The WallBuilders Show
The WallBuilders Show is a daily journey to examine today's issues from a Biblical, Historical and Constitutional perspective. Featured guests include elected officials, experts, activists, authors, and commentators.
The WallBuilders Show
Should Article V Be Limited? - with Mark Meckler
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
A single throwaway line can fuel a massive myth, especially when it touches the Constitution. We’re joined by Mark Meckler to clean up confusion around the “runaway convention” claim and to put real history back on the table, starting with what the 1787 delegates were actually authorized to do and why it matters for today’s Article V debates.
We talk through original delegate commissions, the honor culture of the Founding era, and why blaming the framers for a supposed “rogue” convention doesn’t fit the evidence. Mark also connects the dots from the Annapolis Convention to the Constitutional Convention, showing how scope and authority were treated seriously and how limits worked in practice. If you care about constitutional history, this is a deep dive into the receipts, not the rumors.
Then we shift to the modern Convention of States question: can an Article V convention be limited to specific topics? We unpack the legal concept of aggregation, why state applications must match to count toward the two-thirds requirement, and what Department of Justice opinions (including work associated with Ed Meese’s DOJ) and scholarship like Mike Farris’s Harvard Law Review writing say about a limited call. We also walk through what happens if someone tries to introduce an out-of-scope amendment, and why the 38-state ratification requirement is the final, unavoidable backstop.
If this conversation challenges what you’ve heard about a constitutional convention, share it with a friend who cares about the Constitution, subscribe so you don’t miss the follow-up, and leave a review telling us the biggest myth you want to see tested next.
Welcome And What We Misspoke
SPEAKER_01Welcome to the Intersection of Faith and Culture is the Wall Builder Show taking on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. Rick Green here with David Barton and Tim Barton. You can learn more at our websites, wallbuilders.show for the radio program and wallbuilders.com for everything else. Had a great program last Thursday on our Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Got a get a lot of great questions from the audience, sometimes on topics that we know nothing about and go do a lot of homework on, sometimes on topics that we've talked about a lot and are experts on, sometimes on a topic I thought I was an expert on, and then I learned something. And then sometimes it's uh well, rarely it's a topic we actually disagree with here on the program, which anytime anybody wants to, you know, be incendiary and uh and and light up the Wall Buddhist program, throw in a question about term limits so that we can have some fun debate uh here between David and Tim and myself. Uh, but that's not our topic today. Tim, no, do you want to go down the road of term limits?
SPEAKER_02No, I was just I I was joking because you know, one of the things that that periodically, as as we're doing research and we find things, uh, and and we will point it out to somebody, every now and then we'll find a correction uh for somebody else uh on here. So, you know, I might find something for my dad or Rick. Rick finds something for me and my dad. Dad, you find something for me and Rick. And so every now and then we find something, we're like, oh, okay, I I don't remember that. I hadn't seen that. And I was chuckling because um every now and then when I'm with my dad and we're doing something together, we're speaking at a conference, usually we're going different directions, but sometimes we're together and and I chuckle uh because my dad's been doing this for 40 years. I I've been doing this not even 20 years yet. Now I grew up in and around it, but I joke because every now and then I'll I'll I'll find something like, hey dad, it's actually, I think it's this. Uh you said you know it this way. I think it's probably more accurate this way. And I always chuckle and I tell him, I said, now look, it's not a big deal. Uh you have more to remember. I don't know as many stories yet. So I the stories I know I know a little better. Uh, you've learned way more stories, so I see how it comes together. All that to say, sometimes we have a difference of opinion, like maybe the application of a constitutional issue or a strategic uh kind of operational thing. And sometimes we say something that we maybe forgot some of that context or issue. And sometimes, honestly, because we do a radio show every day, uh, we say stuff sometimes, and we will finish the program and we'll be like, Hey, did you mean to say this? And you're like, I didn't say that. I'm like, no, you actually said that. That's literally what you know. I don't I don't think so. When you when you talk enough, sometimes it's clear in your head and it doesn't always come out really clear through the microphone. And I'm gonna blame the microphone now. It's not that we I said the wrong words, the microphone messed it up. Uh, but uh apparently
Corrections And Owning The Record
SPEAKER_02uh this happened a little bit last week where we had some questions and conversation. And hey, did you mean to say it this way? Uh, because I I don't think that's right. Or did you guys know about this? Uh and so yeah, our buddy Mark Mechler uh reached out and said, Hey, have you guys read this? Have you seen this? And Rick, that was that was the interesting part because you and I talked for a while and you were like, I don't think I've ever read the like I should have known and seen this. I've never read this, and I I had absolutely never read it. Um, but you were like, I thought I knew this so well. I'd never seen this. And it was something that having this new information was really uh informative, and it hasn't changed our overall position, but it's added clarity to the position of what we thought we knew uh that actually might not have been totally correct. We have way more clarity now, which our of course our buddy Mark tells provide for us.
SPEAKER_00Well, before you guys go there, I'm gonna do a fake maya culpa. And the fake maya culpa is you guys told me after the program something I said, and I said there is no way I said that, and went back and played it, and I was wrong, but I think you guys edited the tape before you played it to make me look wrong. I think I actually said it right, and you guys said I said it wrong. And I so that's my fake maya culpa. So I I I got caught saying something I didn't think I said, but I actually said what you guys said I said, but I still think you're wrong because I know when I had in my brain,
The Big Question About Limited Calls
SPEAKER_00it just didn't come out of my mouth.
SPEAKER_01Well, I'm gonna go, I'm gonna go one step further. I I think I have I I think I'm I was wrong on an issue. Now, this happened once back in the 80s, so it had it's not the first time I was wrong. It did happen a really long time. No, seriously, it happens all the time. But on a topic that I thought I was really, like you said, Tim, really well schooled on and I've talked about for you know 15, 20 years now, and we've got all you know all over our our videos. But this particular area of the topic, I've kind of always dismissed because it never bothered me. And of course, we're talking about convention of states, which we had a question last week about whether or not you can have a limited call. In other words, the states can say only talk about these subjects and then be held to that once they get together in convention. And I've always kind of blown that off because I'm like, eh, you still got to go back to 38 states and get it ratified. So if they go out of bounds, the states that sent them there are gonna say, no, you were out of bounds, we're not gonna ratify that that amendment. So I've always kind of blown it off, but it is really important to a lot of people. They want to make sure that it's a limited call. And so after we kind of I kind of blew it off last week when the question was asked and um we we, you know, found out whoa, wait a minute. By the way, I kind of blew it last week. I didn't blow it off. I kind of blew up last week. Well, we've asked Mark to come and educate us a little bit because he sent me several documents that I never read. Department of Justice papers. Ed Meese's, you know, I I've I I've always looked at the heritage, you know, the constitution that that the Heritage Foundation did years ago, or Constitution Guide that Heritage Foundation did years ago that Ed Meese was the editor on, has always been like my main go-to in addition to the Federalist Papers. And I actually use it when I'm standing there in Constitution Live in Independence Hall teaching the Constitution. Um I can't believe I never read this this uh uh document that was produced by uh by by his DOJ. And and then uh Mike Ferris, our good friend, uh had a complete article in uh the Harvard Law Review that also covers this topic. So I went to school over the last three or four days after talking to Mark on the phone and him sending me these things, and I learned so much that I didn't know about limited calls for a convention. And man, Mark, thank you for coming on, Wall Builders again, and thank you for sending me those documents. Really appreciate uh the homework assignment and me not getting any rest this weekend and having to read these 50-page documents. No, I didn't even get through all the way. I learned so much, even in just the first part of each of them. But uh, hey man, thanks for coming back on the program.
SPEAKER_03Oh, I'm glad to be here. And you know, I got the five alarm fire. I heard the bells go off, and people started calling me and saying, hey, we were listening to wall builders and they said all this stuff. And honestly, my first reaction was no way, they didn't say any of that stuff. Like, I'll listen and we'll see if they said I know they wouldn't say that stuff. And so then I listened, I'm like, okay, now I'm confused because this doesn't make sense to me. And that's when I reached out to Rick. And just so you know, David, Rick just said, no, David didn't say that. Um, I'm quite certain. And and by the way, just so you guys know the context, there was a question about 17 or David brought up just actually kind of there was a question about limited conventions, brought up the 1787 convention and just said, I think that you it was almost a toss away, David. It was like you meant to say something different. And you said, Yeah, they went there to uh amend the Articles of Confederation, and then they just said, eh, we'll do something else. And I almost expected you to say something like, That's what people say, but that's not true. And it's like your brain just skipped ahead, you were just thinking too fast. And uh and you just went on to think of you. But the funniest part was just so you know, Rick was absolutely certain you didn't say what I had listened to you say. I actually had to get the transcript from your show, and I cut and pasted the transcript to to Rick, and he's like, Oh, yeah, he definitely said that.
SPEAKER_00I see, I I told I told both of these guys I didn't say what they accused me of saying, or what you told them that I said. There's a no way. I that's not what I said. So I'm with Rick. Rick and I both vote, so we've outvoted you guys, so it's it's two to two. See, I was right all along.
SPEAKER_03Well, let's start by clarifying
Why 1787 Was Not Runaway
SPEAKER_03that. I mean, because this it really wasn't the main substance of the thing. It was almost a throwaway line by David, because what we're really talking about is can the convention be limited? But I I want to just clarify the first point because I think it's really important because I hear from folks who oppose Convention of States all the time, and they say something that offends me. And it doesn't offend me personally, it offends me because it's really a slander on the framers of our Constitution, these incredible geniuses that were there and that drafted this thing. And what people say is well, they got sent only to amend the Articles of Confederation, and then there was a runaway convention. They just decided, nah, we're gonna do whatever we want to do. I find that offensive in a lot of ways, and I also find it flaw, it's not true, it flies in the face of history. Um, so I wanted to address that first. I mean, the very first thing I want to say about that is if you revere the framers like most of us do, I mean, they were humans, they're not perfect, but if you believe that they were men of honor, and for the most part, they were men of great honor, they held honor in such high esteem that they would duel over honor. Let's remember that they would kill each other over slights to their honor. The idea that they would gather in a convention, that they would have instructions from their states, and then that they would all, including George Washington, who is the president of the convention, all just decide, you know what? It doesn't matter what we said we were gonna do, we're gonna do whatever we want. That just flies in the face of what we know about the framers and of what we know about people of the time.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, it's such a good point, Mark, because that you know, thinking about George Washington, George Washington spent over 40 years not doing what he wanted to do. All right, like all he wanted to do was be a farmer at Mount Vernon. Uh, he didn't want to do all the service to the nation. But one of the things the Founding Fathers believed is if you were called to serve, you had a duty, a responsibility. It was selfish to say no. And and so it's such a good point, this idea that they went there and they created a runaway convention. They did what they wanted to do, and then they were going to try to impose that on the state. It's a really bad look on their character. And Mark, to your point, what's so important about this, and and and Rick, even backing up, you know, one of the things that that we had not been overly concerned with was that a Article V convention could be a limited convention. Uh, the reason we weren't concerned with it is because we knew a runaway convention is not a real fear. But Mark, to your point, there are some people that adamantly oppose a Article V convention of states because they say, no, it's a runaway convention. We don't want to lose the constitution. And of course, like again, the reason that's not a concern in our mind is because we know if you have to get whatever's done approved in 38 states, that's not a runaway convention. If 38 states approve it, that's more a reflection of we the people. Number one. I mean, like, you can go down a long list of why this fear is kind of irrational. But backing up, Mark, to your point, is that the irrational fear is is far more irrational than most people even realize. People think, no, this is irrational fear. No, it's really not. Because that that's not what the constitutional convention was called for, number one. And number two, if you look historically, and Rick, this is where when when you called me uh about that piece from Ed Meese and about and even Mike Ferris, their explanation on how a convention of states call has to be limited and has to operate with inside those bounds. I didn't realize how much clarity was there. And I never paid attention to it because that wasn't a concern I had. But Mark, backing up to your point, there's a lot of people, and I would say honestly, the really good-hearted people that love the founding fathers, that love the constitution, that oppose Article V, it's because of this fear that the convention wouldn't be limited, it would be runaway, and it might threaten the constitution. And Mark, as as you shared with us and pointed out, that's that is a very improper historic perspective. Uh, not just that the fear I think is irrational. And this is, I'm I'm not saying that to slight anybody that has that fear. I just don't think that's it's like, you know, this idea that you're sitting in your bedroom at night on a sunny day and you're scared of being struck by lightning. Well, that's pretty irrational, right? Like there's that's there's not even a storm in the area. What are you concerned about? And and that's not to try to again downplay somebody that might have a genuine heart, that loves America, that loves God, that loves founding fathers constitution, but even more so, Mark, when when you start explaining things that that help somebody understand, wait a second, it's daylight outside. There's not a storm. I'm in my house, like I'm totally safe. This is a safe space. I think most people don't realize that there's there's a lot more safeguards around an Article V convention, Mark, that again, you helped kind of point out. So will you walk through, Mark, some of what you had emailed and shared with us, maybe some of this idea that some people might have been concerned that the original Constitution Convention was a runaway convention, and you pointed out it's not, because here was part of the call. Uh, and then you got into even why we know that a modern call for a convention of states would be limited based on things that we have seen from Department of Justice, from our good friend like Mike Ferris, who uh was uh one of the guys running Alliance Defending Freedom, this huge constitutional law firm. Like these constitutional experts are pointing out no, it would have to be limited. Will you walk us through some of that, Mark?
SPEAKER_03All right. Well, let's start with 1787 and the framers because we'll clear their reputation. And the reason that people think, and and I think this is important, Tim. You say good-hearted people believe this. I I think that's important. Most people believe 1787 was a quote unquote runaway convention, or they were sent only to amend the articles until recently, until Rob Natelson looked at the original commissions. These are documents taken by each of these guys. You can actually go see them in the National Archives, taken by each of the people who went to convention. And if you look at those, what they read is there's some version of this in the first six states that that commission their delegates, it says the delegate has any and all authority necessary to render the federal constitution adequate for the exigencies of the union. And it says any and all, there's no limitation, it doesn't even mention the Articles of Confederation. And so what happens is Virginia is the first call. Five states follow on their heels, use very similar language. Connecticut ends up using similar language. They give their delegates full authority. Go do whatever you want. Important side note you guys talk about the language all the time. The language matters. In 1787, the country doesn't have a constitution. We have articles of confederation. And so when they say to render the federal constitution adequate, what they mean is the makeup of the government, the constitution of the government, the way it's set up. So they're saying go there and just fix it. There's another clue to this that that we understand that we can see from history is if you go, the previous convention was the Annapolis convention. It was called to deal with commercial matters. The states were struggling to do commercial business with each other. Only five states showed up for that. And the delegates to that convention understood they were just there to deal with commercial matters. They had a limited commission. They were given limited authority. And those delegates meet, and for two reasons, they decide they can't do anything. One is they say we only have five states, that's not enough. And then the second is they say we don't have the authority. We there's all these problems. We're struggling with all these things in the new country. There's way more we have to deal with than commercial stuff. So we need to tell the states that we need a more general convention. And they're so worried, Tim, about the limitations on their authority and that they're going to exceed those, that they actually debate like, can we even issue a recommendation for a broader convention? Like, is that within our authority or are we exceeding the scope of our authority here at this commercial convention? But they ultimately recommend that the states gather in convention for a broader constitutional convention, a full convention with plenary authority. That then is started by Virginia, quickly taken up by six states. Connecticut is the seventh state to issue the broader call. Two states actually limit the call. That's Massachusetts and New York. And the reason they limit the call, they don't like the idea of a convention in general. After the sixth state to call, Congress says, you know what? We think you're right. You should gather in convention. There's no power under the Articles of Confederation for Congress to call a convention. Zero, it's not mentioned. They don't have that power. Congress doesn't say they're calling a convention. They say in the language of their declaration, they're recommending. They never transmit this to the states like they have any authority. They just say, we recommend you guys get together. And they do use the words to amend the Articles of Confederation. Massachusetts and New York parrot that language. And the beautiful thing about the whole thing is it works perfectly. They gather in convention. You know who doesn't vote? Massachusetts and New York because their delegations were limited by the authority that their states gave them or the limitations on the authority that they were given. And so everybody does exactly what they're supposed to do at convention. The convention is limited by the states that want to limit it. Their delegates can't do anything else, and the others are given full authority. So it's not a runaway convention. They did exactly what they were sent to do. So that sets the foundation for all of this, in my opinion. So, because Tim, I'm going to tell you and David, every single time somebody tells me there's going to be a runaway convention, they tell me 1787 was a runaway convention. I'm going to make it my life's work to clear the reputation of the framers on that one.
SPEAKER_01I love it. Hey, let's take a quick break, Mark. When we come back, we'll talk about how to do a limited call uh right now and and why that has prevented what we call an I think the right word is aggregation of all of the different calls for all the different subjects. Otherwise, we would have already had a convention states on all these different different topics. Quick break, everybody. We'll be right back. You're listening to the Wall
Back From Break And New Clarity
SPEAKER_01Builder Show.
SPEAKER_02Okay, we want to let you know about a new product we have here at Wall Builders called Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor, The Signers of the Declaration. Like most Americans, you might be someone that you recognize some of the names of the Founding Fathers, but do you know their story? We want to help remedy that. My dad and I have written biographies on all 56 signers of the Declaration to help reintroduce people to the men who literally signed their names on the line for the sake of the nation. And when they did this, they knew that they were essentially signing their death warrants. They were risking everything for the hope that they might be able to purchase freedom for the rising generation with their lives, their fortunes, and sacred honors. In spite of the hardship that every one of them endured, none of them recant or backed away. Now, if you don't know their story, you can get to know all 56 of them. Go to wallbuilders.com and look for the book Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor, the signers of the Declaration.
SPEAKER_01Welcome back to the Wall Builder Show. Thanks for staying with us. Mark Meckler, our special guest today. We're talking about how do you do a limited call for a convention of states under Article V and why it has to be a limited call, which is a new understanding for me after diving into all this uh over the last few days. And of course, guys, you know, there's been a lot of people call for a convention for all kinds of things. One of the things I learned in the reading from the DOJ documents was that there was actually an apportionment of amendment back in the 60s, which I want an apportionment amendment today, very different from that one, uh, that says, you know, that that we can uh make sure that the only uh citizens are counted in the census. But but anyway, um, you've had lots of people call for a convention for lots of things, well over the 34 states needed to be uh to to do a res resolution and and call for it, but yet there hasn't been a convention. So clearly there does have to be a similar or I guess exact call. Uh Mark, that's what you've done, is now 20 states that with an exact same call for the exact same subject matters.
Aggregation And Matching State Applications
SPEAKER_03Yeah, there's a legal concept called aggregation. And what that means is that in order for the calls to aggregate to the two-thirds necessary, 34 necessary, they have to be almost identical. And I say almost because it's important the preamble to anybody's call, the whereas and the wherefore stuff, that language can be different. But once you get into what's the purpose of the convention, it has to be the same and it has to be limited. And there's a whole bunch of reasons we know this. Uh first of all, it's not just Mark Meckler saying this. The DOJ is issued in a lengthy opinion on this twice, once during the Carter administration, and then once Ed Meese's DOJ that you referenced. So these are reports that are widely available, they're very extensive, and they document the history of conventions in the United States of America and showing that you cannot get to convention unless the calls aggregate, meaning they're a saint, they're the same. We also know this from the long practice, and that is in the history of the United States of America, starting at the very beginning, there have been over 400 calls for convention. We've never seen 34 of them or whatever the number was necessary at the time, based on two-thirds of the states. We've never seen enough that are the same or that aggregate in order to get to convention. So a lot of people would say, well, it doesn't really matter what it says. If the states call for a convention, you can put them all together, you know, just jumble them all together and you get to the 34 number. Well, if that was the case, we'd have been in a convention many times in American history. Everybody knows and acknowledges, frankly. Frankly, unless they're hallucinating, that you have to have them be the same. And so they haven't been the same throughout all of American history. We've never been to this third magical two-thirds or now 34 number that gets us to convention. Convention of States as an organization is working on this with 20 states that have passed applications that will absolutely aggregate.
SPEAKER_01And once they once they do that, if if you you know, once you get to the 34 and you go to convention, if if a state delegation offered amendments outside of the call, what do you think happens at that point?
SPEAKER_03Yeah, well, you know, we've we've done a couple of these. We know how they work, just generally speaking, but they work like a legislature. So if you Rick, I know you're
How Out Of Scope Ideas Get Stopped
SPEAKER_03an expert on how legislatures work. There'll be officers at the convention, there'll be a presiding officer, there'll be a parliamentarian, a secretary, all this stuff. And so somebody would raise their hand, for example, and say, Well, we'd like to repeal the Second Amendment. And somebody from a rational state would raise their hand and say, That's not germane to this convention, because our convention is limited by the call and by the applications, which all match, and this is not within the call, and they would be gaveled out of order. That's what would happen. And it happens in legislatures all the time. Rick, you've been in a legislature. We've all seen this in legislatures. People try to do crazy stuff all the time in legislatures, and they get gaveled out of order because it's not germane in the discussion at hand.
SPEAKER_01And if the entire convention goes crazy because some, you know, the Joker shows up and puts some gas in the uh, you know, the air conditioning system and uh suddenly puts everybody in a trance and manages to pass some amendment that's completely outside the call, then what happens?
SPEAKER_03Yeah, so you know, I I love to walk through this with people. What happens then is even though it's impossible. Yeah. Well, because I want people, people who are afraid, and I agree with Tim, I think this is really important. People are afraid because they love the Constitution. Tim, you want to jump in here?
SPEAKER_02Well, yeah, I was gonna say, you know, one of the things too, Mark, that that you are are very gracious in doing, and you know, sometimes because you take a bold position, people sometimes misunderstand if they don't know you. Uh that you know, they don't know your heart. That no, you love people. You love, I mean, obviously, as a believer, you love God, you love people, you're trying to do the right thing, but also uh, you know, it's true that you can have somebody you really love that has a major disagreement with you, and you can look and be like, you're totally wrong. And then sometimes the most loving thing to do is be like, Hey, can can can we have a conversation? Can maybe can I walk you through what I'm thinking? And all of us, you know, guys with spouses and you know, kids and families, you know, there are moments you can have a really great conversation and you don't always come to the right conclusion. But we want to make sure that if people, if people are not agreeing with us, it's not because they don't have the information necessary to maybe alleviate the fears that we think are probably out of bounds. Again, it's like that person being in a house in the middle of a daytime, sunlight out, being afraid of being struck by lightning. I I think that fear is probably not reasonable. I think it's probably not rational. Like, could it happen? I mean, I guess theoretically, theoretically, maybe possibly it could. I don't think it's likely or reasonable that you should operate in that fear given what we're doing right now. And I think, Mark, that's what you're trying to help walk people through. So it's not that we don't love people that uh love America and the Constitution and disagree with us. We just think they're wrong and we want to help them understand why they're wrong.
SPEAKER_03Bottom line is this if the convention got out of control, still takes 26 states to get out of convention, then it takes 38 states to ratify it, then every conservative organization in America would argue legally that there's that this is non-germane. It came outside the call of the convention and it can't be ratified. And then ultimately you still got to get 38 states to ratify it. Here's the final challenge, Rick.
The Ratification Reality Check
SPEAKER_03This is really important. I've said this to millions of people. My personal email address, mmechler at cosaction.com. If you're afraid of an amendment that could come out of this process, just email me, tell me what the amendment is, and list the 38 states that would ratify that amendment. I've been saying this on air to people, to millions of people, literally 13 years now. I've never gotten an email from somebody who could do that. Not once.
SPEAKER_01And it's agreed. Well, Mark, thanks for coming on, man. There's so much more we could cover, so much more evidence there as well. ConventionStates uh.com, of course, has all of this rebutted. And then those documents that you um you sent to me. I mean, the Harvard Law Review article by Mike Ferris available. People can go out and Google that. I think you even have it on the website. And then those two DOJ memos, uh, incredible information there. Keep up the good work, man. We're excited about the progress. 20 states down, 14 to go to call the convention. We'll get you back again, of course, for an update on some of those other states as well. Mark Meckler, our special guest today, you have been listening to the Wall Volver Show.
