaintiffs and judges as relics of a bygone era blocking the march of progress. It’s not just public opinion at stake—it’s personal safety.

For the courts, the pressure is relentless. Judges find themselves caught in an impossible bind: defend the Constitution as they interpret it, or bow to the mounting outrage. Some rule in favor of conservative challenges, halting the implementation of a few constitutional changes. Others, however, defer to the convention’s authority, citing 1787 as precedent and insisting the ratification process should proceed. These mixed rulings only pour gasoline on the fire, leaving both sides fuming and no one satisfied.

Public trust in the nation’s institutions, already on shaky ground, begins to crumble. Conservatives feel abandoned by a judiciary they once trusted to protect the Constitution. Progressives, impatient with the slow grind of legal battles, grow restless, demanding action over deliberation. The nation is left teetering on the edge, as both sides gear up for the next showdown: the bruising battle over ratification. The calm before the storm is over; the storm itself has only just begun.

6. Judicial Rulings and the Start of Ratification Protests

The courts, grappling with the chaos unleashed by the convention, issue rulings that are as fragmented as the nation itself. Some judges side with conservatives, striking down portions of the new Constitution as procedurally invalid. Others defer to the precedent of 1787, insisting the convention acted within its authority and emphasizing the urgency of ratification to “restore order.” The legal patchwork leaves no one satisfied. For conservatives, it’s betrayal; for progressives, it’s an infuriating delay. The entire process feels like trying to patch a sinking ship with duct tape.

Meanwhile, the Left takes to the streets with renewed vigor, their outrage finely tuned and weaponized. Activists target conservative bastions where legal challenges have stalled the new Constitution’s progress, turning state capitals and courthouses into battlegrounds. Protests erupt with chants of “The people have spoken!” and “No more delays!” Social media, of course, ensures every demonstration feels like a national event, amplifying the pressure on lawmakers and judges alike. It’s a well-oiled machine, and it’s working.

On the Conservative Freedom Oriented Right, disillusionment spreads like wildfire. Conservatives, who had placed their hopes in the judiciary to rein in the convention’s excesses, watch helplessly as mixed rulings undermine their efforts. Calls for peaceful protests grow louder, but frustration simmers beneath the surface. The dream of restoring constitutional order feels more distant than ever, and for many, the reality of a constitutional crisis begins to sink in.

The ratification fight quickly becomes the main event. As the legal skirmishes fade into the background, progressives double down on their push for ratification. Alinsky’s Rule 8—“Keep the pressure on”—guides their every move. Relentless protests, viral campaigns, bribery when necessary (there is no limit to the money that will be spent here), threats and harassment become common, and door-to-door canvassing create a tidal wave of momentum. Conservatives, caught off guard by the scale and intensity, scramble to mount an effective counteroffensive. Their warnings about the catastrophic consequences of the new framework struggle to break through the noise.

The nation teeters on the edge of a historic confrontation. With the courts failing to provide resolution, the battle over ratification becomes an all-consuming clash of ideologies. Both sides dig in, mobilizing their bases for a nationwide showdown. It’s not just about a new Constitution anymore—it’s about the soul of the country itself. As the tension escalates, the fractures in American society grow deeper, threatening to shatter what little unity remains.

7. Manipulating the Masses: Ratification Under Pressure

The ratification process becomes less about informed debate and more about a full-scale psychological siege. Activists on the Left deploy a finely-tuned arsenal of public relations tactics: targeted ads, relentless social media campaigns, and door-to-door canvassing that paints the new Constitution as the cure for every societal ill. It’s billed as the gateway to equality, fairness, and modern governance. Meanwhile, conservatives find themselves floundering, unable to cut through the noise or counter the Left’s blitz of half-truths, total lies, and emotional appeals. Their arguments are drowned out in a cacophony of slogans and propaganda.

At the heart of the campaign lies a singular fixation: Trump. For the Left, this isn’t just about ratifying a new Constitution—it’s about erasing Donald J. Trump from the political landscape forever. His presidency, controversial to the core, is paraded as Exhibit A in the case against the old system. Ratification is marketed as the ultimate repudiation of Trumpism, with activists rallying behind the message: “Vote for the future, not the past.” Complex constitutional issues are reduced to a single, polarizing question: Are you for or against Trump? The Left hated the original Constitution too, so they don’t mind it when that dusty old document gets shredded anyway.

Misinformation reigns supreme (yeah, we know our media does this already, but they will see this as their final effort to regain relevancy). Constitutional features like the Electoral College, designed to balance power between large and small states, are rebranded as antiquated injustices. Activists flood the airwaves with emotionally charged slogans—“One person, one vote!” and “End systemic oppression!”—while conveniently sidestepping historical context or the safeguards these systems were designed to provide. Americans, woefully unfamiliar with the intricacies of their own Constitution, are swayed by the seductive simplicity of these arguments.

Fear becomes the activists’ weapon of choice. Rejecting the new Constitution, they warn, would mean plunging the nation into anarchy. They weaponize the 1787 Constitution’s historical compromises, such as slavery, to claim the existing framework is beyond redemption. The implication is clear: failing to ratify the new Constitution is tantamount to endorsing the sins of the past. Conservatives scramble to articulate a counterargument, insisting the existing Constitution still has the resilience and flexibility to guide the nation forward. But their voices are lost amid the drumbeat of apocalyptic warnings.

Protestors flood state capitals and public spaces, creating an atmosphere of relentless urgency. In swing states and conservative strongholds alike, they chant, march, and demand immediate action. Media outlets latch onto the spectacle, amplifying the activists’ framing and sidelining conservative perspectives. For many on the Right, it feels like their voices have been systematically erased. Lawmakers in key battlegrounds are bombarded by calls, emails, and protests, facing unbearable pressure to ratify.

The Left’s victory is sealed. The new Constitution is ratified, but the process is a masterclass in coercion rather than democratic deliberation. While progressives revel in their seismic achievement, conservatives—and a growing number of moderates—view the outcome as tainted by manipulation and fear-mongering. Allegations of propaganda, corruption, violence, and strong-arm tactics leave deep scars, ensuring the new framework begins its life under a cloud of mistrust.

With ratification secured, attention shifts to the next battlefield: elections under the new framework. For radicals, this is their crowning moment—a constitutionally enshrined exile for Trump, the man they couldn’t beat through conventional means. Now, they have the opportunity to consolidate their gains, installing leaders who will cement their vision for the country. Conservatives are left reeling, grappling with a painful truth: they’ve been bested at every stage, and the nation they fought to preserve feels like a distant memory.

Even in the likely scenario that the chaos would unleash succession type activities including general rebellion and civil disorder, the Left still wins – the country descends into a civil war style chaos without restraint and in the middle of great confusion and chaos. People will most likely exercise their right to self-defense without a 2nd Amendment left to clarify this natural right, and all other historic rights essentially vanish in this type of fractured environment as well.

---

What Must Be Done

There was likely a time when holding a new Constitutional Convention could have been considered feasible, even sensible, for updating the nation’s founding framework. Perhaps that’s why the Founding Fathers, with all their wisdom and powdered wigs, tucked Article V into the Constitution. It seemed like a solid insurance policy—a way to adapt with the times while keeping things orderly. But the world of muskets and powdered wigs is long gone. Today, in the age of Twitter mobs, “viral” outrage, and rent-a-mob street theater masquerading as grassroots democracy, this quaint notion of a controlled convention is laughable—borderline deranged, even.

The 2020 protests were a mere warm-up act compared to what a Convention of States would unleash. Picture all that chaos, but with the entire Constitution dangling over the flames. The tactics perfected by modern activists—hyper-coordinated protests, relentless media manipulation, and the ability to fabricate “popular support” with a few keystrokes—have made the risks of a runaway convention not just unprecedented, but, frankly, inevitable. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t been paying attention.

If the Trump Administration wants to avoid this ticking time bomb, it must act decisively—and fast. The following roadmap isn’t just a recommendation; it’s a survival guide.

Review and Critique This Analysis – Urgently

Here’s the bottom line: the 2025 legislative sessions aren’t a distant threat—they’re an imminent one. A handful of months, eight more resolutions, and we’re staring down the barrel of a runaway convention. This isn’t the time for committees or leisurely contemplation. Read this article, absorb its urgency, and act fast. Because if we don’t, we might as well start drafting our farewell note to the Republic, and finally answer Benjamin Franklin’s famous statement – it turns out we can’t keep it.

1. Engage the Convention of States (CoS) Organization – Here’s what needs to happen: the CoS organization must be confronted head-on. No more wishful thinking, no more assurances that “everything will go as planned.” This is a constitutional Pandora’s box, and they need to understand the stakes. Lay it out in no uncertain terms—this administration won’t stand by while they gamble with the nation’s future. Explain the risks: chaos, instability, and a runaway convention they’ll have no power to rein in. But don’t stop there—extend an olive branch. Show them there’s a better path forward, one that doesn’t involve putting the Republic on a collision course with disaster.

2. Encourage a Shift in CoS’s Focus – Time for CoS to rethink their game plan. Their amendment ideas—term limits, balanced budgets—aren’t the problem. The problem is the nuclear option they’re using to pursue them: a Convention of States. Urge them to redirect their energy toward advancing these amendments through safer, more predictable means. And while they’re at it, a name change might help clear up any confusion. Make it crystal clear: the administration will back them if they choose the path of sanity. Recognize their organizational prowess—it’s impressive, no doubt—but channel that talent into constructive reforms that don’t risk blowing up the Constitution.

3. Collaborate on Repealing Article V Resolutions – Here’s the play: work with CoS to dismantle the Article V resolutions already passed in key states. This is no time for hesitation; the 2025 legislative sessions are the window of opportunity to undo the damage. Pitch it as a unifying moment—conservative groups that previously clashed with CoS can now come together on this shared mission: stopping a runaway convention while keeping focus on amendments that actually make sense. It’s a chance for CoS to redeem themselves and for the Right to avert a constitutional disaster.

4. Launch a Public Awareness Campaign – The first step in winning this battle is education. Roll out a nationwide campaign that doesn’t just inform—it grabs attention. Use town halls, blitz the airwaves, and flood online platforms with a simple but urgent message: a Convention of States isn’t reform; it’s an open door to chaos. Lay out the risks in plain terms—state sovereignty gone, constitutional protections gutted, and historical proof in 1787 that runaway conventions are the rule, not the exception. Beat the activists at their own game by exposing their agenda before they can lock in more state resolutions.

5. Unite Conservative Organizations – It’s time to mend fences. Conservative groups that have clashed over the Convention of States need to come together and collaborate. CoS should lead the charge, partnering with former critics to repeal dangerous Article V resolutions while championing amendment proposals that unite the movement—term limits being a prime example. Forget past squabbles; this is about survival. A unified conservative coalition would be a force to reckon with, driving home legislative and amendment wins that strengthen America’s foundations.

6. Institutionalizing New Safeguards -Survive this crisis, and then get to work on ensuring it never happens again. A comprehensive review—call it a “lessons learned” exercise—should identify the vulnerabilities that brought the nation to the brink. From there, implement airtight safeguards to protect the Constitution from being toyed with in the future. The aim? To make the very notion of a runaway convention so unthinkable, no one dares to entertain it again.

---

Final Thoughts: A Call for Divine Guidance and Gratitude

The Constitution of 1787 wasn’t just revolutionary; it was otherworldly in its brilliance. Many believed divine inspiration had a hand in its creation, crafting a framework that would endure for centuries. Today, as radicals threaten to tear it down, we’re in desperate need of that same divine intervention. Should we manage to dodge this catastrophic gamble, gratitude will be in order—not just for the leaders who acted decisively, but certainly for the divine guidance that reminded us what’s truly at stake: the rule of law and the stability of a nation hanging in the balance. Our nation, our families, our neighbors, and certainly future generations need us now.

---

OUR CONSTITUTION BEGINS WITH THE PHRASE “WE THE PEOPLE.”  IT WAS THE FOUNDERS’ INTENT THAT GOVERNMENT BE CREATED BY THE PEOPLE, TO SERVE THE PEOPLE.  IT WASN’T THEIR INTENTION FOR THE PEOPLE TO SERVE THE GOVERNMENT.  IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED THAT GOVERNMENT WHICH FAILED TO SERVE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE “ALTERED OR ABOLISHED.”  UNTIL WE RETURN TO THE FOUNDER’S INTENT, WE REMAIN WE THE GOVERNED…

Background articles and reference links:

Convention of States website

Convention of States – Map of the States who have already signed up

US Constitution – National Archives

Heritage Foundation Summary of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments

Saul Alinsky – Rules for Radicals – Free Download

Anti-Federalist Papers (source for book)

John Lansing – official Bio

Robert Yates – official Bio

Federalist Paper #40 – a good review

Federalist Papers