Speaker 1: Your morning news, getting ready for work at all day.
Speaker 2: In fault and check in throughout the day.
Speaker 1: Fifty five krc the Talk Station eight oh five, the
Speaker 1: fifty five KRCD Talk Station. A very happy Friday Eve
Speaker 1: to you. I heard media aviation expert Jay right left
Speaker 1: the bottom of the air. I always look forward to
Speaker 1: talking to Jay, and I've been looking forward to this
Speaker 1: conversation for a some time. Mark Meckler, he's quite a guy,
Speaker 1: and you probably are familiar with him if you don't
Speaker 1: know his name. He is responsible for a bunch of
Speaker 1: things political pundit. He's an attorney, fellow attorney, business executive
Speaker 1: president of Citizens for Self Government Governance. And what we're
Speaker 1: gonna be talking about a Convention of States actions, an
Speaker 1: active proponent of a convention to propose amendens the United
Speaker 1: States Constitution, a movement that's actually growing in size and strength.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the fifty five KRCEE Morning from Market. It's
Speaker 1: a real pleasure to have you on today.
Speaker 3: Good morning, brand, It's an honor to be with you.
Speaker 1: Now, let's just start with the basics. Article five, Convention
Speaker 1: of States. Explain to my listeners what this proposal will
Speaker 1: allow us to do what is the goal ideally of
Speaker 1: this action?
Speaker 2: Yep, you know it's funny that we have to explain it, Brian,
Speaker 2: as a lawyer, I went to law school and realized
Speaker 2: many years later and have actually read the Constitution in.
Speaker 1: Law school, So I know, I have read the Constitution
Speaker 1: since law school, but you don't really dive into it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so most people don't know about this. Article five
Speaker 2: in the Constitution contains the ways in which we are
Speaker 2: able to amend the Constitution.
Speaker 3: It has two ways.
Speaker 2: One is, when two thirds of Congress wants to propose
Speaker 2: an amendment, they can do so, and then they send
Speaker 2: that out to the states for ratification by three quarters
Speaker 2: of the states or thirty eight states. The second way
Speaker 2: the Framers gave to us is to call a convention
Speaker 2: of states, and it takes two thirds of states or
Speaker 2: thirty four states to call a convention. And the reason
Speaker 2: they gave us this method, they said in convention that
Speaker 2: they knew that the federal government would become a tyranny
Speaker 2: at some point and that the states would have to
Speaker 2: have a way to reign in the federal government. So
Speaker 2: that's why they gave us this second clause of Article
Speaker 2: five and basically What it does is allows the states,
Speaker 2: when two thirds of them want to to gather in convention,
Speaker 2: they have to state in advance the reasons they want
Speaker 2: to gather in convention, and the states all have to agree.
Speaker 2: Thirty four states have to agree on the reason, and
Speaker 2: they can go to convention propose amendments. And the primary
Speaker 2: reason is to restrain the federal government.
Speaker 3: And so right now we have a movement going on.
Speaker 2: Nineteen states have passed a resolution to impose term limits
Speaker 2: on federal officials. That's the electeds, but also the deep
Speaker 2: state that we're seeing so exposed right now, staffers and bureaucrats.
Speaker 2: Number two, to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,
Speaker 2: like a balanced budget amendment, spending caps, tax caps, and
Speaker 2: number three, and I think most importantly personally, is to
Speaker 2: restrain the scope and jurisdiction of the federal government. So,
Speaker 2: for example, when the President is talking about getting rid
Speaker 2: of the Department of Education, I think that's great, but
Speaker 2: we need to make that permanent administration. We'll put it
Speaker 2: back in place, so you can have an amendment, for example,
Speaker 2: that says there can be no involvement of the federal
Speaker 2: government in education, and that would do a way with
Speaker 2: a Department of Education permanently.
Speaker 1: Well, it seems to me. One of the easiest mechanisms
Speaker 1: to achieve the goal of tearing back the excessive reach
Speaker 1: of government springs from a case I know, you know,
Speaker 1: which involves the commerce clause Wickered versus Philburn, which allows
Speaker 1: them to pretty much do anything they damn will please,
Speaker 1: literally anywhere, simply because anything we do impacts interstate commerce,
Speaker 1: even on a minuscule level.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, it's funny you bring up that case.
Speaker 2: You know, so few people who are not lawyers know
Speaker 2: about it. We who are lawyers know it's actually insane.
Speaker 2: That case basically said there was a farmer in Ohio
Speaker 2: who's growing wheat for the consumption of his own family,
Speaker 2: and the federal government penalized him for growing too much wheat.
Speaker 3: And he said, look, you have.
Speaker 2: No authority over me because I didn't do anything other
Speaker 2: than grow weak from my own family.
Speaker 3: I'm not engaged in interstate commerce.
Speaker 2: And the federal government said, yeah, exactly, you didn't do anything,
Speaker 2: and so that's why we can regulate you. You and
Speaker 2: the court ruled that well, because he didn't sell his
Speaker 2: wheat in interstate commerce, and he didn't buy weed in
Speaker 2: interstate commerce.
Speaker 3: He affected interstate commerce.
Speaker 2: In other words, he did nothing so he could be regulated,
Speaker 2: and that gave the federal government the power literally to
Speaker 2: regulate just about anything.
Speaker 1: I don't mean to move off topic, because that, to
Speaker 1: me is such a critical case in expanding the size
Speaker 1: of the scope of government. I mean, the EPA uses
Speaker 1: it a teaspoon of water on your land and they
Speaker 1: can regulate it. It's just it's insanity. Do you think
Speaker 1: ever in your or my lifetime that a can more
Speaker 1: conservative Supreme Court which we currently have. It may even
Speaker 1: be more conservative if Trump has his way and gets
Speaker 1: more justices appointed. Would ever overturn the lunacy of that case?
Speaker 2: You know, we have no indication right now that that
Speaker 2: would happen. I think they will pair back that case.
Speaker 2: I want people to understand, because we're lawyers. I want
Speaker 2: to kind of just bring it to layman's terms, because
Speaker 2: my mind works more like a layman. What we're talking
Speaker 2: about is the Supreme Court removing a so al for
Speaker 2: the federal government to allow these agencies and these regulations.
Speaker 2: And in other words, because of the Commerce Clause, the
Speaker 2: federal government is allowed to have an EPA USDA, all
Speaker 2: of these agencies, Department of Energy, Department of Education. Each
Speaker 2: of these agencies requires authority under the Constitution. None of
Speaker 2: them have it in writing under the Constitution. Right, this
Speaker 2: is an interpretation by the Supreme Court creating that authority.
Speaker 2: So the Court would have to say, ah, we were
Speaker 2: wrong on that commerce cause case, not just that one,
Speaker 2: but a.
Speaker 3: Whole line of cases that follow it. Indeed, so I
Speaker 3: think they might pair back on it.
Speaker 2: But if we want to make dramatic progress on that,
Speaker 2: we can do that in a Convention of States. We
Speaker 2: can reinterpret or go back to the original interpretation of
Speaker 2: the commerce clause, which actually just said that the federal
Speaker 2: government has the power to regulate, which meant to smooth
Speaker 2: out Back then, it didn't mean to prepare all these
Speaker 2: regulations interstate commerce, and commerce meant the shipment.
Speaker 3: Of goods across state line.
Speaker 2: So all we're trying to do is prevent trade wars
Speaker 2: between the state exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, it just seems so simple a solution, and
Speaker 1: I know everybody would face an uphill challenge getting a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to overturn that long standing, ridiculous precedent. But
Speaker 1: I think some of the goals of Convention of the
Speaker 1: States that you're talking about could be achieved if they.
Speaker 3: Would reverse that.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's kind of that's kind of why I
Speaker 1: initially gravitated towards me bring even bringing that case up, Mark,
Speaker 1: because you know, we need to amend the Constitution if
Speaker 1: that one case was overturned and they took away the
Speaker 1: federal government's power to regulate stuff that we are not
Speaker 1: doing over across state lines.
Speaker 2: So and yeah, look, you nailed it, Brian. I think
Speaker 2: that's really important. It would probably do a way, we
Speaker 2: don't know the exact number, but probably do away with
Speaker 2: forty to fifty percent of the federal government because they
Speaker 2: just wouldn't have the authority to operate anyone Yay.
Speaker 1: Now, can we put that on a list of things
Speaker 1: in the Convention of States to do to redefine the
Speaker 1: commerce clause to actually mean cross state line commerce and
Speaker 1: not just any activity that might somehow impact commerce generally.
Speaker 2: I can guarantee you that's something that I will be
Speaker 2: lobbying for if i'm that convention.
Speaker 1: I love hearing it all right now people who are
Speaker 1: against the idea of a Convention of States, and I
Speaker 1: think you've already explained a way why this is not
Speaker 1: a major concern because so many states have to approve,
Speaker 1: like ratifying an amendment to the Constitution that acts as
Speaker 1: a stop you know, a speed bumper, a stopgut measure
Speaker 1: to avoid some terrible consequences. But some people are worried about,
Speaker 1: you know, the so called runaway convention, and oh my god,
Speaker 1: if we convene a convention of states, all these left
Speaker 1: wing liberal nutcases are going to you know, enshrine DEEI
Speaker 1: as an amendment to the Constitution.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, the first thing I've say is we
Speaker 2: have to know where our arguments come from.
Speaker 3: And that argument was.
Speaker 2: Created by the radical left in America in the nineteen
Speaker 2: seventies and nineteen eighties, was led by Chief Justice Berger,
Speaker 2: who's the guy that gave us Row versus Wade. And
Speaker 2: he was being asked what he thought of his invention
Speaker 2: to overturn roversus weight, and so of course he said, oh, well,
Speaker 2: that's a terrible idea, and he made up this thing,
Speaker 2: which we'd never talked about before in American history, of
Speaker 2: the idea of a runaway convention, where a convention could
Speaker 2: propose all kinds of horrible things. Important to remember a
Speaker 2: super majority of states have to agree in advance to
Speaker 2: what the convention's about.
Speaker 3: Takes thirty four states degree.
Speaker 2: In advance what the limitations on conventions are, and I
Speaker 2: talked about what the ones we're proposing are, so nothing
Speaker 2: bad can happen under that. And then the ultimate stop
Speaker 2: gap in the end is anything that comes out of
Speaker 2: convention is just a suggestion. Literally, the convention has no power.
Speaker 2: All they can do is discuss and suggest, and then
Speaker 2: it takes thirty eight states to ratify. And Brian, here's
Speaker 2: a thought experiment for you. I've given this to literally
Speaker 2: millions of people. I give out my personal email address,
Speaker 2: which is Mmeckler at coosaction dot com, and say, if
Speaker 2: you're worried about this, and you're like me as conservative libertarian,
Speaker 2: give me the amendment that you're worried about, and then
Speaker 2: the thirty eight states that we're ratifying. And I can
Speaker 2: tell you that in doing this for eleven plus years,
Speaker 2: I've not received an email about.
Speaker 1: It that speaks volumes mark. It really does, because you
Speaker 1: have it at this for a long time, and Convention
Speaker 1: the States has been discussed for a long time, and
Speaker 1: for what I understand, the concept is really kind of
Speaker 1: it shares bipartisan support. Now, I mean, if you've got
Speaker 1: a majority of Democrats supporting it, which apparently there are,
Speaker 1: and sixty two percent of independence supporting it, and or
Speaker 1: seventy five percent of Republicans supporting it, why haven't more
Speaker 1: states just approved the concept, Ohio being one of them.
Speaker 1: They aren't marked in green on your map yet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, it's Ohio has been really interesting to
Speaker 2: me and a little bit frustrating. We have I would say,
Speaker 2: I'm very comfortable we have majority support in both houses,
Speaker 2: and it's really been slowed down a little bit on
Speaker 2: our side by leadership and a guy that I likes
Speaker 2: a lot, Matt Huffman, who I think has been good
Speaker 2: for the state, but he is a big advocate of
Speaker 2: the idea of a Convention of States, but he's just
Speaker 2: been slow to allow it through the legislature. And Franklin Ohio,
Speaker 2: you know, Huffman is the guy who has the power
Speaker 2: in the legislature.
Speaker 3: And so he's just been slow to go.
Speaker 2: And I know him well, and I'm hoping this year
Speaker 2: that we have the support of leadership in both houses.
Speaker 2: I think we're going to and I think we're going
Speaker 2: to get it done in Ohio.
Speaker 1: This here, well, it seems to be that, you know,
Speaker 1: in the last several days the Trump administration, I mean
Speaker 1: they sprinted as soon as he was was done getting
Speaker 1: sworn in. I mean, I just cannot just comprehend the
Speaker 1: flory of activity and the amount of effort and work
Speaker 1: that Trump has been able to accomplish. But I'm given
Speaker 1: large credit to Elon Musk for exposing how much waste
Speaker 1: there is in government held that USA Department and some
Speaker 1: of the programs and stupid, stupid things we spent forty
Speaker 1: billion dollars on that has to run contrary to the
Speaker 1: values of almost every American. You know, the idea of
Speaker 1: you know, funding gain of function research in the Wuhan
Speaker 1: Institute of Virology alone, they've literally killed millions of people.
Speaker 3: We paid for that.
Speaker 1: What elected officials said that was a good idea? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, not one. So the revelation of the waste,
Speaker 1: the revelation of all of this just absolute waste of
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars and the fact that we spend trillions of
Speaker 1: dollars more than they take in every year. I mean
Speaker 1: that crosses political lines. It's indefensible.
Speaker 2: So it is and like you said, I mean across
Speaker 2: party lines, people are in support this because it's just
Speaker 2: common sense.
Speaker 3: I mean, first of all, most.
Speaker 2: People don't know about it, like being started with when
Speaker 2: they do and when you say, hey, what we would
Speaker 2: like to do is keep these people from being in
Speaker 2: DC for forty years.
Speaker 3: What we'd like to do.
Speaker 2: Is make them balance their budgets, balance their checkbooks like
Speaker 2: every human has to do and frankly, almost every state
Speaker 2: has to do.
Speaker 3: And we want to take some power away from DC
Speaker 3: and give.
Speaker 2: It back to the states. You can see why that's nonpartisan.
Speaker 2: For example, how California would get more power, New York
Speaker 2: would get more power, Illinois would get more power, states
Speaker 2: that are not conservatives, not just a conservative thing. It
Speaker 2: just takes power away from the centralizers in DC and
Speaker 2: frankly the tyrants in DC and gives it back to
Speaker 2: the people.
Speaker 1: Well, it also seems with the Trump administration that your
Speaker 1: idea of a Convention of States is probably going to
Speaker 1: get even more widespread support because apparently Donald Trump's has
Speaker 1: warmed up to the idea.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, it's been really interesting. I couldn't have
Speaker 2: predicted this, No way I could have known. But we
Speaker 2: put out a fourth quarter newsletter and there's a picture
Speaker 2: on the cover which kind of blew me away. If
Speaker 2: you look at the Trump administration right now, and you
Speaker 2: look at who is in the Trump administration that has
Speaker 2: expressed public support for Convention of States, you could start
Speaker 2: with jd. Vance supported us when he was running for senator.
Speaker 2: You got Mike Huckabe, who's going to be our ambassador
Speaker 2: at Israel as one.
Speaker 3: Of our early supporters.
Speaker 2: Pete Hegseth is a very close friend and big supporter
Speaker 2: now a new sect Death. The incoming Secretary of Agriculture,
Speaker 2: Broock Rowlins, is a big supporter of ours. Caroline Levitt,
Speaker 2: who's the star of the hour, I would say as
Speaker 2: the new Press Secretary, was the support of ours when
Speaker 2: she was running for the House of Representatives from New Hampshire.
Speaker 2: So we've just got a whole bunch of people in
Speaker 2: the admin around Trump. And we know Trump is looking
Speaker 2: at long term legacy play and that's important. I love
Speaker 2: that he doesn't have another term, So what's he going
Speaker 2: to do to make things permanent? And a lot of
Speaker 2: stuff that he's doing right now can be reversed by
Speaker 2: a subsequent administration unless we.
Speaker 3: Ensconce him in constitutional amendments.
Speaker 2: So we do know there have been discussions inside the
Speaker 2: inner circle in the White House about a Convention of States,
Speaker 2: and I'm looking forward to Trump's support.
Speaker 1: Well, and apparently you have some measure because he actually
Speaker 1: reposted on his truth social media post Mark Levin's conversation
Speaker 1: about the Convention of States and Mark Levin is a
Speaker 1: huge fan of the concept.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, I was pretty excited to see that.
Speaker 3: That's kind of out of the blue.
Speaker 2: We had no idea that's coming, and so Trump posted this,
Speaker 2: and right in there Mark's talking about his support for
Speaker 2: Convention of States. So that's why we know what's going
Speaker 2: on in the inner circles of the White House. We
Speaker 2: also if you look at my ex account right now
Speaker 2: just at Mark mecro, you'll see we've actually got billboards
Speaker 2: up in the Austin, Texas area near the gigafactory with
Speaker 2: Elon Musk on them with a chainsaw saying want to
Speaker 2: cut government permanently, Elon, And so we're hoping to get
Speaker 2: Elon on board as well.
Speaker 3: The Vekram Miswami was already on board.
Speaker 2: So I think we're getting very close to the point
Speaker 2: where we'll see the administration and support openly.
Speaker 1: So how many more states we need? I see that
Speaker 1: on your map that you have highlighted in blue that
Speaker 1: they have active legislation on this issue, you know, Nevada
Speaker 1: and Montana and elsewhere. Of course Ohio isn't marked on that,
Speaker 1: but maybe that that'll change. But how many more states
Speaker 1: total do we need to sign on to the concept.
Speaker 3: It's just fifteen to go.
Speaker 2: We're well past the halfway mark, and I expect we're
Speaker 2: going to see a bunch more come on this year.
Speaker 2: We've got a bunch of states pending Iowa, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Ohio.
Speaker 2: While it's not on the map yet, it will get
Speaker 2: filed this year and we expect to be moving forward
Speaker 2: in Ohio. So we've got fifteen to go and we
Speaker 2: are making a big push right now.
Speaker 1: Okay, what can my listeners do to learn more about
Speaker 1: the specifics of this and perhaps help push it through?
Speaker 1: For example, here in Ohio.
Speaker 2: Go to Convention of States dot com, get signed up there,
Speaker 2: click on sign the petition that will allow them to
Speaker 2: send a notice to your legislators that you're in support,
Speaker 2: and then call your legislators. This is the most important thing.
Speaker 2: Get involved and let them know to support this. So
Speaker 2: you do that, call your senator, call your representatives, and
Speaker 2: then click on the take action tab on the website
Speaker 2: and get signed up as a volunteer and getting gates all.
Speaker 1: Right, just add commerce clause to the list.
Speaker 3: Mark okay, it's at the top of my list, and I'm.
Speaker 1: Promise Mark Meckler convention the state's president. Check them out online,
Speaker 1: get signed up and send him an email if you
Speaker 1: have an issue about it. Mmeckler at coosaction dot com.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work, Mark. It's been a pleasure
Speaker 1: having on the program to learn the specifics on this.
Speaker 1: I look forward hopefully to talk with you again as
Speaker 1: we get closer and closer to the concept.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, thanks Frank, God bless.
Speaker 1: My pleasure and God bless you. Eight twenty one right now,
Speaker 1: stick around Jay Ratliff's coming up. I always love talking
Speaker 1: to Jay, exhaling and relaxing for the balance of the hour.
Speaker 1: Stick around you right back fifty five KRC dot com.