SEN. HASSAN: "Sometimes science is wrong ... And when you continue to sow doubt about settled science, it makes it impossible for us to move forward." 🤔

I can’t believe this needs to be said, but cutting funding for cancer research is not how you make America great.

A National Plebiscite on America’s 250th Anniversary I. Trump to Announce Constitutional Convention for Semiquincentennial Celebration As our country's 250th birthday approaches, President Trump will announce an extraordinary but fully justified plan: a National Constitutional Convention to clarify and confirm certain long-held but recently-forgotten supreme laws of our land. The convention's proposals will be submitted directly to a national plebiscite—allowing the American People themselves to approve these common-sense amendments outside the limitations of Article V. These proposals are likely to include: 1. The president is the chief executive of the executive branch, with full freedom to hire and fire at-will across it. -This obvious constitutional rule was widely recognized until Humphrey’s Executor v. US (1935). -The complete derogation of this basic principle since Morrison v. Olson (1988) allowed the deep state to seize power. 2. The freedom of association protects the right of private entities to freely exclude others as they see fit. -This obvious constitutional rule was widely recognized until Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964). -The complete derogation of this basic principle since Runyon v. McCrary (1976) allowed civil society to be destroyed. 3. Equal protection affirmatively forbids any government requirement of, support for, or involvement with DEI-related programs. -This obvious constitutional rule was widely recognized until Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). -The complete derogation of this basic principle since Weber v. United Steelworkers (1979) allowed racial communism to take over. 4. Birthright citizenship does not apply to aliens, as they do not meet the explicit jurisdiction requirements of that clause. -This obvious constitutional rule was widely recognized until one bizarre off-topic footnote in Plyler v. Doe (1982). -The complete derogation of this basic principle since INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985) allowed for the great replacement. 5. The president is charged with faithfully executing the laws, which is how courts must judge his legal arguments. -This obvious constitutional rule was widely recognized until Chevron v. NRDC (1984). -The complete derogation of this basic principle since DACA allowed for the totalitarianisms of 2020. II. Why is this Necessary? 1. Article V has become a political dead end. -No new amendment has passed since 1992, but each period of national renewal has historically come with a burst of related amendments. -Congress and state legislatures block amendments even when supermajorities of Americans support them (e.g., term limits, balanced budget). -Mendacious reinterpretations of the extant text have stolen our country from us for ugly, unpopular, petty, fake, and self-destructive ideologies. 2. Congress and courts cannot be trusted to uphold the Constitution. -Biden unilaterally "ratified" the ERA—an assault on the rule of law and the transfer of power far worse than the protests on 1/6/2021. -This attempted fraud and forgery sets a dangerous precedent of Democrats fabricating constitutional changes without legal authority. -Trump has an opportunity to reverse course by clarifying to the people that the people actually still believe in our actual constitution. 3. The Founders themselves rejected the idea that Article V is the only valid method of constitutional change. -The Constitution itself was created outside the amendment process of the Articles of Confederation (which required unanimous consent). -State constitutions have routinely been replaced or amended outside their formal amendment procedures (examples below). -The founders overwhelmingly and explicitly believed that their covenant existed for their posterity, not vice-versa. 4. The 250th anniversary is the perfect moment to reaffirm America’s founding principle: government by the consent of the governed. -A national plebiscite will allow the People to directly decide against the shrill swamp's desperate and depraved revolution. -These proposed amendments will merely confirm certain productive, clear, popular, and long-held constitutional principles. -The deep state waged war on our constitutional order. Trump beat them back. The restored president can restore the constitution. III. The Case for a Constitutional Amendment Process Beyond Article V 1. The Founders Themselves Ignored a Prior Amendment Requirement -The Articles of Confederation (1781) required unanimous consent for amendments (Article XIII). -Yet, in 1787, the Founders deliberately bypassed this rule, allowing the Constitution to be ratified by only nine states under Article VII. -If the Founders rejected an unworkable amendment rule then, we can do so now. 2. State Constitutional Precedents: Amendments Outside Article V-Like Procedures Are Common Many state constitutions contained formal amendment clauses, yet were frequently revised or even replaced through conventions outside those mechanisms. -Pennsylvania (1790): Replaced its 1776 constitution without following its formal amendment process. -Delaware (1791): Drafted and adopted a new constitution outside of existing legal mechanisms. -Massachusetts (1820): Held a constitutional convention despite no explicit authorization in its 1780 constitution. -Tennessee (1834), New York (1821, 1846, 1894, 1938), California (1879), Louisiana (multiple times): Each state revised or replaced its constitution through conventions that were not strictly authorized by prior constitutional text. -Georgia has adopted ten different constitutions since 1777, usually through new conventions without prior constitutional authorization. -For example, Georgia's 1945 constitution was drafted by delegates that its governor convened outside of the state's previously established amendment procedures. -Virginia has likewise adopted six constitutions, again often through new conventions that bypassed the official explicit constitutionalization process. -Over 30 states have held constitutional conventions outside of their prescribed amendment mechanisms. State constitutions have routinely and uncontroversially been amended or even entirely rewritten outside of their formal amendment rules, because our system recognizes the supra-constitutional power of conventions called by extraordinary chief executives and ratified by plebiscites in times of transformation. The same principle applies to the national Constitution. 3. The Supreme Court Recognizes the Ultimate Sovereignty of the People -McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): The U.S. Constitution is not the creature of the states, but of the American People as a whole. -Luther v. Borden (1849): A new government formed by popular sovereignty is legitimate if recognized by the people. -Texas v. White (1869): The Union is indissoluble, meaning sovereignty resides with the national People, not state governments. -There are far too many other such cases to list, but this should give you some sense of them. The Court has never ruled that Article V is the exclusive method of constitutional change—meaning that a national plebiscite on constitutional amendments is entirely lawful. 4. The Founders Themselves Argued That the People Can Amend Outside of Article V -James Madison’s original draft of the Bill of Rights (1789) included: “That the people have an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government…��; Congress ultimately dropped this explicit phrasing, but only because they believed that the Preamble already quite clearly implied it. -George Mason (1787): Warned against government-controlled amendments, arguing that the People must retain the power to amend the Constitution directly. -Gouverneur Morris (1787): Declared that "a majority of the People" should always have the right to change the Constitution. -James Wilson (1787): Stated that "the supreme power resides in the People" and that "those who ordain and establish have the power... to repeal and annul." -Virginia’s Ratifying Convention (1788): Formally declared that the People "retain the right to alter or abolish" the Constitution whenever they see fit. -Thomas Jefferson (1816): “the majority… has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the Constitution what they think will be best for themselves.” -Thomas Jefferson (1816, again): “It is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of [amendment-making] every 19 or 20 years, should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.” -The Federalist Papers (1787-1788) repeatedly make this clear: A.1 Federalist 22 (Hamilton): Argues that "the fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the People... fountain of all legitimate authority." A.2 Federalist 22 (Again): Condemns the Articles of Confederation as “a system so radically vicious and unsound, as to not admit of amendment but by an entire change in its leading figures and characters.” B. Federalist 39 (Madison): Emphasizes that the Constitution’s legitimacy comes from "the supreme authority in each State—the authority of the People themselves." C. Federalist 40 (Madison): Acknowledges that the Philadelphia Convention exceeded its legal mandate but argues that ratification by the People then legitimized the Constitution. D. Federalist 78 (Hamilton): States outright that "the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution" is fundamental to republican government. 5. The Preamble, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments Confirm This Right -The Preamble states that We the People "do ordain and establish" the Constitution, proving that constitutional power rests with the People themselves, not the government. -The Ninth Amendment explicitly warns against assuming that all rights must be explicitly listed in the Constitution—meaning the People retain the right to amend outside of Article V. -The Tenth Amendment reserves all undelegated powers to the People, reinforcing their absolute authority over constitutional change. 6. Congress Has Proven Itself Incapable of Constitutional Reform -The last successful Article V amendment passed in 1992—and that was a 203-year-old proposal. -Widely supported amendments (e.g., term limits, balanced budget) never pass due to legislative gridlock. -Joe Biden has unilaterally "declared" the ERA ratified, proving that the Left will fabricate constitutional changes rather than follow the law. -If Congress will not act, then the People must, through the Vessel of Our will and God's, who Survived and Won this Mandate by Providence. 7. A National Plebiscite is a Legitimate and Deliberate Process -This will not be a whimsical process—it will involve: A. Months of debate. B. Delegates carefully crafting amendments. C. A national referendum ensuring that only amendments with overwhelming support are adopted. -Majority rule is the foundation of republican government. -A plebiscite prevents partisan obstructionism and judicial activism from over-riding the will of the People. 8. Federalism Does Not Block National Constitutional Change -Article VI establishes federal supremacy, meaning a national amendment trumps state objections. -Article V itself allows states to be bound by amendments even if they vote against them. -James Wilson (1787) and Lincoln (1861) argued that sovereignty belongs to the national People, not state governments. -If sovereignty were divided, the nation would be permanently paralyzed. IV. The 250th Anniversary Will Be a Landmark in American Constitutional History President Trump’s National Constitutional Plebiscite will be the first time since the Founding that We the People directly decide on constitutional amendments together across the country. This process is: ✅ Rooted in history—following the Founders’ example in 1787, and the States' example ever since. ✅ Legally sound—with multiple precedents at the state and national levels, in custom and in text. ✅ Necessary—because Article V has become an insurmountable roadblock in the hands of our enemies. ✅ Timely—as Biden’s illegitimate ERA declaration proves that the Left will only escalate its war on the Constitution. Though this prospect of reform is obviously exciting, it will just be the latest in a long series of national renewals. Constitutional amendments, especially the important ones, have historically occurred in bursts, as one coherent set of updates that addressed closely related foundational concerns, and not as isolated, one-off changes. 1. The Bill of Rights (1791): The first ten amendments were passed together to address Anti-Federalist concerns and reinforce the Jeffersonian vision within the Hamiltonian framework of the Constitution. They were mostly protections of individual states (which weren't bound by almost any of these rights until after the Civil War) against the federal government. 2. The Reconstruction Amendments (1865-1870): The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments collectively reshaped the Constitution to align with the Union’s victory in the Civil War, and to remake us as one country rather than several states. They turned the federal government into an enforcer of individual rights against intrusions by state and local authorities. 3. The Progressive Era Amendments (1913-1933): The 16th through 21st Amendments reflected the power of that era's Progressive campaigns and organized them into administrative agencies. They remade governance as an ideological arena in which prestigious institutions manage the public square to coordinate individuals into civil society. 4. The Mid-20th Century Amendments (1960s-1970s): The 23rd through 26th Amendments expanded democratic participation, and coincided with quasi-constitutional "third rail" reforms like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Hart-Celler, the War on Poverty, and much more. These redefined rebellion and weakness as authority, and authority as backwardness and sin. 5. We pass these bursts of constitutional amendments every 50 years, and it's been 50 years now since the last one. We don't have to live under the current stagnation. America's renewal has always come in constitutional but novel bursts. If this renewal is impossible under Article V, then it will have to be accomplished beyond Article V, or our accomplishments will cease. V. Presidential Precedent: America’s Transformative Leaders Have Unabashedly Remade the Constitutional Order in Times of Crisis America’s great transformative presidents remade our constitutional order boldly, forthrightly, and with the People’s mandate, reshaping the nation in moments of crisis through decisive action and direct appeals to the public. By contrast, America’s failed forgettable leaders—those who just presided over decline—sought to rewrite the Constitution in the shadows, through tiresome propaganda, judicial activism, bureaucratic usurpation, and cynical manipulation of legal technicalities. We all know, regardless of our personal politics, that renewal comes from honest invigorating forward-looking calls-to-action, rather than through passive superficial adherence to outdated constraints. Just consider how the men who made our system what it is, for better or worse, understood themselves, and how they were understood by their subjects: 1. George Washington: -Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address emphasized that constitutional government derives its legitimacy from the People’s ongoing consent, warning against those who would treat the Constitution as a rigid or dead document: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.” -As president, Washington created countless non-textual but nonetheless binding constitutional precedents regarding presidential powers: the "sole organ" doctrine, the "Decision of 1789," the two-term limit, the cabinet, executive privilege, and so many other foundational norms that we now take for granted. 2. Abraham Lincoln: -In his 1861 First Inaugural Address, Lincoln rejected the idea that the Constitution was a suicide pact, insisting that the People—not state governments—had the final say in constitutional disputes: “The central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy... The Union is older than any of these states, and, in fact, it created them as states.” -Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without congressional approval, issued the Emancipation Proclamation without constitutional precedent, and governed as a wartime executive with near-dictatorial power—which was later broadly ratified by the People and their Military Occupation Government through the Reconstruction Amendments. 3. Progressive Monarchs: -Teddy: "I believe in the right of the people to rule... The power to amend our fundamental law should be vested in the people, not in the politicians."; "The great fundamental issue now before our people can be stated briefly. It is: Shall the people rule?"; "The Constitution belongs to the people, and not to the courts to pervert and twist as suits their political biases."; "We stand for a living, breathing Constitution, one which permits the People to change its meaning as necessity demands." -Wilson: "The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straitjacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness."; "Government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton."; "No people can live whose constitution is framed for them by others and who are not permitted to change it for themselves."; "The makers of the Constitution constructed the federal government upon the Whig theory of political distrust, which was that government must be constantly restrained and restricted. But that is not our theory. We believe in democracy." 4. Franklin Roosevelt: -In his 1933 First Inaugural Address, FDR explicitly asked Congress for executive authority akin to wartime dictatorship, declaring: “I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” -You should really read the final 10 paragraphs of that speech. If you really need me to remind you that we live under his form of government, then one additional reminder wouldn't convince you anyway. We've lived under the rotting corpse of his headless monarchy ever since then—though we now call it the Administrative Procedure Act—and ever since the 1960s it's been really starting to stink. Either we bury him or he buries us. America’s greatest leaders have never treated the Constitution as a static document but as an instrument to serve the People. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR all openly governed as chief executives, who reshaped our constitutional framework to fit the needs of their eras. Their actions, though often extra-textual, were validated by the People’s consent and codified into constitutional norms. This is the model for bold constitutional leadership—not the disingenuous resentful deference to anachronistic procedural formalism that has constituted our government ever since. VI. Next Steps: -Details of delegate selection and the referendum process will be unveiled in time. -Proposed amendments will be debated at the convention and on platforms like X. -This will drive inescapable and creative discussion of these often censored issues. This is not a radical break from the past—it is a Restoration of America’s founding principle: the People, not politicians or bureaucrats, have the final say on the Constitution. The Restoration of President Trump is the perfect opportunity for us to begin this work towards independence from woke tyrants. On July 4, 2026, the American People will have the opportunity to affirm or reject these amendments directly—without obstruction from the unaccountable, sad, small-minded, unstable, radically left-wing deep state of civil servants, propaganda journalists, activist professors, HR commissars, and so forth. For too long, we have let stupid liars who hate us dictate our supreme law. No more. The Constitution belongs to we the living, not those spiteful outsiders who claim to speak for its authors. It is time to reclaim it. The 250th anniversary of our independence from Britain will be the perfect moment to do so, so that we never again risk suffering the indignities to which they now are subject, which are now under their laws literally unspeakable.