Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

[GHook93]

Mark Levin is nuts. Every day from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm eastern time he becomes ravenously butthurt and calls it a radio show.

Sometimes I'm driving home and I'll think "hmm... I wonder what conservatives are butthurt about today?" Then I just tune in to Levin for a segment or two and I learn exactly what righties will be whining about on the forum that night.

Mark Levin is one of the most logical, intelligent and well informed talk show hosts out there. If you want a more moderate voice and that even you could relate to listen to Michael Medved. He is by far the best on the radio.

 

[johnwk]

Only a frothing leftist moron (redundant, I know) calls a legitimate process written into our Nation's political process, EVIL.

What is "evil" is the socialist crap Mark promotes,


Mark Levin promotes keeping the socialist tax on incomes alive with one of his “liberty amendments”! He also promotes keeping the Federal Reserve swindling operation alive with another one of his “liberty amendments.” And, let us not forget that he also promotes a fraudulent balanced budget amendment which would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the federal budget.

JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[dblack]

So, basically, if the federal budget is not balanced, our Founders intended the States to cough up the extra cash to meet the need, by raising direct taxes by apportionment.

That is what a balanced budget amendment true to our founding principles would look like.

All those states currently receiving more federal money than they contribute would be in the hurt locker should this be done.

So?

 

[JWBooth]

Mark Levin is smarter and of better character then any idiot on the left, period.

Not particularly high hurdles to clear, and Levin is no more able to do so than those he excoriates.

Rather than get foaming at the mouth worked up over Levin, evil indeed, you lefties would be better off simply dismissing the twit.

 

[dblack]

Of course, the frightening aspect of a convention is that it opens up the possibility of making the Constitution radically worse.

 

[editec]

Of course, the frightening aspect of a convention is that it opens up the possibility of making the Constitution radically worse.

Our constitution has failed us, DB.

All three branches are perverted from defending a Republic into defending a Kleptocracy.

Were some things done unconstitutionally?

I don't think so.

I think that the COTUS gave our government enough freedom and was written ambiguously enough to make it possible over time, one bad law at a time or -- often a bad SCOTUS ruling-- after the other) for the Republic to be CAPTURED BY monied interests.

The document itself FAILED

 

[jon_berzerk]

Mark Levin is nuts. Every day from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm eastern time he becomes ravenously butthurt and calls it a radio show.

Sometimes I'm driving home and I'll think "hmm... I wonder what conservatives are butthurt about today?" Then I just tune in to Levin for a segment or two and I learn exactly what righties will be whining about on the forum that night.

a segment or two

--LOL

 

[johnwk]

Of course, the frightening aspect of a convention is that it opens up the possibility of making the Constitution radically worse.

Our constitution has failed us, DB.

Absolutely wrong. The documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted are being circumvented by those who hold federal and state power! And Mark Levin promotes a number of "liberty amendments" which are not in harmony with a number of protections written into our Constitution by our founders.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[dblack]

Of course, the frightening aspect of a convention is that it opens up the possibility of making the Constitution radically worse.

Our constitution has failed us, DB.

All three branches are perverted from defending a Republic into defending a Kleptocracy.

Were some things done unconstitutionally?

I don't think so.

I think that the COTUS gave our government enough freedom and was written ambiguously enough to make it possible over time, one bad law at a time or -- often a bad SCOTUS ruling-- after the other) for the Republic to be CAPTURED BY monied interests.

The document itself FAILED

Perhaps. Or we failed it. The core problem is that we have little or no consensus on the ideology our government should be based on. That fact won't go away by calling a constitutional convention, and I suspect the product of doing so would be as convoluted and contradictory - if not more so - than the current state of affairs.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Oops! All those missiles we shot at all those darkies all over the planet have really added up. We're gonna need you folks to cough up another five hundred bucks this year.

Just couldnt get enough attention for yourself so ya had to throw race into the discussion?

Jackass

 

[MaxGrit]

“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.”

 

[JakeStarkey]

Won't include anything beyond, if it does happen, a balanced budget vote.

 

[Votto]

Like it or not, Mark Levin has tapped into something here. Polls show that about 80% of people favor a balanced budget and term limits.

And why not? Congress has an approval rating of only 10%, yet they keep getting elected. This aristocracy needs to come to an abrupt end, along with their lavish retirements. These elitists need to be forced to create a world in which they will soon be forced to live in instead of the ivory tower of Washington where they arm all of the federal employees to the teeth when the peasants storm the castle.

As for the spending, the US federal government throws money at every person on the planet. They throw it at the rich, the poor, and ever nation on the planet in the hopes of exerting influence. And why not, it seems to work. The problem is that the printing press of the Fed is like crack cocaine. These folks need an intervention before the destroy themselves and the nation. Some sort of state driven amendment is really the only way for such an intervention to occur because the junkie never thinks they have a problem.

 

[Erand7899]

If Duncan Hunter wants to balance the annual budget, then why does he not “push” for and demand the apportioned direct tax be used to extinguish annual deficits as our Founding Fathers intended?

How is the budget to be balanced? The answer is found in a number of our State Ratification documents which gave birth to our Constitution, for example see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s share is determined.

Did you ever hear Mark Levin inform his listening audience that our founders put the emergency apportioned direct taxing power in the Constitution to be used when imposts, duties, and excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures? I haven’t.

I just wanted to parse out the crux of your argument.

This is an excellent topic and I hope it is a productive one. You have created an outstanding subject for discussion.

I am totally in favor of repealing the 16th amendment, but it would be a big mistake unless the 17th amendment is repealed at the same time.

Currently, the states, as soverign entities, are not represented in congress. Such a situation would allow the federal politicians to run rampant over spending while laying the burden for paying for the spending binge on the states. With Senators once again forced to be responsive to the state legislatures, sanity could be restored.

 

[Votto]

If Duncan Hunter wants to balance the annual budget, then why does he not “push” for and demand the apportioned direct tax be used to extinguish annual deficits as our Founding Fathers intended?

How is the budget to be balanced? The answer is found in a number of our State Ratification documents which gave birth to our Constitution, for example see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s share is determined.

Did you ever hear Mark Levin inform his listening audience that our founders put the emergency apportioned direct taxing power in the Constitution to be used when imposts, duties, and excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures? I haven’t.

I just wanted to parse out the crux of your argument.

This is an excellent topic and I hope it is a productive one. You have created an outstanding subject for discussion.

I am totally in favor of repealing the 16th amendment, but it would be a big mistake unless the 17th amendment is repealed at the same time.

Currently, the states, as soverign entities, are not represented in congress. Such a situation would allow the federal politicians to run rampant over spending while laying the burden for paying for the spending binge on the states. With Senators once again forced to be responsive to the state legislatures, sanity could be restored.

The one thing that I disagree with Mark Levin is the extent to which the Article V process needs to come.

What they must work on are two issues, spending and term limits. If they then add a myriad of other issues that do not have the backing of 80% of the people, then the likelihood of the process failing increases that much more.

I would personally like to start with just two amendments, term limits and a balanced budget amendment of some kind.

You do realize that if they pass an amendment to balance the budget, they will just ignore it. This is a process, one that needs to take place. Nothing will change over night. However, the term limits will flush out the system, which is perhaps the most needed event right now.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's surprising how many people don't know that a Constitutional convention cannot change the Constitution.

Anything it passes, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Or else it goes in the trash can.

If you think 3/4 of the states would agree to this direct tax or any of the other schemes we keep hearing about, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[candycorn]

Mark Levin is nuts. Every day from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm eastern time he becomes ravenously butthurt and calls it a radio show.

Sometimes I'm driving home and I'll think "hmm... I wonder what conservatives are butthurt about today?" Then I just tune in to Levin for a segment or two and I learn exactly what righties will be whining about on the forum that night.

I usually only listen when there has been a setback to the right wing when the butthurt is at high tide but it is easy to draw a line between what you hear there and read here more often than not.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Just imagine what the world would be like if there had been a balanced budget amendment back in 1940!

Basically, the U.S. could not have afforded to fight the wars in either Europe or or the Pacific, there would have mostly likely negotiated treaties - Germany would have retained most of Western Europe, while Imperial Japan would have retained most of the Pacific and Asia.

In short, while balancing the budget is a good idea when the economy is booming and there are no national crisises (like in 2001 when Bush was President), forcing a balanced budget in times of recession or national crisis is idiotic.

In fact, the entire notion that government deficits are bad is a bunch of bunk dreamed up by wingnuts to create a false political issue. Unfortunately, these people have a tendency to believe their own lies.

Our system of government finance is absolute genius. It is the very reason why the U.S. is the world dominant power economically, militarily, technologically and culturally!

Anyone that wants to force a major change to the system of government finance is either anti-American or an idiot!

 

[Votto]

It's surprising how many people don't know that a Constitutional convention cannot change the Constitution.

Anything it passes, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Or else it goes in the trash can.

If you think 3/4 of the states would agree to this direct tax or any of the other schemes we keep hearing about, you haven't been paying attention.

Like I keep saying, stick with popular amendments. If nothing else, just start with term limits. This would begin the process and establish a must needed precedent.

 

[Votto]

Just imagine what the world would be like if there had been a balanced budget amendment back in 1940!

Basically, the U.S. could not have afforded to fight the wars in either Europe or or the Pacific, there would have mostly likely negotiated treaties - Germany would have retained most of Western Europe, while Imperial Japan would have retained most of the Pacific and Asia.

In short, while balancing the budget is a good idea when the economy is booming and there are no national crisises (like in 2001 when Bush was President), forcing a balanced budget in times of recession or national crisis is idiotic.

In fact, the entire notion that government deficits are bad is a bunch of bunk dreamed up by wingnuts to create a false political issue. Unfortunately, these people have a tendency to believe their own lies.

Our system of government finance is absolute genius. It is the very reason why the U.S. is the world dominant power economically, militarily, technologically and culturally!

Anyone that wants to force a major change to the system of government finance is either anti-American or an idiot!

Progressives like Wilson and FDR used world wars to create a collectivist utopia in the US.

Now they don't even declare war, they just send the troop in and now don't even notify Congress when they do it.

Of course, some of us disdain the collectivist war machines created to defeat the collectivist war machines in Europe. But we must ask ourselves one question, have we become what we first fought against?