To view this on the COS website, click here was-our-constitution-divinely-created-or-not

Was Our Constitution Divinely Created, or Not?

Of all the arguments that Article V convention opponents put forth, I find those that use their faith in God as justification against amending the Constitution to be the most disingenuous.

Of all the arguments that Article V convention opponents put forth, I find those that use their faith in God as justification against amending the Constitution to be the most disingenuous. They claim the Almighty would condemn using something the Almighty gave us to use, without even acknowledging the irony. Such people use two different arguments against amending the Constitution: The Constitution is perfect as is, or we no longer have people with suitable wisdom to propose amendments.

In my home state of Idaho, each time the public has been invited to testify at the State Legislature about calling for an Article V convention of states, someone has claimed that the Constitution was written by men of faith, serving as instruments of God – it is perfect and shouldn’t be changed. The vast majority of Article V proponents agree that our founders were divinely guided when they created our republic’s foundational document. But perfection from God, hasn’t prevented human error in the interpretation of God’s work.

Our Constitution neither endorsed slavery nor a patriarchy. Yet without clarification via amendments, men would still own other men, and women would still be barred from politics. In the 21st century we face another problem: God guided the founders to create coequal branches of government, so they could hold each other accountable – not so that they would be immune from accountability. Yet “separation of powers” is being argued as immunity from accountability. That demands and adjustment.

In his wisdom, God gave us the means to remediate the corruptions which we have introduced to his work. The “make no changes to the Constitution” opponents are saying one of two things: Either the founding fathers were not divinely guided (meaning the Constitution cannot be perfect), or God made a serious mistake when he included a means to make changes. Whichever they are arguing, they can’t claim divine guidance against making changes.

Opponents also argue that our relationship with God is fundamentally different than it was in the 18th century. They say we no longer have people with the stature or faith of our founding fathers, who can be trusted to propose amendments.

Such opponents are either asserting that God has become impotent in the 21st century, or that their faith in the Almighty to use convention delegates as his instruments is limited. The “we don’t have people of adequate faith” opponents either believe God is no longer all-powerful, they no longer have faith in God, or both.

Proponents of an Article V convention are happy to debate the potential risks and rewards of a state led effort to restore accountability to the federal government. But attempts to shut down the debate by invoking the will of God, reveals more about an opponent’s faith than the dangers of talking to each other about solutions to our ever-growing crisis.

If you’d like to learn more about how an Article V convention can be used by the states to take corrective action on our federal government, go here.

Page Metadata
Login Required to view?	No
Created:	2025-06-08 18:23 GMT
Updated:	2025-06-15 07:00 GMT
Published:	2025-06-08 18:30 GMT
Converted:	2025-11-11 12:05 GMT
Change Author:	John Green
Credit Author: