Brian, In the spirit of "As iron sharpens iron", you are repeating the same falsehood about the founders drafting a new constitution but were called "to amend the Articles of Confederation". That has been found by scholars to be false and this would be the third time its been pointed out in your Substack (twice by me and once by Rita Peters (https://gemstatechronicle.com/2025/02/editorial-an-open-letter-to-brian-almon-at-gem-state-chronicle/). In the spirit of Proverbs 27:17, it would seem incumbent on you to honor those who are trying to abide by scripture and sharpen one another, to review their original source(s) and provide evidence based feedback. Please review the Harvard Law Review article that puts to rest this fallacious argument or provide some sharpening to me and others who you believe are being misled. It seems the Christian thing to do. The Harvard Law article is here - https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2017/03/Farris_FINAL.pdf.
I want to add that I very much appreciate your work and read every article. I even signed up to a paid subscription recently - and no I won't be cancelling. But please address this most important historical precedent since it weighs heavily on our ability to trust the Constitution or forever question its content.
Robert Brown from JBS directly addressed these claims at his presentation at the Capitol last week, pointing to his own scholarly articles regarding the mandates of the commissioners to the Philadelphia Convention. Both sides study the issue and see what they want to see, and then accuse those who see things differently as lying.
I don't think it throws the Constitution into doubt to admit that the delegates to that convention went beyond their original mandate. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent of the states to make amendments, but the Constitution only required 9 of the original 13, and completely redesigned the federal government. Rather than getting lost in the details, I think we can all admit that the Constitution was the superior governing document, and that the Framers did the right thing in drafting and ratifying it. We can also recognize that patriotic Founders like George Mason were mostly wrong in their opposition, without demonizing them or impugning their motives.
In any case, the question of what could happen with an Article V Convention cannot be sufficiently answered by looking at the past, because it would be completely uncharted territory. Maybe I'm wrong and it would work perfectly, but maybe supporters are wrong and it could go awry. We just don't know.
I appreciate your support, and I'm sure we agree on most of the problems facing our country. My biggest frustrating with the Convention debate is that it seems to divide those of us who should be working together on everything else.
Did you read the commissions? Or are you just believing what Brown's interpretations are? Also, Robert Brown does not have any formal constitutional training. This is not something we should let go since it sits at the core of the argument against an Article V convention. Please read the paper. I'm happy to pay for your time and we can sit down to discuss what your findings are.
Yes, I've read everything I can get my hands on from both sides, thousands of pages. And continue to read, so please feel free to send me whatever you believe to be worth reading.
Please do your normal detailed discovery of topics you write about as Jeff Perley recommended. I am a former State Legislator and have endured these last 11 years of bloggers and politicians that have not thoroughly reviewed how our Founders were authorized by their States to create our amazing Constitution.
I am sure you know Vice President JD Vance, Congressional Speaker Mike Johnson, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, along with true Constitutional scholars like Michael Farris, former CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, David and Tim Barton, Patriot Academy Rick Green, etc, etc. have all recommended the States pass Article V Convention of States. Even the national conservative policy action Heritage Foundation have come out for our Constitution Artivle V. The Resolution I and a sponsor - my son Representative Jordan Redman are in favor is the 3 subject Amendment proposal. We are not interested in waiting for Congress to pass any proposed Amendments because they will not!
Yes, Dorthy Moon whose husband is on the national board of the John Birch Society is in opposition to our Redolution; definitely not Constututional scholars.
God blessed the founders with the wisdom and foresight to put Convention of States/ Article V in our Constitution... it's time to deploy it! We've been supporting it since all the states had their first meeting in the newly opened George Washington Presidential Library in Dec 2013, at Mount Vernon.
While I share your concerns regarding a state-triggered Article V convention, I believe the issue rests on balancing risks. On the one hand, we face all the apparent risks of a “runaway” convention. Whether a convention can be focused with ironclad guardrails as proponents suggest is speculation.
On the other hand, we face the risks associated with continuing to run massive budget deficits. When weighing the risks, I incline to favor Idaho backing a convention except for two critical factors. First, it seems to me a pipedream to ever get either 33 or 34 states to sign on. Thus, and worse, it is a dangerous distraction from building the political will to force Congress to act responsibly. However, this pessimism is also speculative.
The second critical factor is the immediate implications of compelling a balanced budget under the current circumstances. The latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report projected 2026 federal spending of $7.3 trillion, revenues of $5.6 trillion, and a budget deficit of $1.7 trillion. Let’s accept those figures for illustrative purposes.
Conservatives pushing for a balanced budget in 2026 would surely demand the government meet its interest obligations ($1.0 trillion) and provide for the national defense ($0.9 trillion). That means balancing the budget would require $1.7 trillion in cuts from the $5.4 trillion remaining spending. That’s a 31% cut.
Sign me up, but I doubt even the most conservative Members of Congress could detail that much spending to cut (would any of Idaho’s delegation?), so that means balancing the budget would require substantial tax hikes, another policy conservatives not named Mitt Romney would strenuously oppose.
We can get to a balanced budget over time if Congress holds spending to current levels while Trump’s roaring economy generates big tax revenue increases. In fact, capped spending and rising revenues would balance the budget in about 7 years using CBO’s pessimistic economic growth projections, while more reasonable projections suggest a balanced budget in 5 years.
Ironically, unless you accept a sizable increase in federal taxes, the time to enact a balanced budget amendment is not when the deficit is massive, but when the budget is at or near balance so the amendment can preserve that balanced budget. But first, we have to get there.
Brian, In the spirit of "As iron sharpens iron", you are repeating the same falsehood about the founders drafting a new constitution but were called "to amend the Articles of Confederation". That has been found by scholars to be false and this would be the third time its been pointed out in your Substack (twice by me and once by Rita Peters (https://gemstatechronicle.com/2025/02/editorial-an-open-letter-to-brian-almon-at-gem-state-chronicle/). In the spirit of Proverbs 27:17, it would seem incumbent on you to honor those who are trying to abide by scripture and sharpen one another, to review their original source(s) and provide evidence based feedback. Please review the Harvard Law Review article that puts to rest this fallacious argument or provide some sharpening to me and others who you believe are being misled. It seems the Christian thing to do. The Harvard Law article is here - https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2017/03/Farris_FINAL.pdf.
I want to add that I very much appreciate your work and read every article. I even signed up to a paid subscription recently - and no I won't be cancelling. But please address this most important historical precedent since it weighs heavily on our ability to trust the Constitution or forever question its content.
Robert Brown from JBS directly addressed these claims at his presentation at the Capitol last week, pointing to his own scholarly articles regarding the mandates of the commissioners to the Philadelphia Convention. Both sides study the issue and see what they want to see, and then accuse those who see things differently as lying.
I don't think it throws the Constitution into doubt to admit that the delegates to that convention went beyond their original mandate. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent of the states to make amendments, but the Constitution only required 9 of the original 13, and completely redesigned the federal government. Rather than getting lost in the details, I think we can all admit that the Constitution was the superior governing document, and that the Framers did the right thing in drafting and ratifying it. We can also recognize that patriotic Founders like George Mason were mostly wrong in their opposition, without demonizing them or impugning their motives.
In any case, the question of what could happen with an Article V Convention cannot be sufficiently answered by looking at the past, because it would be completely uncharted territory. Maybe I'm wrong and it would work perfectly, but maybe supporters are wrong and it could go awry. We just don't know.
I appreciate your support, and I'm sure we agree on most of the problems facing our country. My biggest frustrating with the Convention debate is that it seems to divide those of us who should be working together on everything else.
Did you read the commissions? Or are you just believing what Brown's interpretations are? Also, Robert Brown does not have any formal constitutional training. This is not something we should let go since it sits at the core of the argument against an Article V convention. Please read the paper. I'm happy to pay for your time and we can sit down to discuss what your findings are.
I'll read it when I have the chance. Always open to new ideas. Out of curiosity, have you read scholarly articles taking a different position?
Yes, I've read everything I can get my hands on from both sides, thousands of pages. And continue to read, so please feel free to send me whatever you believe to be worth reading.
Yes Brian,
Please do your normal detailed discovery of topics you write about as Jeff Perley recommended. I am a former State Legislator and have endured these last 11 years of bloggers and politicians that have not thoroughly reviewed how our Founders were authorized by their States to create our amazing Constitution.
I am sure you know Vice President JD Vance, Congressional Speaker Mike Johnson, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, along with true Constitutional scholars like Michael Farris, former CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, David and Tim Barton, Patriot Academy Rick Green, etc, etc. have all recommended the States pass Article V Convention of States. Even the national conservative policy action Heritage Foundation have come out for our Constitution Artivle V. The Resolution I and a sponsor - my son Representative Jordan Redman are in favor is the 3 subject Amendment proposal. We are not interested in waiting for Congress to pass any proposed Amendments because they will not!
Yes, Dorthy Moon whose husband is on the national board of the John Birch Society is in opposition to our Redolution; definitely not Constututional scholars.
Thank you,
Eric Redman
God blessed the founders with the wisdom and foresight to put Convention of States/ Article V in our Constitution... it's time to deploy it! We've been supporting it since all the states had their first meeting in the newly opened George Washington Presidential Library in Dec 2013, at Mount Vernon.
While I share your concerns regarding a state-triggered Article V convention, I believe the issue rests on balancing risks. On the one hand, we face all the apparent risks of a “runaway” convention. Whether a convention can be focused with ironclad guardrails as proponents suggest is speculation.
On the other hand, we face the risks associated with continuing to run massive budget deficits. When weighing the risks, I incline to favor Idaho backing a convention except for two critical factors. First, it seems to me a pipedream to ever get either 33 or 34 states to sign on. Thus, and worse, it is a dangerous distraction from building the political will to force Congress to act responsibly. However, this pessimism is also speculative.
The second critical factor is the immediate implications of compelling a balanced budget under the current circumstances. The latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report projected 2026 federal spending of $7.3 trillion, revenues of $5.6 trillion, and a budget deficit of $1.7 trillion. Let’s accept those figures for illustrative purposes.
Conservatives pushing for a balanced budget in 2026 would surely demand the government meet its interest obligations ($1.0 trillion) and provide for the national defense ($0.9 trillion). That means balancing the budget would require $1.7 trillion in cuts from the $5.4 trillion remaining spending. That’s a 31% cut.
Sign me up, but I doubt even the most conservative Members of Congress could detail that much spending to cut (would any of Idaho’s delegation?), so that means balancing the budget would require substantial tax hikes, another policy conservatives not named Mitt Romney would strenuously oppose.
We can get to a balanced budget over time if Congress holds spending to current levels while Trump’s roaring economy generates big tax revenue increases. In fact, capped spending and rising revenues would balance the budget in about 7 years using CBO’s pessimistic economic growth projections, while more reasonable projections suggest a balanced budget in 5 years.
Ironically, unless you accept a sizable increase in federal taxes, the time to enact a balanced budget amendment is not when the deficit is massive, but when the budget is at or near balance so the amendment can preserve that balanced budget. But first, we have to get there.