Over the last month, we’ve seen Mark Levin and the Constitutionalist Movement slam full steam ahead into an inconspicuous iceberg called the John Birch Society. Almost instantaneously, conservatives and constitutionalists picked sides, armed themselves with their talking points, and BOOM, you get what we had here last week. They say that when passions rise, logic dies. (If they don’t say that, they should. I do.) So let’s take a step or two backward and rekindle the broader debate with the knowledge that we are not each other’s enemies. OK?

We can all agree, I suspect, that Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court are far beyond the reach of the American Citizen, that Federalism is dead, and that our government is stubbornly stumbling toward economic, moral, and intellectual bankruptcy in its’ pursuit of myriad, often contradictory, utopias. We can also agree, I hope, that time is running out, and that an irrational government doesn’t have an eternity to avoid the consequences of its actions. Cause and effect still thrives as the fundamental law in this universe, so I cannot imagine that any of us are feeling as though time is on our side (despite what the Rolling Stones might tell you).

So here comes the Article V crowd, myself included, with a plan to reconstitute Federalism in our nation, through a Convention of the States. The plan (which I am still astonished is controversial, but I will accept the fact that it has become so) is to begin passing amendments to the Constitution, placing new checks and balances on our Federal Government, on each of the three branches of our government, including the bureaucracy, to fill the void left in the wake of a Congress that has essentially (if not literally) given each of its checks and balances powers over to President Obama and the Executive Branch.

If you would like to look at the foundational and procedural Article V information that your legislators are no doubt reading today, here is the handbook, published by the American Legislative Exchange Council. This is not an all encompassing summation of the Article V movement, but it is concise. You can also read Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments, for a general idea of what most people are considering in our pursuit of a convention.

Before I get into the alternatives to Article V (because I do not want to give anyone the impression that we are giving up already) I would like to address and hopefully assuage some of the fears I’ve heard articulated over the last three days.

Follow The Money. Now, it is never foolish to follow the money, nor to be concerned when big time money infiltrates any process or event. That said, there is no process, no movement, no national strategy that is, or will ever be free of large amounts of money. Why? Because Wall Street and K Street and Warren Buffet and George Soros (I’ll get to him again later) have a great deal of their own capital invested in our current system of government. They will never stop trying to influence elections and politics in general. As individual citizens, there is no option open to us that does not require us to come face to face with their money and their corruption. So, we can’t just scream, “Follow The Money!”, and leave it at that; or else we’ll be screaming that little mantra all the way back to the dark ages of tyranny.

The Supreme Court Decides The Outcome. This is flat out bunk. Yes, if the States are sued by the Federal Government over amendments ratified and sent to the Capital, the Supreme Court would eventually have to rule on the Constitutionality of the process employed. So what does Article V actually say?

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, 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; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

So long as neither the amendments nor the process contradict this Article, there is really nothing the Supreme Court can do within its authority. Is it possible that our Supreme Court would act outside of its authority? Yes, we’ve seen this over and over again. However, if the Supreme Court struck down Amendments sent to the Congress by the States, the only tragedy would be that we wasted a great deal of our time and our faith in the future of a sane, rational republic will for once and all be destroyed. Those people saying the Supreme Court could somehow hijack the process and issue amendments on their own are flat out wrong, if not hysterical.

Article V is a threat to the Second Amendment. To believe this claim, you would have to believe that two thirds of all State Legislatures would ratify an amendment reversing the Second Amendment. If this could happen, it would have already happened; and if anyone is going to make this argument, I would like them to list the 37 States most likely to sign away our gun rights. Please explain which leaders in those State Congresses are currently supporting such a proposal, and list the support data from their constituents which make you think this is likely, or even remotely possible.

George Soros. How should I retort? Yes, he exists, he’s out there, he’s dangerous, and he’s not involved in the movement toward an Article V Convention of the States. Will he throw money at the process and try to disrupt it? Yes. Will Wall Street? Yes. Will K Street? Yes. So what? Whatever alternatives you can think of, that you believe are safer than Article V, will also be opposed by Soros, Wall Street, K Street, the Romney’s, the Bush’s, the Clinton’s, and the Gate’s. This is a reality, but it isn’t an objection, unless you object to the American People trying to do anything to stop our current course.

If not Article V, however, then what? There are two rational alternatives that have come across my email. The first comes from Catherine Crabill: which is to pursue legislation in all fifty states, and eventually in Congress, that would hold our elected representatives and bureaucrats criminally liable for any and all acts contrary or detrimental to the United States Constitution. There are two obstacle here: the first is that we require these very elected officials to pass such legislation. This obstacle doesn’t bother me too much, because we can make it a campaign issue and simply vote out anyone who opposes it, if we get enough constituent support. The second obstacle will come from the lawyers: who seem certain that such legislation is impossible and not entirely legal. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know the veracity of this, but I know it will be a legitimate obstacle.That said, why can’t we hold our elected officials criminally liable for their crimes? That seems utterly absurd to me.

The second alternative reminds me of a Q&A I had before Bob Shannon and the King William TEA Party. I was making the argument that the Democrats have been at this for over 100 years and that any real, lasting success would require us to invest the same amount of time, but I assured them that progress was possible. Bob asked me just how confident I was that it was possible, considering that the vast majority of these “masterminds” are unelected employees within the Federal Bureaucracy. How do we dig them out? I don’t remember my answer to that, but it was probably something brilliant like, “Gee, Bob, I don’t know. It’s going to be hard”. I’m full of great ideas like that.

The second alternative is that we take over the Republican Party from the bottom up, forming a legitimate conservative and constitutional party. There is a rational virtue in this alternative, because there are no silver bullets in politics and if any of us think we’re going to see real change without having to do real, hard work, then we’re woefully naive (if not outright lazy). I think this is what advocates for this alternative see in the Article V movement. They see something that looks too good to be true, too easy, too quick – and if we can do it, then they can do it. I think they think we’re being lazy and naive. What they are ignoring is that we are using the very process laid out in the Constitution itself to address the current Constitutional Crisis, and that, short of a hundred years of clawing our way back to sanity, there are no other legal alternatives available.

Also, I don’t think we have 100 years. What the Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and what Obama has done in the White House, and what the bureaucracy has done in the sewers of our Republic, have expedited the damage exponentially, either up to the tipping point, or beyond it. We don’t have a hundred years. So, in the short run, to advocates of this alternative (remember, I’ve argued the same!), what do you want us to do? We’re all willing to go out there and work, lobby, knock on doors, discover quality candidates, give our money to them, and show up on election day. That just isn’t going to be enough – our Welfare State will collapse in twenty years or less, and our Housing Market is, once again, on the verge of catastrophe. So before you dismiss Article V, please consider offering us an alternative which can counter what has happened over the last 14 years. We need a response to the last 14 years that we can accomplish over the next 14 years.

There, that is the best I can do, to reset and re-stimulate the debate, without all the passionate fog that has lit fires under our rear ends over the last two weeks. I hope it helps.