There they go again. The National Treaty (COS) echo chambers are wrapped in a constitution that recycled rhetoric and shallow slogan echo chambers claim to be defended but highly misunderstood. Their tired attacks on John Birch society – the final line of principled defense against the eruption of our constitutional republic – is not only dishonest, but extremely dangerous.
Let's distribute their clumsy propaganda and reveal the COS scheme of what it is: Trojans who are dressed in constitutional attire promise “reform” while preparing their kindling for political infernos that can fully consume the constitution.
Permanent fixes or permanent scams?
This article opens with a backputting pean to the limited measures to trim the Trump administration's bureaucracy, as if temporary political appointments were a substitute for true constitutional fidelity. But then Cos Bait-and-Switch comes. “We need state practices,” they say, “to make these reforms permanent.” Of course, what they mean is a permanent rewrite of the constitution carried out by modern politicians, scholars and activists, not the father of the founder.
Let me say this obviously. There is nothing “constitutional” about using Article V to do things that the Constitution does not allow. This is open to amendment at the hands of ambitious reformers operating under the fantasy of control.
The mythology of “Run-control treaty”
COS mouthpieces love to scoff at the phrase “Runaway Convention” as if Sneering is not true. Their rebuttal falls almost entirely in Michael Faris' article. This is something that doesn't work if you remember that it's published in a legal magazine and remember that it doesn't turn your opinion into the Bible.
Faris argues that the 1787 convention was not a runaway, as the Union Conference did not technically call it. But this is refined. The undeniable fact – recorded by the Framers himself – is that representatives have surpassed their committee, waived the alliance clause and drafted an entirely new system of government. Whether it's good or bad is next to the point. That fact is uncontroversial. Farewelling otherwise is a historic medical malpractice.
Faris and his fellow COS salesmen dismiss this reality. This is because it inconveniently highlights the highly dangerous articles that V-critics warned.
“Are you just suggesting an adjustment?” Don't be naive.
The COS crowd argues that Article 5 states that it “suggests an amendment” to the treaty, and therefore cannot exceed its function. However, the claims reveal the dangerous ignorance of constitutional history. Proposing an amendment seems harmless – until I remember that all the fundamental restructuring of government in history began with “mere amendments.” The 1787 convention itself began as a mission to revise the article and ended with a new government. History laughs at people who believe they can open up volcanoes and control lava.
Furthermore, Article 5 does not provide for procedures, delegation selection, voting rules, or scope enforcement mechanisms for such a treaty. The COS movement is asking Americans to jump into constitutional quicksand based on a speculative “guarantee” and half-remembered precedent of 200 years ago.
Interstate Treaty Precedent: Shell Game
COS defenders point to “scores of historical national rules” as evidence that the practice remains within their limits. But this is a handheld hand. Past state treaties have not been made under the auspices of Article 5, and most importantly, none of them had the power to change the national constitution. The interests were unparalleled. To pretend that these minor meetings are a reliable template for 21st century constitutional treaties is to compare campfires with atomic bombs.
Declaration of Independence: Is it misquoted or misunderstood?
The COS team sen a JBS call in affirmation of the declaration against the rights of those who change or abolish the government. But their self-righteous dismissals only reveal that they are unfamiliar with the principles they claim to support. The declaration confirms that there is no treaty or treaty, an inviolable right for free people to remake their government. It is extremely dangerous. When you call the convention, you will not manage participants. Does not control the scope. No control over the results. Because the COS camps send trembling to the spines of constitutionally illiterate Americans.
Voting rules and undefined conditions: Lawyer's strategy
“One state, one vote” is a COS argument that “it's laughing and naive just because you have “always.” Article 5 states nothing about voting procedures, restrictions on delegation, or enforcement. The Constitution does not define these terms because the founders never intended this path to be lightly trampled. To treat these great ambiguities as harmless is to play Russian roulette along with our Republican government.
Opening the Constitution is exactly what they do
The ultimate and most ridiculous claim is that the treaty will not “publish” or “rewrite” it. Nonsense. Once a treaty is convened, there are no constitutional clauses that prevent representatives from proposing cleaning, consolidation or redefine freedom. And if you doubt it, read the suggestions already floating in the COS circle: period limits, definitions of federal marriage, balanced budgetary amendments that constitutionalize debt caps, and more. It's not reform. It's reengineering.
Conclusion: The real threat to freedom
The COS movement has become a false hope for frustrated patriots. It offers the illusion of control, the emergence of progress, and the dangerous promise of permanence.
The John Birch Society is not a “video of terror.” We are terrified. And fear is justified. Because bypassing the constitution, we will not save it. It does not restore limits of federal power by risking unlimited constitutional disruptions. And you will not protect your freedom by trusting the political class that has already betrayed it.
Those seeking national customs are not advocates of the founders. They are unconscious allies of the very power they claim to oppose. They offer a praised counterfeit constitutionalism supported by shallow scholarships.
Know that: the enemy of freedom does not always carry Gabel wearing robes.
And if God forbids it, if the Constitution has been hindered so far under the banner of “reform,” it becomes the custom of a national movement to hold the knife.
