Friday, February 28, 2014

Article V Con-Con Groups in a Coalition

Recently, we wrote about a popular Article V Con-Con movement, Compact For America, and the concerning leadership behind it. On that board of advisers was Harvard's Lawrence Lessig, former adviser to the Obama campaign. Lessig is on the board of multiple efforts for a Con-Con, including Compact For America, Call a Convention, ConventionUSA, Rootstrikers, etc. Another very popular movement being referred to by Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and others is the Convention of States, founded and promoted by Mark Meckler, formerly of the Tea Party Patriots. When they recommend joining this particular effort, are they aware it is part of a coalition with some questionable members?

Read the rest here.


  1. It is an Article V amending convention, not a con-con. You need to get your facts straight. If you have any facts supporting your conspiracy theory, bring them forth. If you have any facts questioning the motives of supporters of a convention of states, bring them forth. If you have any facts supporting your allegations of questionable members, bring them forth.

    I suspect you are like most left wing and right wing loons. You are lost in a world of fact free conspiracy theories that cannot be supported upon critical examination.

  2. Call it what you will; the title includes both terms.
    It is odd that you (anonymously) insinuate there are no facts to back this up, when everything in this article is researched and linked.
    As far as "conspiracy", that is being overused as a way to shut up any dissenting opinion.

  3. A coalition is a pact among groups, during which they cooperate in joint action and join forces together for a common cause. You offer no facts to support your premise that the groups you name have entered into such a pact. Either there are none or you are obligated to offer a proof of facts. If you cannot do this it must be because there are none and your statement is patently false.

    Article V of the Constitution empowers the people, working through their state legislatures, with the means to propose amendments to the Constitution. It is a Constitutional right. There is no doubt that there are movements from across the ideological spectrum who wish to exercise this right in support of their causes. What is wrong with that? That is what the United States of America is all about. When you see the free exercise of a Constitutional right by a diversity of independent groups as some sort of massive conspiracy then you are espousing the rhetoric of radical, anti-constitutional extremists.

    A Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) and an Article V Amending Convention are distinctly different instruments. Your flip response of “call it what you will” is indicative of either your profound constitutional illiteracy or a deliberate attempt to mislead. You need to do some homework and get your facts straight. You might find the works of Professor Robert Natelson illuminating.

    Words have meaning and your attempt to distort them is demagoguery as is your use of phrases like “the concerning leadership” and “questionable members” as you attempt to sully the reputations of your targets. The use of such tactics makes the entire content of your article unworthy of serious consideration.

  4. Good talking points! However, it appears you have not looked at any of the links whatsoever. They are now found here:
    Note that they were originally described and listed as a "coalition" on a coalition page. They have now reworded that and made a new page after this post was published, for obvious reasons. However, Michael Farris wrote a blog post admitting to and defending the existence of the coalition. He has since deleted that, too. Doesn't look too honest. Here is his old post page:

  5. Perhaps a follow up article needs to be written on the "mystery of the disappearing links", and on he "reworded links". I wonder if the Wayback page has the original non-tampered version. NOTE: This is not the "anonymous" who is above, posting.

  6. I have already looked at the site you reference and see no evidence to support your proposition. It is nothing more than a listing of many groups across the ideological spectrum that support an Article V convention. That is why I wrote the second paragraph above.

    Moreover, I have no doubt that Mr. Farris and the Convention of States would welcome coalitions with groups whose core values are consistent with those of the COS and who support its initiative. There are numerous organizations throughout the country, many at the local or regional level, that meet this definition. There is nothing sinister or conspiratorial about that. It is just common sense. You work with friends of like perspective.

    Why don’t you send Mr. Farris at the Convention of States website an email. Give him the names of the individuals you claim are “questionable members” of the “concerning leadership” of the organizations listed. Ask him directly if he or his project has entered in to a pact to cooperate with them in the manner you seem to suggest. Otherwise stop the smear campaign.

    In addition, why don’t you visit the COS website and if you can attack anything they say with fact-based evidence and rebuttal, bring it on. Citations of fact-free opinions of loons from either the right or left are unacceptable.

  7. As I said, they scrubbed that page on the coalition site.
    Farris does not deny the associations, but wrote an article defending them. Yes, he admitted to the coalition. He has since scrubbed that article from the COS site where he published it.
    I am growing weary of repeating the same information over and over. Along with others, I have copies of their scrubbed pages which I will happily email to you upon request.
    Name calling will not help us here. It is the most pathetic of responses. I do not and will not agree that it is wise to form a coalition with people who are too extreme or untrustworthy. That is not wise. Calling me a loon for having an opposing opinion will not be productive for anyone.

  8. Again, who are the people you deem to be too extreme or untrustworthy. Name names. What associations do you find unwise and why. Name names and support your characterizations.

    You are entitled to an opposing opinion but your refusal to name names and support your claims makes them no more than a rant of an anti-constitution extremist

  9. All of these are named in the article, yet you repeatedly ask for the same information. Did you even read the entire article, or is it your job to visit blogs and name call anyone who disagrees?
    There will be no further replies, as your questions make it clear that you haven't read the entire article.