I was initially in favor of a Constitutional Convention, for some very specific changes. But these things have now changed my mind:
1. The lack of guardrails or specificity. It doesn't matter what anyone says - if it's not in the "written contract" it's unenforceable.
2. Our current descent into authoritarianism.
3. Jim DeMint. He's a senior advisor to Convention of States Action and a former president of The Heritage Foundation. The same group that created Project 2025.
Now would be a terrible time to have a Constitutional Convention.
I respect the effort you are putting into this topic, and am fascinated by the way you had to leave Zimbabwe. I do think the regime/administration could get much more awful than it is now. But I don’t see this as a high probability threat because in my view there is a near-zero chance that at least 13 states won’t vote against the results of a MAGA convention. Six New England states, Hawaii, Maryland, Illinois, New York, California, Washington State, Oregon. And not any other state than those needed to block. So no matter how crazy the convention got, what they did won’t be implemented, right?
Thank you. I appreciate your kind words, and your willingness to think critically about this. You're absolutely right that ratification is the backstop most people point to. And yes, on paper, it takes 13 states to block any proposed amendments — that’s the safety mechanism built into the Article V process.
My concern isn’t just about how the numbers look right now, but about how the process itself could be manipulated to erode that barrier. Bundling multiple amendments together, applying pressure behind the scenes, or triggering a crisis to push through ratification under duress—none of that is theoretical. We’ve seen how fast norms can collapse when the political will is strong enough.
While I don’t believe panic is helpful, neither should we treat the ratification process as invulnerable. The point of my writing is to help people understand the full scope of what’s in play, so that we can act strategically to counter it. I’m grateful to you for engaging with it.
Just curious -- if someone had said a year ago that masked men would be breaking people's windows and disappearing them to torture gulags in other countries, and the country would shrug -- would you have dismissed that, too? Or Trump's family enriching themselves in the open by selling memecoins -- ridiculous, right? Or accepting a gold plated jet that will be transferred to him when he leaves office -- surely that's a joke ... I think it's incredibly naive to say that anything "can't happen" because surely other people will stop it.
I appreciate where you’re coming from and don’t disagree. I just don’t think that state ratification of the result of an Article 5 convention is the most likely vector for dictatorship in the US.
Trump created some 11 COUNTRIES on the fly, and I suspect not one cultist questioned the number. One imagines that it's easier for these "under-educated" people to imagine Trump LITERALLY creating new nations (after all, climate change will create NEW beachfront!) than to allow themselves to believe that their new GAWD has no clue how many there actually are.
I'm not sure if actual RULES will do any more to prevent harm to democracy than the absence of any.
"Subscribe to at least one national outlet that covers constitutional issues in detail, like ProPublica, The Brennan Center for Justice, Lawfare, or States Newsroom.
Balance it with a source from outside the US — like The Guardian, BBC World, Al Jazeera English, or Le Monde Diplomatique. "
Thanks for the SPECIFIC sources for info, Lori.
---------------------------
Lori, I have lots of questions, and I still try/hope/wish to see a rosy(er) outcome.
So much of America's future (and the world's) is now being determined by those who either will remain at the pinnacle of power in America, or will spend what time they have left playing golf on a poorly maintained 9-hole course w/o caddies.
In that context their actions seem pretty predictable (and likely will only become increasingly easy to anticipate over time), and I'd guess you have their most likely "Path of Success/Desperation" nailed down about 100%.
Obviously, when the Supreme(sic) Court "kingified" Trump, they did it KNOWING that 1) either no Dem president would EVER use such powers in the same way, even on the off chance there might ever even be another such candidate for the presidency (and they survived the campaign), 2) if such a future democratic election ever became more than a dream.
Ignoring for the moment the looming battles between 2 of America's three branches of government, which may render the entire question moot...
How much power might this SC might still hold after a Trump reversal of fortunes, and might they have enough power to simply reverse the "kingification" ruling before that Dem winner's inauguration? Will they be allowed to maintain that level of power, with America fully aware of the risks?
I know there's a great deal of opinion and speculation required to offer an answer, but it's hard not to be curious about how self-serving the SC will prove themselves to be when they may only have one option left.
Thanks for this f&C. You’ve put your finger on the kinds of questions more of us need to be asking.
I’m not going to speculate about specific outcomes or court dynamics, because I don’t have the information I need to offer you a grounded response. What I would say is this: wanting a better outcome isn’t naïve, but getting there depends on people who are willing to look directly at what’s happening, ask hard questions, and stay engaged when it’s most tempting to look away. I'm grateful you're one of those people.
On top of the dangers here, I am experiencing unrelenting censorship. It appears to come from someone inside of Substack, itself. Here is my invite page:
I was initially in favor of a Constitutional Convention, for some very specific changes. But these things have now changed my mind:
1. The lack of guardrails or specificity. It doesn't matter what anyone says - if it's not in the "written contract" it's unenforceable.
2. Our current descent into authoritarianism.
3. Jim DeMint. He's a senior advisor to Convention of States Action and a former president of The Heritage Foundation. The same group that created Project 2025.
Now would be a terrible time to have a Constitutional Convention.
Yeah, Chris,
As a South Carolinian myself, the name "Jim DeMint" brings me NO joy. (Never did.)
You make a good point.
I respect the effort you are putting into this topic, and am fascinated by the way you had to leave Zimbabwe. I do think the regime/administration could get much more awful than it is now. But I don’t see this as a high probability threat because in my view there is a near-zero chance that at least 13 states won’t vote against the results of a MAGA convention. Six New England states, Hawaii, Maryland, Illinois, New York, California, Washington State, Oregon. And not any other state than those needed to block. So no matter how crazy the convention got, what they did won’t be implemented, right?
Thank you. I appreciate your kind words, and your willingness to think critically about this. You're absolutely right that ratification is the backstop most people point to. And yes, on paper, it takes 13 states to block any proposed amendments — that’s the safety mechanism built into the Article V process.
My concern isn’t just about how the numbers look right now, but about how the process itself could be manipulated to erode that barrier. Bundling multiple amendments together, applying pressure behind the scenes, or triggering a crisis to push through ratification under duress—none of that is theoretical. We’ve seen how fast norms can collapse when the political will is strong enough.
While I don’t believe panic is helpful, neither should we treat the ratification process as invulnerable. The point of my writing is to help people understand the full scope of what’s in play, so that we can act strategically to counter it. I’m grateful to you for engaging with it.
Just curious -- if someone had said a year ago that masked men would be breaking people's windows and disappearing them to torture gulags in other countries, and the country would shrug -- would you have dismissed that, too? Or Trump's family enriching themselves in the open by selling memecoins -- ridiculous, right? Or accepting a gold plated jet that will be transferred to him when he leaves office -- surely that's a joke ... I think it's incredibly naive to say that anything "can't happen" because surely other people will stop it.
I appreciate where you’re coming from and don’t disagree. I just don’t think that state ratification of the result of an Article 5 convention is the most likely vector for dictatorship in the US.
Trump created some 11 COUNTRIES on the fly, and I suspect not one cultist questioned the number. One imagines that it's easier for these "under-educated" people to imagine Trump LITERALLY creating new nations (after all, climate change will create NEW beachfront!) than to allow themselves to believe that their new GAWD has no clue how many there actually are.
I'm not sure if actual RULES will do any more to prevent harm to democracy than the absence of any.
Thank you for sharing. I will re-stack in the morning with a short note tying this to the previous post.
Thank you Kris.
"Subscribe to at least one national outlet that covers constitutional issues in detail, like ProPublica, The Brennan Center for Justice, Lawfare, or States Newsroom.
Balance it with a source from outside the US — like The Guardian, BBC World, Al Jazeera English, or Le Monde Diplomatique. "
Thanks for the SPECIFIC sources for info, Lori.
---------------------------
Lori, I have lots of questions, and I still try/hope/wish to see a rosy(er) outcome.
So much of America's future (and the world's) is now being determined by those who either will remain at the pinnacle of power in America, or will spend what time they have left playing golf on a poorly maintained 9-hole course w/o caddies.
In that context their actions seem pretty predictable (and likely will only become increasingly easy to anticipate over time), and I'd guess you have their most likely "Path of Success/Desperation" nailed down about 100%.
Obviously, when the Supreme(sic) Court "kingified" Trump, they did it KNOWING that 1) either no Dem president would EVER use such powers in the same way, even on the off chance there might ever even be another such candidate for the presidency (and they survived the campaign), 2) if such a future democratic election ever became more than a dream.
Ignoring for the moment the looming battles between 2 of America's three branches of government, which may render the entire question moot...
How much power might this SC might still hold after a Trump reversal of fortunes, and might they have enough power to simply reverse the "kingification" ruling before that Dem winner's inauguration? Will they be allowed to maintain that level of power, with America fully aware of the risks?
I know there's a great deal of opinion and speculation required to offer an answer, but it's hard not to be curious about how self-serving the SC will prove themselves to be when they may only have one option left.
Thanks, Lori.
Thanks for this f&C. You’ve put your finger on the kinds of questions more of us need to be asking.
I’m not going to speculate about specific outcomes or court dynamics, because I don’t have the information I need to offer you a grounded response. What I would say is this: wanting a better outcome isn’t naïve, but getting there depends on people who are willing to look directly at what’s happening, ask hard questions, and stay engaged when it’s most tempting to look away. I'm grateful you're one of those people.
Shouldn't be boring....
(Thinking that the quote about "the devil you know..." could use a little revision about now.)
Thank you, Lori.
You sure got that right!
(And as ever, you’re welcome.)
On top of the dangers here, I am experiencing unrelenting censorship. It appears to come from someone inside of Substack, itself. Here is my invite page:
https://aartemis.substack.com/p/you-are-invited-
Yet it won't allow me to logon. "Support" goes to a Chat, which does not fix the issue, or, get it to a human who will.
Anyone have any suggestions?
I've not heard of this happening on Substack, and hope it's merely a technical problem. Sorry I can't be of any help Aleithia.