Move to Amend and other leftist organizations endorsed an Article V Constitutional Convention of the States.

MerryLynn Gerstenschlager

MerryLynn Gerstenschlager

To all who tacitly approve of the notion of a Constitutional Convention under Article V, you are not alone!

There are many leftist organizations, including “Move to Amend”, that are also calling for a Constitution of States. I urge you to examine the Move to Amend website and review the extensive list of organizations that endorsed Move to Amend.

Are all these organizations and many others who oppose our conservative agenda going to step aside and offer no resistance to our efforts to preserve and strengthen our Constitution?

The following is offered for your consideration by Vice President of Texas Eagle Forum, MerryLynn Gerstenschlager:

A Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, gained through a never before used Article V Convention, IS NOT worth the high risk of leftist ideologues gaining control of an Article V Convention, which Congress, not the States, must call! Our U.S. Constitution would likely not survive. Chaos would ensue. (Read Article V)

Subject: 9 pages of leftist organizations endorse Con Con Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 15:47:18 -0700

April 3, 2014

The 9 pages of leftist organizations listed below have endorsed the Move to Amend constitutional amendment to undermine and eliminate our freedom of speech in campaigns by limiting or prohibiting campaign contributions and expenditures.

In addition, Move to Amend has also endorsed an Article V Constitutional Convention of the States. This makes it perfectly clear that these leftist organizations will use any Article V convention for their own leftist agenda.

Wisconsin State Legislators Introduce Move to Amend Resolution, February 9, 2012
Resolution Puts Congress on Notice that It Has One Year to Send Amendment to States for Ratification Two legislators from Madison, Wisconsin began the process of overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case shortly after the two-year anniversary of the decision that created corporate personhood for the purpose of political speech. State Representative Mark Pocan (D-Madison) and State Representative Chris Taylor (D-Madison) today introduced a resolution that calls for an amendment the United States Constitution to overturn the court ruling. If Congress fails to act, the resolution further calls for a National Constitutional Convention under Article V of the United States Constitution.
California State Senator Mark DeSaulnier supports MoveTo Amend, August 24, 2013
California State Senator Mark DeSaulnier of the 7th Senate District readily agreed to be listed as a supporter of Move To Amend.  He not only supports the amendment,  he is willing to speak with a colleague, Mike Gatto,  in the California legislature, about strengthening his proposed resolution for an amendment  to include the condition that only human beings have inherent constitutional rights.  The Gatto proposal includes “money is not speech”, regulation of corporate spending on elections, and calls for a constitutional convention if Congress does not act.  Senator DeSaulnier describes himself as a long time reformer.

Endorsing Organizations of Move to Amend (asterisk)*=Founding Organization


And Hundreds of Other Organizations…


11 responses

  1. Senator_Blutarsky

    ‘Ol Judas Goat – phony conservative RINO Quisling Mark Levin sure keeps good company, witnessed by the above.

    Maybe Eric Matthews and others who voiced support for a con-con in the past here on this blog ,might want to rethink that.. Levin and other establishment mouthpieces masquarading as “conservatives” are leading folks who do NO HOMEWORK right down the path of destruction.

    As an old Friend used to say: “I knocked on the door of the Republic and discovered there was no one home”.

    1. Have you even read Mark Levin’s book ??? Have you ever listened to the Mark Levin radio show.??? Have you ever looked at what the Landmark Legal Foundation has done ??? You simply do not know what you are talking about.

  2. My name is John DeMayo. I am a Texas District Captain for the Convention of States movement. I submit the following article at for the above author’s consideration. I am the author of this article. For any opponent of the use of Article V, I would like to extend an open over to engage in a public debate on the issues. I can be contacted through the Convention of States project or through my personal Facebook page at . I look forward to a spirited open debate. I welcome all comers. Thank you.

    1. Senator_Blutarsky

      Nothing to “debate”, Mr DeMayo…a con-con at this point, is like taking a butter knife to a gunfight. Having the moral and philosophical “high ground” does not constitute a formula for success.

      Ask the men at the Alamo…….or Jews at the Warsaw ghettos. I will add just a few links for readers here to consider, with a snip from each.

      “Not only is an Article V constitutional convention not the right answer, it is the bullet to a loaded revolver pointed at the Constitution.


      Before going down the rabbit hole, it is important to understand that calling for a convention to amend the Constitution with amendments shows absence in sound judgment.

      Think about it… The NSA, NDAA, ObamaCare, Patriot Act, EPA, DOE, every war since the 1940s, federal gun laws, etc. are all unconstitutional. These laws and agencies all fly in the face of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

      Did the federal government come to a grinding halt simply because of those amendments? Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the American government has been run lawlessly. Some call the Constitution ineffective.

      Americans must ask themselves: Is the Constitution ineffective, or do we have a lawless, disobedient federal government? If the answer is the latter, which it is, then Americans should see little refuge in additional amendments, which the lawless, disobedient feds will simply continue to ignore.”

      Read more:
      Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

      “The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation. Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.

      Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of 20 books. She is the co-author, with George Neumayr, of the New York Times Best-Seller titled “No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.”
      The Article V Convention Scam

      “So, Levin and the other Article V convention advocates try to walk the tightrope of deceptively assuring those of us who are concerned about harmful changes to the Constitution that such a convention would be “a limited purpose convention” (page 16 of The Liberty Amendments) while at the same time truthfully portraying an Article V convention as included in the Constitution for the purpose of making the changes necessary for reining in an oppressive government.

      So, that’s the scam. In order to gain the necessary widespread support from both voters and state legislators for their inherently risky attempt to solve the problem of an out-of-control (unconstitutional) government by means of an Article V convention, the Article V convention advocates need to fool huge numbers of people into believing that the provision for Article V conventions was included in the Constitution only for making limited changes.

      Since it is a God-given “Right of the People” “to alter or to abolish [our government], and to institute new Government,” and since Article V provides a constitutional method for bringing about a convention of the sovereign people of the United States for achieving this, we have to agree that the proponents of an Article V convention have the right to pursue their goal of bringing about such an unlimited convention; but, we must interject immediately, such an unlimited convention would be extremely dangerous to the Constitution, given the lack of knowledge of and lack of commitment to the Constitution on the part of most of the voters and/or legislators who would determine the composition of the delegates.

      And, of course, such an unlimited convention would have the option of changing the method for ratifying its proposed changes, just as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 did.

      Our problem is not the Constitution. Our problem is a federal government that is operating outside the confines of the Constitution. The solution is to bring the federal government back into compliance with the Constitution through voter education campaigns and state nullification laws. ”

      The old saying “” be careful what you ask for – you just might get it ” , certainly applies here. Wise leaders know to pick a fight they can win.

      A con-con would, really, be only treating “symptoms”, as the core problem is flagrant abuse of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights, for decades. And you basically, expect the same groups who have the Constitution on a death watch already, to fix such? Laughable…….naive.

      Nullification and enforcement are the winnable options, not a badly misguided con-con nightmare.

      “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
      Dr. Martin Luther King

      1. As always the Eagle Forum runs from debate. What is your fear?

    2. “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress….”

      The word, used twice, is “amendmentS,” not amendment. The Convention of States is unconstitutional unless it opens up to multiple amendments.

  3. I am totally amazed at the number of people who spout off without any study on the facts…and name-calling is not political discourse. An Article V Convention is NOT a convention to write a new Constitution. It is a convention limited to amendments related to the subject or subjects approved by the states legislatures which called the convention. Then the , and only then, the proposed amendment must be approved by the states. There is no chance for an out-of-control, run-a-way convention…AND…The Federal legislature has NO SAY in the amendment(s). I urge you to actually read Article V of the Constitution…(Article V is not the Fifth Amendment). Then I urge you to read Mark Levin’s book: The Liberty Amendments. The Convention of States appear to be interested only in a balanced budget amendment. They are aiming too low. They also need to consider term limits for all federal elective offices and a host of other corrections if we, The People are to take back control of our government.

  4. John have you signed up on The pending resolution calls for fiscal responsibility and limitation on an out of control federal government. Remember the resolutions have to be similarly worded so the movement is pushing a generic resolution rather than specific “amendments” which has doomed these movements in the past. The amendments that are being talked about are of course: balanced budget, term limits, restriction of government regulatory agencies, return of power to the states as outlined in Article 10, etc. Thank you for your comments. I too am appalled at an allegedly conservative organization trouting out the same scare tactics used by the progressives. This is the last stand before the total collapse of our way of life,

    1. Senator_Blutarsky

      Rosie – you – ” This is the last stand before the total collapse of our way of life,”

      Personally, I think that ship has already sailed. I wonder where all the starry-eyed con-con dogooders were when Repubs pushed through the Patriot Act ? Or where they were when hundreds and hundreds o executive “orders” were issued and never challenged? Or when PDDs were the lawmaking order of the day, especially by Bush. How Constitutional were the corporate bailouts by the billion? What about the dissonance of degrading American citizenship status to where our country has been flooded with 3rd worlld aliens, staking a culture-changing imprint. Maybe Jeb Bush will be a concon leader – he just said such was an “act of love”.

      If any of you think that most of the political and philosophical makeup of various state congresses , which would supposedly have the biggest hand in appointing the concon delegates, would only select strict adherents to the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you are delusional. Right in this own district we have Phil King and Craig Estes active and willing participants in the theft of our highway system to foreign-private interests. And now both are on the bandwagon to steal our water. We have a governor who has championed dozens of nefarious schemes and backloaded every possible appointment with cronies for “privatization”. Our legislature makes gunowners grovel for permission slips to carry firearms. They ppromote warrantless blood draws on the side of the highways.

      We live in a surveillance control grid with no privacy. We have armed SWAT teams ready at a moments notice to raid anyone for any reason. We have a compromised SCOTUS which gives special privileges to corporations.

      we have lost every single one of the Bill of Rights under the NDAA and Executive Order 13603. As a result, 9 out of 10 rights, contained in the Bill of Rights, are gone. The only right remaining is the Second Amendment right to bear arms and it hanging by a thread.

      You can shout it from the roof tops, there will be a Constitutional Convention and the Second Amendment will be repealed and all gun owners will be criminalized in one stroke of the pen.

      Who will be the leaders and the people who shape a concon, for middle-class working Americans who resent and fear the massive government Leviathan we now have ? Bushes, Gingrich, Mccain types? Michael Steel? Kochs? financier Stewart Adelson ?………or any of the hundreds of other ” Republicans ” who are in fact committed globalists, and have been such pathetic compromising stewards of the Constitution ?

      Nullification and enforcement remain the only even remotely viable tools against a central government gone wild

      “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?”
      – Henry David Thoreau

  5. Move to Amend is NOT calling for an Article V Amendment Convention…yet. The Convention of States, a right-wing effort, IS doing just that in an unconstitional manner. According to Art. V, a convention is for voting on constitutional amendments, not one amendment.

    The “We the People Amendment” is not “left wing.” When did leftists support going backward? That is what conservatives and reactionaries do. The MTA-proposed amendment would take the US BACK to the constitutionality of campaign finance reform up until 1976 (Buckley v Valeo). How is it “leftist” to address what had Senator Goldwater concerned when he said:

    “[O]ur nation is facing a crisis of liberty if we do not control campaign expenditures. We must prove that elective office is not for sale. We must convince the public that elected officials are what James Madison intended us to be, agents of the sovereign people, not the hired hands of rich givers, or what Madison called factions.”

    The abolition of corporate rights would reset the legal status of corporations BACK TO what they were for the first 98 years of the Republic, back to what the Framers intended when they gave PEOPLE, not organizations, rights.

    Citizens United set into slow motion, a corporate coup d’etat. I understand why fascists might embrace that, but not a principled conservative or constitutional originalist.

    We’re not aiming to amend the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has been doing that for decades. Move to Amend seeks to restore the First Amendment for the people alone. The amendment we seek will restore the true meaning of rights and repair the corruption of them wrought by the Court over the years.

    We’re aiming to restore what was imparted to us by the Framers. A Republic of, by and for the people, not for the corporations. Why on Earth would any principled conservative oppose that idea?

  6. I’ve learned a lot from the commentary here. My husband and I are now following news. The article and the comments here shine quite a bit of light on the matter. Citizen’s United was a terrible decision that harmed democracy in our country and further raised up the plutocrats. Money should not buy votes, rather education and wise counsel needs to be the emphasis.

    Bill Moyers has been speaking on the dangers of plutocracy, what we’ve become, for awhile:

%d bloggers like this: