Honor God - Defend the Family - Restore the Republic
Scott Bradley


Keep the Spirit Alive and Well!
Learn to think like the Founders and pass it on!


 Scott Bradley Explains
13) Amending the Constitution and Constitutional Conventions
In regards to the process by which the United States Constitution is to be changed, the United States Constitution, Article V states:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

In brief, Article V states that amendments to the Constitution occur when two thirds of both Houses of Congress have agreed on a proposed amendment, and three fourths of all States agree to those changes.

The founders of this Nation were good, and wise, and honest men who sought to establish a charter for this Nation which would assure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity; but in their wisdom, they knew that they were mere mortals that were not omniscient. They knew that time and circumstances may ultimately dictate a need for changes in the Constitution. They were also firm in their conviction that the Constitution was a written, binding contract which all who hold office are required to obey. Washington stated in his Farewell Address: "the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all."

If changes became necessary, they were not to occur through usurpation or by any means than by the process defined in the United States Constitution. The founders did not embrace the modern lie that the Constitution is a "living document" which can be change by decree, in practice, or by any other means than the Article V process.

In recent years a gross misunderstanding has become popular: that the Constitution may be modified upon the whim of the Supreme Court (some have called the Supreme Court a "constantly sitting constitutional convention"), or by the decree of a President, or by the vote of Congress. These philosophies defy all logic, reason, and firmly established constitutional principle. And yet, this position is fostered today by those whom the founders of the Nation warned against.

As noted in #11 (Treaties), the Founding Fathers of this Nation were unequivocal in their position that the Constitution was binding upon all until changed by an authentic act.

In his Farewell Address, Washington warned that factions, groups, parties, or combinations would arise which would attempt to modify the foundation of the constitutional government which had been established, and that those efforts could result in the overthrow of the freedom of the land, saying:

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency....

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying. afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion....

"Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown." (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, George Washington, Vol 1, Pg.209-210)

It is currently in vogue to suggest that the Constitution is somehow flawed, and that recent usurpations by the federal government demonstrate the truth of that position, particularly in cases in which the Founding Fathers of this Nation clearly intended that jurisdiction in a matter be withheld from the national government and left in the hands of the States. Those who hold the position that the Constitution is flawed are often quick to insist that constitutional amendments are desperately needed to correct the "flaws" they perceive. The real truth about "flaws" which are supposedly in the current United States Constitution is this: Every single one of these so-called flaws have been brought about by usurpation of authority not granted by the Constitution. The flaw is not in the Constitution—it is in those who seek power, and those who allow them to hold power. The key to stopping this is in a courageous Congress, not in scrapping the Constitution, or in modifying it every time some tyrant seeks to usurp power not granted in God’s inspired document. If we changed it for every whim of false philosophy which came along, we would have many thousands of amendments, and not a real Constitution.

Virtually all of the "flaws" which clamor for a constitutional amendment could be solve by the majority vote of a courageous Congress to remove the matter from a runaway court system (#12 Courts). Logic, reason, and historical precedent testify that the task of obtaining a simple majority in Congress is much easier than getting two-thirds of both houses and three-fourths of all the States to bring amendments forth that aren’t needed to begin with.

And the danger of seeking amendments in the many emotional issues which face us today is magnified by huge orders of magnitude if the "good and well-meaning people" of the land become so frustrated and angry with a Congress that can’t bring them an amendment they wish to pass that they demand a constitutional convention be called. Remember, Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to convene a convention if two-thirds of the States call for one (the Constitution says they "shall call" a convention, not that they "may call" a convention). We are already dangerously close to that event, within only a few States.

Of course, the only national constitutional convention we have had in the entire history of the United States resulted in what we would call today a "runaway convention." While those who attended the Convention of 1787 had been called together to correct perceived flaws in the existing Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, they immediately saw within the purview of their authority as duly elected representatives of the people and States to set aside the existing constitution and write another one. That is exactly what they did, and they even changed the unanimous consent required by the Articles of Confederation to a lesser level to assure easier ratification of the new constitution. Fortunately, God had raised up men for this very purpose, and the results were endorsed by God. Where are such men today? In light of the dangers associated with a constitutional convention, one must ask one’s self: Among the prominent leaders of this Nation, is there even one found who could hold a candle to the inspired works of those whom we call the Founding Fathers of this Nation? The risk for such an action today cannot be measured.

Scott N. Bradley

top of pagetop
14) The Trap of Multi-Culturalism and Diversity
In the years after the great flood associated with Noah, the people shared a common language and were able to bond together in efforts which required great unity. Unfortunately, they waxed extremely wicked, and in a perverse twist of logic they sought to continue their wicked ways and yet avoid the judgments of God. They sought to subvert the will of God by building a great tower by which they could escape another flood if their sins resulted in a repeat of the flood of Noah, and they felt that by their construction of the tower they could somehow reach the heights of heaven without conforming to the will of God.

The record states:

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (Genesis 11:3-4)

God, in His infinite wisdom, knew exactly what it would take to destroy their efforts: He resolved to destroy their unity. He confounded their common language, giving them a multitude of tongues:

5 ¶ And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. (Genesis 11:5-9)

The results of creating a multitude of languages were natural. In the confusion, the people fragmented into distinct groups that immediately pulled apart.

During His mortal ministry, in His great "Intercessory Prayer," the Savior noted His "oneness" with His Father, and expressed His will that His followers be "one," saying:

11 ¶ And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one... ( John 17:11, 21-22)

The necessity of unity in the effort to carry out great works is thus enjoined.

As he bid farewell to the Nation he had served so diligently and selflessly for 45 years, George Washington felt to comment on the "oneness" of the Nation, and the great unity they enjoyed:

"Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes." (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Farewell Address, George Washington, Vol 1, Pg.205-216)

In contrast to the unity of Americans, history is filled with sad and dark examples of diverse groups who are compelled to associate together as nations.

With no consideration for unity, or "oneness," a diverse conglomerate of ethnic groups, tribes, and religious factions were cobbled together by Britain at the end of World War I to form Iraq. Britain sought for decades to compel civilized behavior upon the new "nation" they had created. It cost many thousands of British and Iraqi lives, but has been a dismal failure which now engulfs the blood, treasury, and honor of this Nation.

Africa was likewise divided into illogical "countries" by European powers, and the tragic unremitting saga of warfare and genocide continues today.

The Balkan States (countries in the Southeastern Region of Europe currently including such nations as the old Yugoslavia, Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc.) had been engaged in unremitting ethic and religious conflict due to their "diversity" for 600 years prior to the birth of the United States of America, and their agony continues today with the United States now drawn into their quagmire of ethnic hatred. The diversity-generated hatred, violence, and turmoil associated with these Balkan States has become so universally recognized that the term "Balkanization" has been coined to describe the conditions of hostile fragmentation and division which prevail in various portions of the world.

Unfortunately, the United States is now following a path which will lead to the "Balkanization" of this Nation. We are encouraged to refer to fellow Americans as "hyphenated" Americans, creating divisions among the people. People are encouraged to retain their native tongue, and not even learn the language of their new land. Previous generations who immigrated to this Nation sought most diligently to become "Americans," and were desirous to completely integrate into the American lifestyle. They learned the language of their new nation, they sought to embrace the heritage of liberty enjoyed by all Americans, they upheld the nation’s constitutional form of government, and they came to cherish the institutions of their adopted land.

In short, they sought to emulate the previously-noted ideal promoted by both the Savior and George Washington. In contrast, we may observe the sad results of Balkanization upon all peoples who have suffered through it. It is wise counsel indeed to become unified and one if this great Nation is to survive for the blessing of future generations. Wisdom dictates that all who come to this land to become citizens become whole-hearted Americans, with no lingering loyalties (political, or otherwise) to lands they left. Americans, of one heart and one mind, one nation under God, may successfully face all challenges.

Scott N. Bradley
top of pagetop
15) "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"
At the close of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin left the hall in Philadelphia, he was asked, "What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" He replied: "A republic, if you can keep it." (Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787, in Charles C. Tansill, comp. Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States [Washington: U.S. Printing Office, 1927], page 952.)

It is noteworthy that Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution specifies that every State in the United States was to have a Republican form of government: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

As the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787, the perspective and intention of a limited, non-democratic government was held from the very beginning of their discussions. On 31 May 1787, Edmund Randolph told his fellow delegates that the purpose of the Convention was "...to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy...." (James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, Vol.1, p.81)

In his defense of the outcome of the Convention of 1787, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," eloquently expressed the fundamental concerns about democracy and the protections of a republic:

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. (The Federalist No. 10)

Many other powerful statements regarding the dangers of democracy and the virtues of republics are noted throughout the Federalist Papers.

Wise philosophers and statesmen from early history recognized the dangers inherent in democracy, and warned society. American founding father, John Adams, understood well the shortcomings of democracy:

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." (John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814.—The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams, vol. 6, p. 484 [1851])

During the founding era of America, historian Alexander Tyler is said to have explained at least part of the reason why a democracy tends to destroy itself:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until [a majority of] the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse [gifts] from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy [taxing and spending], always followed by a dictatorship. The average life of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years." (Quoted in Laurel Hicks et al., American Government and Economics [Pensacola, Fla.: Becka Book Publication, 1984], p. 37)

Alexander Hamilton also raised his voice in warning against democracy:

"It has been observed, by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity." (Alexander Hamilton, Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 2, p.253)

It is interesting to contrast the words of the American founders to those scurrilous leaders of the communist movement:

Karl Marx sought to foster democracy to promote the philosophies he wrote of in The Communist Manifesto. Democracy was seen by Marx as progress towards full blown communism:

"We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy."

Lenin, the communist revolutionary who enslaved Russia, recognized democracy as a tool for his purposes, writing:

"...just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces complete democracy, so the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many-sided, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy." (V. I. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self Determination (Theses), Editorial Board of Social-Democrat, Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P., Published in German in April 1916 in Vorbote, No. 2 Published in Russian in October 1916 in Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata, No. 1 Printed according to the Sbornik text. Written in January-February 1916)

In 1938 and 1939, the future communist dictator of Mainland China, Mao Tse-tung, following the lead of Karl Marx and Lenin, explained:

"Education in democracy must be carried on within the Party so that members can understand the meaning of democratic life, the meaning of the relationship between democracy and centralism, and the way in which democratic centralism should be put into practice." (Mao Tse-tung, The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War [October 1938], Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 205.)

"Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are two essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution." (Mao Tse-tung, The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party [December 1939], Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 330-31)

From the perspective of those who seek to subjugate humanity under their bloody yoke, implementing democracy is a necessary preliminary step.

Tragically, early in the 20th Century, United States President Woodrow Wilson and his "alter ego" Edwin Mandell House (founder of the Council on Foreign Relations—CFR) popularized the concept of democracy as the American political form of government, and its value for the entire world ("We must make the world safe for democracy"). Since that time, there has been an unremitting effort on the part of the socialist-globalist cabal to universalize the false philosophy that the United States of America was established originally as a democracy, and that that form of government continues to be the ideal of this nation, as well as the goal of all nations which would be free.

Today the term "democracy" is used almost exclusively as a term to describe the form of government which its promoters would say governs the United States. While this is a totally false concept, it has been made almost universally accepted as true. Presidents, governors, senators, congressmen, media moguls, teachers, etc. embrace and promote democracy as America’s form of government. Indeed, based upon the ubiquitous and universal nature of the effort, it would seem appropriate to term the movement to redefine the Nation as a democracy an organized "campaign." Because of this, it is critically important to remind ourselves that the United States is a republic. It was created as a republic by well-thought, purposeful action. It was specifically NOT created as a democracy.

In a republic, the elected representatives create legislation within the limited framework established by the Nation’s charter, The United States Constitution. The founders saw many dangers inherent in a democracy, and they rejected it as a dangerous form of government, prone to a kind of "mob rule" mentality. They unequivocally established a republic, placing limits upon the power of the legislature by which they could create law, thus seeking to prevent tyranny.

Scott N. Bradley
top of pagetop
"Turn To The Constitution" newsletter is dedicated to Preserving Liberty and Freedom Our Mission