How Article V Amendments Really Work And Why 38 States Matter

Could a Convention of States accidentally rewrite the whole Constitution, or is the “runaway convention” fear overstated? We take a listener’s question head-on and walk through what Article V actually does, what states can do to limit delegates, and why the ratification threshold changes everything. We keep coming back to one practical reality: no matter what gets proposed, three-fourths of the states must agree, and that’s a high bar designed to reflect the will of the people, not a backroom deal. 

From there, we zoom out to something our culture badly needs: serious disagreement without scorched-earth tactics. We talk about why fear can’t be the driver, why the Founders built checks and balances for moments like this, and why open debate is healthy even when the people on both sides share the same goals. 

Then we shift to history with a name most Americans never hear. Peyton Randolph, the steady hand chosen to preside over the First Continental Congress, helped set the tone before independence was even on the table. His story connects to the first prayer in Congress and even to how Thomas Jefferson ends up in position to shape the Declaration of Independence. 

We close with a candid question from a youth pastor about abortion: abolition or pro-life? We lay out why we support ending abortion while also supporting any legislative step that preserves more life right now. If this helped you think more clearly, subscribe, share with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find the show.

Transcript

Rick Green [00:00:07] It's the intersection of faith and culture, and it's a Thursday. So welcome to Foundations of Freedom Thursday on The WallBuilders Show, where we take on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. And on Thursday, you get to pick the topic. So send in your question radio@wallbuilders.com. That's radi@wallbuilders.com. It can be about the Founders. It can about one of our Biblical Citizenship classes. It can, be about what's going on in your state or maybe in Washington, DC, whatever you got, send those questions in, maybe a Supreme Court decision that was handed down in the last few weeks. Send those to radio@wallbuilders.com. We'll get to as many as we possibly can. Rick Green here with David Barton and Tim Barton. And guys, first questions coming from Robert. He said, I've been watching Biblical Citizenship in Modern America. I know that the Constitution can be amended and that there has been talk over the years about different amendments. What I'm not clear on is this. If a Constitutional Convention is called for a certain amendment, can other amendments be proposed during the same meeting? For example, if there is a proposed amendment for a balanced budget, during the Convention, could someone also bring up an amendment to try to repeal part or all of the Second Amendment? Thanks for your time. Robert, thanks for sending in that question. I know I've got an opinion on this one, but guys, I'll toss it to you first. What do you think? 

David Barton [00:01:18] Well, it's gonna be opinions because it's never happened before. We've never had one. 

Rick Green [00:01:22] That's right, that's right. 

David Barton [00:01:23] So everything we express is going to be opinions. And my opinion is that yes, they could open it up. However, the difficulty is that a lot of the states will send their delegates with specific instructions to only deal with this issue. And so, if their delegates were to open it up to something else, they would probably have those delegates recaledl and send others in their place. I think theoretically there's no written document that prohibits them from adding other stuff. But I think the practicality of it is such that it's not going to happen and I don't think the people would put up with it either 

Tim Barton [00:01:55] Well, I think, as Dad, you already mentioned, this is a theoretical exercise. But I think it's, it's a fun exercise while also a little silly because you can argue both sides pretty well. You can argue one side first of all, saying, hey, um, don't we have a federal government limited by the U S constitution so they can't do things it doesn't say, and you're like, they do that all the time. So, can somebody propose an amendment that is not a valid amendment? Totally they can. But one of the things worth noting is that a lot of states that have passed these Article IV calls for a Constitutional Convention or actually a Convention of States, which is what not a Constitutional Convention. I said that totally wrong. A Convention of States. In their articles where they call for that, they specify in some of these states that they're calling for a convention to do very specific things. And so, then if people did something outside of what it was called for, there could be questions about that legality. Can they do it? Because the call for this convention in this state, um, that they passed was not for, let's say, it wasn't for balancing the budget. It was for First Amendment related issues. And I'm just using examples. Could somebody do something outside of that? Well, of course they could. Could there be legal challenges that was wrong? Of course there could, but this is when it's just a theoretical exercise. Dad, to your point, it's never been done. But Rick, I think one of the areas that you might land, and I'm gonna toss a softball in your direction, is one of great things about states doing this is they can specify exactly what needs to be covered and what should be covered. And then again, softball in your direction, Rick, is one of the things that I think is a concern for some people is they say, well, the reason we can never do this is because there's going to be a runaway convention. It's really hard to have a runaway convention when you have to have 38 states, legislative chambers involved in that process. If you have 38 states come into alignment and agreement on the issue and the topic, that's not a runaway convention. That's a reflection of we, the people being in charge. So not to digress, but Rick, what's your answer in this? 

David Barton [00:04:03] Before you do that Tim, I'm gonna step in for Rick for a minute. I'm going to point out I don't know if Rick can hit a softball. He was a hardball player. He played baseball with hardball stuff. His timing may be totally off if you give him a soft ball. 

Tim Barton [00:04:17] No at this point I've seen more gray in his hair than not. He probably the softball might feel fast at this point. So probably his timing still perfect. 

Rick Green [00:04:27] It is so hard to hit a softball when you're a baseball player. To wait on that thing to just float in there. Oh, I don't know. It's hard. I don't have patience for it. So, you're so right David, but Tim You're so, right about just your last point first the 38 states thing I mean, I think people have to realize two big things number one. Everybody's gonna be watching I mean when this thing happens, like the whole world is gonna be watching it. Nobody's gonna get to do anything in secret. Nobody's going to get to just, you know, have some closed door meeting, make a deal and then suddenly you get a Constitutional amendment. Everything's being watched by everyone. And as you said, Tim, no matter what comes out of that Convention, it's got to go back to the states and 38 states got to say yes, which means you only need 13 states to say no. It'll be so easy to stop anything bad coming out of the convention. And I think David, you touched on this. I mean, most people that are worried about this are worried about integrity and honor. And I think they forget that even the delegations that came to the early Continental Congresses, I mean, some of them were given specific instructions to not do something or to do something. And when things changed and they needed permission to now do what it was they were asked not to do, they went back to their state legislature and said, can we do this? And the state legislature changed the instructions and let them do that. So, I think that's exactly what would happen here. I don't worry about this one. You know, a lot of our friends that are really, you know, pro Convention of States and want to get these amendments done, they really want to make sure it's a very limited call. I personally don't worry about that at all. I think once you get there, if something else comes out, the 38 state thing is the safety valve. And so, I don't sweat it, but I do understand other people sweating it. And so that's why some of our. Some of our Friends in Texas, even they, when they pass the call for Convention of States, they also passed a delegate, I forget what they it. 

David Barton [00:06:13] Delegate Faithful Bill 

Rick Green [00:06:14] That's it. Yep. Delegate Faithful Bill. And, so they give them specific instructions and they say, if you go outside of this, you have to come to us and get permission or we can recall you. And so, I think, I think people are really thinking through this. I know all the legislators we work with, with our pro family organization. I mean, hundreds and hundreds of legislators that we know they, they don't do any of this stuff lightly. They think through it. They work through it. They're very deliberate. We've even seen the mock Convention of States that we did one here at the campus at Patriot Academy We did another one out of Colonial Williamsburg and even when it was fake but it was only two days, we watched these legislators be so careful. Every word, every comma, everything really, really careful about it. So, I don't sweat this question I know. But I do think there's solid, solid safety valves to make sure that nothing's gonna get put into the Constitution, as you said Tim, unless we the people really want it. Because you got to have those 38 states to ratify. Great question though, because I think it's great for people to debate and talk about how's this thing going to work, because it hasn't happened and it needs to happen in order to reign in the federal government. Certainly, George Washington and Gouverneur Morrison and the rest at the actual Constitutional Convention, as you said Tim, this is a Convention of States to use the language in the Constitution, but those guys certainly thought it would be a good idea at some point. 

Tim Barton [00:07:29] Yeah. And one of the things too guys, as we talk about this, I understand that there's people that listen that, you know, they might agree with us and they're like, we agree on 99% of the issues, but this is the one issue I think you guys are wrong. I appreciate the fact that there are people that have a disagreement on this. And I would say the reality is we all agree on the problem. We agree that we have a federal government's not being responsive. We agree. You know, we can go down the the things that you agree on. And then I understand why for some people they're like, but I'm so concerned of what might happen. Yes, but if our fear is of what may happen, then why do you ever get in the car and drive anywhere? Right? Like, I mean, like if we just think big picture, we can't be motivated by fear, especially when we recognize the Founding Fathers were brilliant enough to put checks and balances in the midst of even what a Convention of States would look like because when you have any kind of constitutional amendment, the fact that it has to be, you know, done by two thirds and ratified by three -fourths, they put amazing checks and balances to make sure that it was actually reflective of the will of the people in majority. And this doesn't mean that people listening have to agree with our position or agree with everything we think, because guys, all three of us know we disagree internally and even on air sometimes. And that's okay. It's okay to have a disagreement. I would just say that I think a lot of the fears are not as well reasoned or rational as some people think and I would encourage people to explore what that is. Now again, this is not to say you have to agree with us, but and I'm saying that because I do want to offer an olive branch to someone going, I can't believe you guys are spending so much time talking about this. No, no, no. It's okay that not everybody has to agree on this issue. But I do think if we were trying to rationale and reason through this, that a lot of the fears that I've heard expressed from people I think are alleviated by the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put in the amendment process, including even in the Convention of States amendment process. The fact that it can't be a runaway convention if it's embraced by the overwhelming majority of Americans is reflective of the will of the people. And then if the concern is, yeah, but I don't trust the overwhelming majority of American people. Well, now we're having a different conversation and now actually conversation is, is the Constitution supposed to be reflective of we the people and how that process works? Different conversation, but I do think that some of the fear surrounding it should be alleviated as we think through the process of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers actually put in place. 

David Barton [00:10:08] And just to point out how well the checks and balances work, more than 10,000 constitutional amendments have been introduced and only 27 have passed. And 10 of those were at one time. And most of the things that were in those 10 weren't really debated by the people. They all wanted freedom of religion. They all want freedom of press and due rights and right to confront your accuser and all the things that we see in the Bill of Rights. You've really only had 17 amendments out of the 10,000 that have been introduce that had any significant debate. So really the chances of anything getting passed that does not have significant support from the people, it's just not gonna happen. 

Rick Green [00:10:49] Yeah. And I think, man, to Tim's point, I've had the privilege of sitting down with people that we totally agree with on 90% of the issues that are very much against this and spend hours with good civil discourse. And as I travel the country and talk to a lot of these state legislators that are the decision makers on this, I actually love sitting down with the ones that do disagree on this and having those conversations. That's how the process is supposed to work for sure. And so yeah I think it's a great topic for us to discuss. I think people should be willing to talk about it. Talk about why the founders were for it, how it would work, what those safety valves would be. Don't take it lightly, but obviously look at the seriousness of the situation and the federal government being completely out of control. Tim, before we go to break. 

Tim Barton [00:11:28] Yeah, and this is one of those topics that along with many that we should engage in more reasoned conversation and dialog. And one of the things that Charlie Kirk was so good at, is he said, hey, you have a microphone, I have a microphone, let's just talk through this. And I think we need to be careful on either side of this issue and many other issues that don't cancel the other side, right? Don't blow them off because well, if you don't agree with me on this then we can't be friends and we can talk blah, blah. Like, okay, that is a very bad strategic approach. We need to, Rick, as you said, we need to sit down, let's have longer conversations, and sometimes we don't find agreement at the end of a long conversation, but we don t blow up the relationship, and we don't t discount, no, no, keep the open conversation, keep the dialog. And this is one of those areas where I do see conservatives and Christians have great disagreements, and I have a very strong opinion, but in the midst of my strong opinion, I also recognize one of the things the founding fathers agreed on is There also is something that we have to find common ground and continue to work together. We can't just find a disagreement walk away and be done. And by the way, if you feel that then maybe follow Benjamin Franklin's advice from the Constitutional Convention and maybe just take some time and pray, because ultimately we need God to be part of this conversation and solution, and we don't need to give up in despair on having conversations and working together with other Christians and conservatives to find common ground, even if you have some pretty strong disagreements on topics like Convention of States. 

Rick Green [00:13:03] Yeah, in fact, let's go to break with Patrick Henry's words. According to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. And it's obviously a big subject when we're talking about amending the Constitution. So, freedom of debate is great. And sometimes the debate goes for decades. Let's see. David and I have been debating term limits for what David, 25 years now. And you haven't convinced me and I haven't convince you. So see, we have a lot of fun with, with these debates. He's convinced all of my kids, they're all on David's side now. 

David Barton [00:13:28] But Rick, I'm winning. They don't have term limits in Congress yet. So my side's winning. And even the states that put it in are wishing they hadn't done it now. So we haven't had a state pass term limits in several years. I'm wining, Rick. My side's wining. 

Rick Green [00:13:43] Tortoise and the hare man, tortoise and the hare. I'm the tortoise. It might be like 20, you know, 80, and I'm gonna be a hundred. 

Tim Barton [00:13:54] Well guys, right now, Dad, just so you know, guys like Mitch McConnell are torpedoing your argument. Nancy Pelosi, Americans see them and they're like, look, even if I didn't want term limits, I'd see them, and I'm like, we need term limits. 

David Barton [00:14:08] No, wait a minute 

Tim Barton [00:14:08] This is a debate that will continue. 

David Barton [00:14:10] I'm gonna tell you that McConnell and Pelosi are not torpedoing my argument. They're proving my argument that the people under them are crazy enough to want to keep reelecting them. I put the power in the hands of the people. So if those people still want to vote for those. 

Tim Barton [00:14:23] Debate this more on break

David Barton [00:14:27] My position holds. 

Rick Green [00:14:30] All right, we're going to break, stay with us folks, we'll be right back with the term limit debate. No, we are going to move on to another question. We'll be back, you're listening to The WallBuilders Show. 

Rick Green [00:15:44] Welcome back to the WallBuilders Show. It's Rick Green and Tim Barton. We turned off David's mic so that he couldn't win anybody else over on his argument against term limits. All right, seriously guys, we've got, let's see, this one's from Catherine. She said, we love it, appreciate you all, and thank you for bringing truth to all that listen by highlighting the facts about America's founding. Recently, in honor of the 250th, we traveled to D.C., to Williamsburg, and more places tracing the Founding Fathers' footsteps, and we learned about a man named Peyton Randolph. We were told by some historical actors at Williamsburg that Peyton was from a loyalist family but became a patriot and then was going to be presiding over the Continental Congress instead of Hancock when he unfortunately died. Apparently, he was very instrumental in bringing independence to our country. What more can you tell us about this man and does he deserve to have his story told? Has he just been forgotten or overlooked? Thank you for any help you can offer into this mystery about Peyton Randolph. Catherine, thank you for sending the question in and thank you, for going with your family and tracing the footsteps of the Founding Fathers. Such an exciting thing to do. And what a great year to do that in the 250th. What do you think guys? Peyton Randolph. 

David Barton [00:16:48] Peyton Randolph is a really key influential figure. He is the president of the First Continental Congress, 1774. He is from Virginia. He was a loyalist. He, I'm going to call him a moderate. He wasn't a flaming patriot and he wasn't an ARC anti-patriot. He's a freedom-loving guy. He wanted to be really sure before any significant changes were made. He listened to the arguments for liberty. He ported liberty, he wasn't sure about overthrowing the crown, but then again, a lot of the Second Continental Congress that voted for the Declaration even a month before wasn't sure of overthrowing the crown. So, they were very modulated in their debates and getting into it. He was a very reasonable guy, being wealthy as he was. He was part of that loyalist. A lot of the loyalists in Virginia tended to be wealthy folks. They had a lot to lose. They wouldn't like the farmers and others. They were the business owners or they were the landed people, the kind of lords and nobles, if you will, of that area. So, Peyton Randolph, really good guy. He's a God-fearing guy. He's strong Anglican, and he was respected by the others, which it's interesting that it was all the states that chose him to be the president of the Continental Congress. That means it's Massachusetts and it's Georgia and it is North Carolina and it is all the others. And they say, hey, we recognize a stable hand in this guy. He is not radical one way or the other. He would probably be a good guide for our arguments, but he was getting owned in years and owned in health. And so, as it came time for the second Continental Congress and they looked at him going back, they recognized that, you know, his health may not be such that allows him to go back. So just in case he can't make it, we need to have somebody there to represent us. And they chose Thomas Jefferson as a potential replacement. So, Jefferson kind of went as a reserve. If Peyton Randolph shows up, Jefferson's not needed. If Peyton Randolph doesn't show up then Jefferson will be the delegate and as it turned out Peyton Randolph's health did not let him show up. So, Jefferson was there and what a brilliant choice that was. I don't know that things would have turned out the same if anybody else had been asked to lead the committee, to write the the Declaration. I mean what Jefferson did two thousand words in the original draft and 75% of what he wrote was retained, unchanged. That's unbelievable when you get several dozen guys in a room and they leave that much there. And the way he expressed the ideas, so much of the language that he put there that we still love today as part of that seminal language on the principles and rights came from Jefferson. And that was all as a replacement for Peyton Randolph. So, Peyton Randolph is a really significant guy. He was a very balanced hand. And again, he kept the tone right moving into the, into the Second Continental Congress where the Declaration is done. The Second Continent Congress was kind of the second term at the Second Conditional Congress. It was really the third meeting of Congress when they wrote the Declaration, but it's called the Second Continual Congress. And so that transition from Peyton Randolph to Jefferson was really cool, but I think that had they not had a Peyton Randolph at the beginning, it could have gone in a very different direction. If they'd had a firebrand or if they'd have a hardcore loyalist, it would have polarized the Convention. And as it was, they all kind of moved as a body and they kind of evolved in their thinking and went from, I don't think we should separate to well, maybe we should to yes, we should separate. So, Peyton-Randolph was key in all of that. 

Tim Barton [00:20:13] Well, and to add the cool connections to some of the stories that we tell is that like the first prayer in Congress, where I went when Congress first meet in September 5th they meet later in the day and is the very first time the Founding Fathers ever met each other. The guys from Virginia, for example, have never met the guy, like George Washington, Patrick Henry, they'd never met John Adams and Sam Adams. But that first meeting September 5th, they only do really two things and choose a President, Peyton Randolph, to be over the, this Congress. And then they set the rules of Congress, but the next morning is when they start the business and the first motion made on the first day was made by Thomas Cushing, they open with prayer and this is when the prayer in congress unfolds. What's cool is Peyton Randolph is the President of Congress during the first prayer in Congress. That's super cool! Well then Peyton Randolph Is also the guy who doesn't end up showing up to the Second Continental Congress, Jefferson's the replacement and his replacement is one that writes the Declaration. So, Peyton Randolph, to your point Dad, is very connected in these stories. But seeing like even some of the bigger picture where some of things, stories that we've told many times like the first prayer in Congress, Peyton Randolph was that President presiding over Congress when that first prayer happened. So, it's certainly a name that should be remembered, but he probably is more famous for some of the things that happened during his tenure or the fact that he wasn't able to go that next time and Jefferson replaced him. But again, certainly a name that should be remembered. 

Rick Green [00:21:42] Catherine, thanks so much for the question. Ironically, I think that was when I first learned about Peyton Randolph was at Colonial Williamsburg. So, appreciate you sending that in and for the incredible travels you're doing with your family. All right, guys, let's try to get one more in. Caleb sends this one in from Missouri. He said, I'm a youth pastor in Missouri, and I'm wondering, what is the perspective of WallBuilders on abortion, abolition or pro-life? How should Christians navigate the debate? There seems to be growing support for it, including organizations like Abolitionists Rising. If that is the ultimate goal, why is that not how many Christians perceive abortion? Thank you for your time, God bless. Okay, you know, we always make sure we acknowledge or reject the presumption in the question. So, I do think saying abolition or pro-life might be a little bit of a presumption we might not agree with. I think you can be pro- life and not necessarily believe that you have to get it all at once, and incrementalism is okay. Absolutely love the fact that we have abolitionists out there. We support a total abolition. But there is sometimes a strategy of taking less than everything that you can get if you can't get the votes. Okay, that's about two cents. What do you guys think? 

Tim Barton [00:22:46] Yeah, Rick, I totally agree with, I'll argue the starting place. So, for those listening, if you're not familiar, an abolitionist is someone who says end all abortion and anything other than a total, and a total abolition of abortion is not right. It's not godly, it's not pro-life, and not everybody takes the extreme position that if you don't support this, you're godly. But that's not an uncommon position. If you're an abolitionist, then you're like, hey, either end this whole thing now or you're totally wrong. On the other side, and this is where there's the contrast that was showed, even the question, are you an abolitionist or are you pro-life? Well, it's suggesting that a pro-lifer isn't necessarily in favor of the total abolition of abortion. And although it's fair to say there might be some people that support what they would consider a pro-life position in some areas and not all, I would think that's totally wrong. If you're not in favor defending life at every stage, then I would contend you're not pro-life. With that being said, and Ricky alluded to this, one of the things that we point to is in Solomon one of those pieces of wisdom that you gain from Ecclesiastes when Solomon writes that is that you cast your bread upon many waters not knowing from which it returns. And we have no problem with someone saying, like in state legislation, for example, saying, hey, let's introduce a bill to ban all abortion in our state, no mail in drugs, no Mifepristone, whatever else. We support that piece of legislation. We also support in states where they're like, hey, right now abortion is legal up through, right, the ninth month. Let's do a 20-week ban. Anything we do to preserve more life we are in favor of, and Dad, I know we're running out of time, so I won't keep going, although I could. What are your thoughts on this? 

David Barton [00:24:30] Well, I look at what God told Moses. They're going into the Promised Land and it's full of Canaanites and all sorts of pagan practices, and God specifically told him in Exodus 23 verses 29 and 30 in Deuteronomy 7:22, he says, I'm going to give you the land, but I will not give it to you all at once. He said, I will give it you only little by little. And that's the way so many cultural issues go. John Quincy Adams was an abolitionist, but he was willing to take every 3%, every 7%, every 8%, every 2% he could get. It's not one or the other, although he was surrounded by people who said, no, if you don't do 100%, that's compromised. I won't compromise. And so, they got 0%. You look for progress anywhere you can get it. And you add that 2% to 8%, now you got 10%, get another 3.5%, you just keep going. But I think that that passage that God gave Moses is the key to it. I'm an abolitionist, but I'm gonna take every victory I can get no matter how small it is too. 

Tim Barton [00:25:25] Yeah, Dad, that doesn't mean that we don't try for abolition right away. But it does mean that again, like this idea of casting your bread upon many waters, we encourage state legislators and our state legislative network, we work with an awful lot of people with views across the board and some are like, hey, I want to do a 12-week abortion ban. We're like, man, that's great. Do it. And some people are like hey, we want to abolish abortion right now. And we're like that's a great do it. Some people are, like man, we wanna pass laws to be able to charge these drug companies that are mailing in Mifepristone and we're like, man, that's great, do it. Whatever steps we can take, we support, because ultimately, we want to end abortion. We believe that God is the author and giver of life, that life should be valued. So, I don't think necessarily that it's pro-life or abolitionist. I think sometimes abolitionists would argue that if you don't support a total ban right now, you're not pro- life. I would disagree with that a little bit. I am in favor of ending all abortion, and if we can do it right now awesome. If not, let's take what steps we could take right now so that we can end abortion in the future. 

Rick Green [00:26:30] Well said fellows, all right, we're out of time. Last question for today, a good one to end on, encourage people to send in more questions for us for next week, send those to radio@wallbuilders.com. Don't miss tomorrow, got a lot of good news coming your way on Good News Friday. You've been listening to The WallBuilders Show.