The Liberty Amendments

[johnwk]

An Article 5 convention would not be a "general convention", it is only to propose amendments.

What is your point in respect to what I wrote?

JWK

Can't read your own Madison quote? He also mentioned under the cricumstances at that time, which has no bearing on today.

I still would like to know why you wrote an "Article 5 convention would not be a "general convention" in response to Madison's quote.


JWK

 

[johnwk]

Article V does not give states authority to call a constitutional convention. It authorizes states to call an "amendments convention" which is what Levin is proposing. This has been used in the past, and Madison, along with George Mason and Alex Hamilton, made great arguments for the provision in Article V.

Today, Levin had on his program, Constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, Dr. Randy Barnett. He not only supports Levin's proposal, he has been advocating for such a convention the past several years. He says it is not possible for there to be a "runaway convention" where the Constitution would be rewritten, anymore than a runaway Congressional amendment process, which has been used 27 times. It simply replaces Congress with state delegates to a convention, and operates the same exact way from there. The state delegates simply replace Congress in the process.

Article V is very clear that when a convention is called by Congress it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural]. For example, if an Article V convention was called, the delegates sent to the convention could propose an amendment declaring that:

There shall be no violation of rights except by a law befitting the values of the United States, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.

To understand why I use this example see the: Basic Law of Israel


After listing a number of rights we find section 8 which declares:

8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.


Now, imagine if such an innocuous sounding amendment were proposed by the Convention and then ratified, it would make our current Bill of Rights subject to our federal government’s whims and fancies and totally erase the very legislative intent for which our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment was adopted!


There are a number of unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention which need to be sorted out before the doors of a convention are opened. At this point in time it appears a convention is a dangerous idea because:


1) there is no way to control an Article V convention and it is uncharted waters;


2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;


3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN, George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, etc., would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) that the convention could write a provision for our federal government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and then use the provision to bribe a number of state Legislatures into submission;

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;


7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

JWK


"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Levin like Obama is an academic dreamer...hope and change, only this time screwing up the actual process for amending the Constitution. Name 12 people you would trust to do good

"screwing up the actual process for amending the Constitution"?

Read Article 5 dumbass!!


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.

 

[Boss]

Article V does not give states authority to call a constitutional convention. It authorizes states to call an "amendments convention" which is what Levin is proposing. This has been used in the past, and Madison, along with George Mason and Alex Hamilton, made great arguments for the provision in Article V.

Today, Levin had on his program, Constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, Dr. Randy Barnett. He not only supports Levin's proposal, he has been advocating for such a convention the past several years. He says it is not possible for there to be a "runaway convention" where the Constitution would be rewritten, anymore than a runaway Congressional amendment process, which has been used 27 times. It simply replaces Congress with state delegates to a convention, and operates the same exact way from there. The state delegates simply replace Congress in the process.

Article V is very clear that when a convention is called by Congress it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural]. For example, if an Article V convention was called, the delegates sent to the convention could propose an amendment declaring that:

There shall be no violation of rights except by a law befitting the values of the United States, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.

To understand why I use this example see the: Basic Law of Israel


After listing a number of rights we find section 8 which declares:

8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.


Now, imagine if such an innocuous sounding amendment were proposed by the Convention and then ratified, it would make our current Bill of Rights subject to our federal government’s whims and fancies and totally erase the very legislative intent for which our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment was adopted!


There are a number of unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention which need to be sorted out before the doors of a convention are opened. At this point in time it appears a convention is a dangerous idea because:


1) there is no way to control an Article V convention and it is uncharted waters;


2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;


3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN, George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, etc., would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) that the convention could write a provision for our federal government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and then use the provision to bribe a number of state Legislatures into submission;

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;


7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

JWK


"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

First of all, an Article V convention is for the purpose of proposing amendments. Yes, it is plural, it can include one or several amendments. Each Amendment stands alone in a ratification process, each has to garner 3/4 of the states approval at the ballot box, to be ratified. ANYTHING that is the least bit "radical" will never be ratified. The most radical amendment ever was the 18th, prohibiting alcohol, and it barely passed... this was after a 20 year public war waged by the prohibition movement. As we know, this Amendment was repealed several years later.

To answer your points:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention and it is uncharted waters;

Whoever told you this is lying to you. It has been attempted several times. The last time was with the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972(?) but it failed to get the needed 2/3rds of states to call the convention.

2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

There is no involvement by either entity. The rules are already established, the states would be completely in charge, which is the whole purpose of the provision in Article V.

3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN, George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, etc., would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

Wouldn't matter because the states would have to adopt any proposal, and then it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Also, the delegates are appointed by state legislatures.

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

Cannot happen under Article V. In fact, there is no provision in the Constitution for ANY such convention, by Congress or the States. The language is crystal clear, it is for the purpose of proposing amendments.

5) that the convention could write a provision for our federal government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and then use the provision to bribe a number of state Legislatures into submission;

Could happen, but again... has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states... not gonna happen.

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

Then our only alternative is a bloody armed revolt and overthrow of existing government. One thing to keep in mind, the proposals laid out by Levin, would greatly diminish federal authority and return that power to the states and people.

7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

The US Constitution cannot be ignored in an amendments convention. You are talking about a completely different time and place, and a completely different situation and set of circumstances. If such a thing were to be attempted, SCOTUS would simply nullify the results. The ratification has nothing to do with Senators. it will require passage by 3/4 of the several states, pursuant to the Constitution.

What you are doing, is listening to people who have a vested interest in the status quo, and these people are rather large in number. Nobody inside the beltway is going to be keen on this idea, because it removes their power. Special interests are not going to support this idea, because they will no longer be able to manipulate. So we have a whole lot of people on both the right and left, who are going to be completely opposed to this, and doing everything in their power to prevent it from happening.

The thing you need to remember is this, unless this works, unless we are able to do this, there will be bloodshed. This is inevitable, and is not a threat, it's just the natural order of things. If we cannot take back control of our country through a peaceable Constitutional process, we will take up arms and do so in revolution. This has been done before as well.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Article V does not give states authority to call a constitutional convention. It authorizes states to call an "amendments convention" which is what Levin is proposing. This has been used in the past, and Madison, along with George Mason and Alex Hamilton, made great arguments for the provision in Article V.

Today, Levin had on his program, Constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, Dr. Randy Barnett. He not only supports Levin's proposal, he has been advocating for such a convention the past several years. He says it is not possible for there to be a "runaway convention" where the Constitution would be rewritten, anymore than a runaway Congressional amendment process, which has been used 27 times. It simply replaces Congress with state delegates to a convention, and operates the same exact way from there. The state delegates simply replace Congress in the process.

Article V is very clear that when a convention is called by Congress it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural]. For example, if an Article V convention was called, the delegates sent to the convention could propose an amendment declaring that:

There shall be no violation of rights except by a law befitting the values of the United States, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.

To understand why I use this example see the: Basic Law of Israel


After listing a number of rights we find section 8 which declares:

8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.


Now, imagine if such an innocuous sounding amendment were proposed by the Convention and then ratified, it would make our current Bill of Rights subject to our federal government’s whims and fancies and totally erase the very legislative intent for which our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment was adopted!


There are a number of unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention which need to be sorted out before the doors of a convention are opened. At this point in time it appears a convention is a dangerous idea because:


1) there is no way to control an Article V convention and it is uncharted waters;


2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;


3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN, George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, etc., would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) that the convention could write a provision for our federal government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and then use the provision to bribe a number of state Legislatures into submission;

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;


7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

JWK


"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

First of all, an Article V convention is for the purpose of proposing amendments. Yes, it is plural, it can include one or several amendments. Each Amendment stands alone in a ratification process, each has to garner 3/4 of the states approval at the ballot box, to be ratified. ANYTHING that is the least bit "radical" will never be ratified. The most radical amendment ever was the 18th, prohibiting alcohol, and it barely passed... this was after a 20 year public war waged by the prohibition movement. As we know, this Amendment was repealed several years later.

To answer your points:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention and it is uncharted waters;

Whoever told you this is lying to you. It has been attempted several times. The last time was with the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972(?) but it failed to get the needed 2/3rds of states to call the convention.

2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

There is no involvement by either entity. The rules are already established, the states would be completely in charge, which is the whole purpose of the provision in Article V.

3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN, George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, etc., would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

Wouldn't matter because the states would have to adopt any proposal, and then it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Also, the delegates are appointed by state legislatures.

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

Cannot happen under Article V. In fact, there is no provision in the Constitution for ANY such convention, by Congress or the States. The language is crystal clear, it is for the purpose of proposing amendments.

5) that the convention could write a provision for our federal government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and then use the provision to bribe a number of state Legislatures into submission;

Could happen, but again... has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states... not gonna happen.

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

Then our only alternative is a bloody armed revolt and overthrow of existing government. One thing to keep in mind, the proposals laid out by Levin, would greatly diminish federal authority and return that power to the states and people.

7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

The US Constitution cannot be ignored in an amendments convention. You are talking about a completely different time and place, and a completely different situation and set of circumstances. If such a thing were to be attempted, SCOTUS would simply nullify the results. The ratification has nothing to do with Senators. it will require passage by 3/4 of the several states, pursuant to the Constitution.

What you are doing, is listening to people who have a vested interest in the status quo, and these people are rather large in number. Nobody inside the beltway is going to be keen on this idea, because it removes their power. Special interests are not going to support this idea, because they will no longer be able to manipulate. So we have a whole lot of people on both the right and left, who are going to be completely opposed to this, and doing everything in their power to prevent it from happening.

The thing you need to remember is this, unless this works, unless we are able to do this, there will be bloodshed. This is inevitable, and is not a threat, it's just the natural order of things. If we cannot take back control of our country through a peaceable Constitutional process, we will take up arms and do so in revolution. This has been done before as well.

Great post..

 

[johnwk]

First of all, an Article V convention is for the purpose of proposing amendments.

That is exactly what I wrote and inferred. We are in agreement here.

Each Amendment stands alone in a ratification process, each has to garner 3/4 of the states approval at the ballot box, to be ratified

You are assuming ¾ of the states need to ratify what comes out of an Article V convention, and there is nothing about a “ballot box” in the wording of Article V. The only example we have concerning a convention of the states for the purpose of altering our nation’s organic law is the convention of 1787 when the delegates were sent to the convention for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“ and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government, a number of powers ceded to the new government, and the new government empowered to assume state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War. The convention went far beyond the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“
See: Credentials of the Members of the Federal Convention. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; April 9, 1787

In addition, the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation’s unanimous consent requirement for ratification, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

SEE:
Articles of Confederation
XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Why do you assume a modern day convention would not alter the ratification process when precedent has been set giving a convention the latitude to do otherwise? And who would determine the constitutionality if the convention changed the ratification process as was done in 1787? Would it not be our tyrannical Supreme Court which ignored the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government by our Constitution and gave thumbs up to Obamacare? Would it not be the very Court which engaged in judicial tyranny by changing the definition of “public use” as found in our Constitution to mean “public purpose” [the Kelo decision] and then allowed private property to be taken in violation of the very legislative intent of our Constitution?

ANYTHING that is the least bit "radical" will never be ratified.

Neither you nor I can state that with any certainty, especially considering Obama, the most radical and despotic president in our nation's history has been re-elected.

To answer your points:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention and it is uncharted waters;

Whoever told you this is lying to you.

Your opinion conflicts with notable constitutional conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and that does not even take into account James Madison who warned us that:

“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

So, just what are the rules once two thirds of the states apply to Congress for a convention and Congress convenes that convention? Here are some authoritative responses to that question:


"At a minimum...the Federal Judiciary, including The Supreme Court, will have to resolve the inevitable disputes over which branch and level of government may be entrusted to decide each of the many questions left open by Article V." - Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School


"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “___Chief Justice Warren Burger

Barry Goldwater said: "[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]...We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986 wrote:

A few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?"

... One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.

And the one quote I will never forget because I was on the University of Maryland's campus studying constitutional law and engaged in a research project for a book at the time was made by Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law, who wrote in 1991 in response to the call for a constitutional convention to write a balanced budget amendment: "After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call 'a convention for proposing amendments.' In my view the plurality of 'amendments' opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget."

In any event, the bottom line is, there are too many unanswered questions which need to be sorted out before jumping blindly onto the convention bandwagon.

JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

 

[johnwk]

2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

There is no involvement by either entity. The rules are already established, the states would be completely in charge, which is the whole purpose of the provision in Article V.

Congress does get to choose the mode of ratification by the wording of Article V. And I am surprised you would say that the Supreme Court would not have any involvement when you also wrote in reference to 7) that: ”The US Constitution cannot be ignored in an amendments convention. You are talking about a completely different time and place, and a completely different situation and set of circumstances. If such a thing were to be attempted, SCOTUS would simply nullify the results.” In 7) I wrote:

7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

Aside from that, let me bring up another interesting question. How many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Article V is silent on this. Will it be an equal representation or by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if representation is by the latter, could progressive states, because of their larger representation at the Convention steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire united States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification?


There are too many unanswered questions connected to an Article V convention, and it appears that our “progressive” dominated Supreme Court would likely be the final arbiter. Mark Levin needs to take off his rose colored glasses and rethink jumping on the Article V bandwagon to get his “Liberty Amendments” adopted, especially when not one of his amendments addresses the root cause of our miseries which is our federal government circumventing our existing Constitution, and imposing its will upon the people without their consent!

A defect cannot be pointed to in our existing Constitution which needs amending that causes our miseries. Our only problem is that our existing Constitution and its legislative intent is being ignored and circumvented by a despotic and tyrannical federal government.


It seems only to clear in my mind that committing valuable time and resources to adopt more amendments into our Constitution, when existing amendments are being ignored and circumvented by our federal government, especially our Constitution's Tenth Amendment, is not only avoiding the root cause of our miseries, but is actually submitting to tyranny by allowing it to continue!

We have been amply warned in THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787. H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS that:


”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.”


JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[The T]

Article V does not give states authority to call a constitutional convention. It authorizes states to call an "amendments convention" which is what Levin is proposing. This has been used in the past, and Madison, along with George Mason and Alex Hamilton, made great arguments for the provision in Article V.

Today, Levin had on his program, Constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, Dr. Randy Barnett. He not only supports Levin's proposal, he has been advocating for such a convention the past several years. He says it is not possible for there to be a "runaway convention" where the Constitution would be rewritten, anymore than a runaway Congressional amendment process, which has been used 27 times. It simply replaces Congress with state delegates to a convention, and operates the same exact way from there. The state delegates simply replace Congress in the process.

Article V is very clear that when a convention is called by Congress it is for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” [that’s plural]. For example, if an Article V convention was called, the delegates sent to the convention could propose an amendment declaring that:

There shall be no violation of rights except by a law befitting the values of the United States, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.

To understand why I use this example see the: Basic Law of Israel


After listing a number of rights we find section 8 which declares:

8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.


Now, imagine if such an innocuous sounding amendment were proposed by the Convention and then ratified, it would make our current Bill of Rights subject to our federal government’s whims and fancies and totally erase the very legislative intent for which our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment was adopted!


There are a number of unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention which need to be sorted out before the doors of a convention are opened. At this point in time it appears a convention is a dangerous idea because:


1) there is no way to control an Article V convention and it is uncharted waters;


2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;


3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN, George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, etc., would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) that the convention could write a provision for our federal government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and then use the provision to bribe a number of state Legislatures into submission;

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;


7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

JWK


"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

First of all, an Article V convention is for the purpose of proposing amendments. Yes, it is plural, it can include one or several amendments. Each Amendment stands alone in a ratification process, each has to garner 3/4 of the states approval at the ballot box, to be ratified. ANYTHING that is the least bit "radical" will never be ratified. The most radical amendment ever was the 18th, prohibiting alcohol, and it barely passed... this was after a 20 year public war waged by the prohibition movement. As we know, this Amendment was repealed several years later.

To answer your points:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention and it is uncharted waters;

Whoever told you this is lying to you. It has been attempted several times. The last time was with the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972(?) but it failed to get the needed 2/3rds of states to call the convention.

2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

There is no involvement by either entity. The rules are already established, the states would be completely in charge, which is the whole purpose of the provision in Article V.

3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN, George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, etc., would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

Wouldn't matter because the states would have to adopt any proposal, and then it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Also, the delegates are appointed by state legislatures.

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

Cannot happen under Article V. In fact, there is no provision in the Constitution for ANY such convention, by Congress or the States. The language is crystal clear, it is for the purpose of proposing amendments.

5) that the convention could write a provision for our federal government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and then use the provision to bribe a number of state Legislatures into submission;

Could happen, but again... has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states... not gonna happen.

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

Then our only alternative is a bloody armed revolt and overthrow of existing government. One thing to keep in mind, the proposals laid out by Levin, would greatly diminish federal authority and return that power to the states and people.

7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

The US Constitution cannot be ignored in an amendments convention. You are talking about a completely different time and place, and a completely different situation and set of circumstances. If such a thing were to be attempted, SCOTUS would simply nullify the results. The ratification has nothing to do with Senators. it will require passage by 3/4 of the several states, pursuant to the Constitution.

What you are doing, is listening to people who have a vested interest in the status quo, and these people are rather large in number. Nobody inside the beltway is going to be keen on this idea, because it removes their power. Special interests are not going to support this idea, because they will no longer be able to manipulate. So we have a whole lot of people on both the right and left, who are going to be completely opposed to this, and doing everything in their power to prevent it from happening.

The thing you need to remember is this, unless this works, unless we are able to do this, there will be bloodshed. This is inevitable, and is not a threat, it's just the natural order of things. If we cannot take back control of our country through a peaceable Constitutional process, we will take up arms and do so in revolution. This has been done before as well.

What you are doing, is listening to people who have a vested interest in the status quo, and these people are rather large in number. Nobody inside the beltway is going to be keen on this idea, because it removes their power. Special interests are not going to support this idea, because they will no longer be able to manipulate. So we have a whole lot of people on both the right and left, who are going to be completely opposed to this, and doing everything in their power to prevent it from happening.

What other recourse are we left with other than ARMED INSURRECTION to force it? (THAT, my friend would be the Second Amendment)...do YOU wish to go that route?

Personally? I do NOT.

~T

 

[johnwk]

What other recourse are we left with other than ARMED INSURRECTION to force it? (THAT, my friend would be the Second Amendment)...do YOU wish to go that route?

Personally? I do NOT.

~T

Are we in agreement that an Article V convention is a dangerous idea and proposing amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the tyranny and despotism which our federal government rains down upon the people and the States?


JWK

 

[The T]

What other recourse are we left with other than ARMED INSURRECTION to force it? (THAT, my friend would be the Second Amendment)...do YOU wish to go that route?

Personally? I do NOT.

~T

Are we in agreement that an Article V convention is a dangerous idea and proposing amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the tyranny and despotism which our federal government rains down upon the people and the States?


JWK

It ONLY involves the several States that decide to engage...and by the certain number described. The Congress is OUT of the picture and has ZERO to say of it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

its time

they say it over and over

that they are going to drain the rats out of the swamp

never happens

 

[johnwk]

What other recourse are we left with other than ARMED INSURRECTION to force it? (THAT, my friend would be the Second Amendment)...do YOU wish to go that route?

Personally? I do NOT.

~T

Are we in agreement that an Article V convention is a dangerous idea and proposing amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the tyranny and despotism which our federal government rains down upon the people and the States?


JWK

It ONLY involves the several States that decide to engage...and by the certain number described. The Congress is OUT of the picture and has ZERO to say of it.

I'm still wondering if we are in agreement.


JWK

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

What other recourse are we left with other than ARMED INSURRECTION to force it? (THAT, my friend would be the Second Amendment)...do YOU wish to go that route?

Personally? I do NOT.

~T

Are we in agreement that an Article V convention is a dangerous idea and proposing amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the tyranny and despotism which our federal government rains down upon the people and the States?


JWK

Not true and precisely why the Founders included that very provision. Every idea or suggestion like term limits is shot down without so much as a valid argument. Why would anyone be against putting term limits on Congress? Does anyone think the Founders intended for men to become elitists who gerrymander and rig constituents/districts in order to maintain power ? How do any of you propose to stop that? What of the kickbacks, the pay to play which is rampant on both sides of the aisle? Don't tell me campaign finance reform.. bills created by criminals policing themselves.. makes no sense what so ever.

 

[francoHFW]

Jeebus what a bunch of deluded idiots LOL! Mark Levin is a bought off tool...

 

[johnwk]

What other recourse are we left with other than ARMED INSURRECTION to force it? (THAT, my friend would be the Second Amendment)...do YOU wish to go that route?

Personally? I do NOT.

~T

Are we in agreement that an Article V convention is a dangerous idea and proposing amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the tyranny and despotism which our federal government rains down upon the people and the States?


JWK

Not true and precisely why the Founders included that very provision. .

What is not true?


JWK

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Are we in agreement that an Article V convention is a dangerous idea and proposing amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the tyranny and despotism which our federal government rains down upon the people and the States?


JWK

Not true and precisely why the Founders included that very provision. .

What is not true?


JWK

Your entire statement. How is convening a Constitutional Convention dangerous?? That's just ridiculous.. Proposing amendments reigning in this runaway government will do nothing? How do you know? Do you propose we all just sit on a political forum and talk it to death?? Where are your proposals?

 

[The T]

its time

they say it over and over

that they are going to drain the rats out of the swamp

never happens

That's because the RATS pose as friends to the Citizen...Levin is correct. TIME for the States to Invoke the Amendment.

Lord knows the Ninth and Tenth have been ignored by the FED...

 

[The T]

What other recourse are we left with other than ARMED INSURRECTION to force it? (THAT, my friend would be the Second Amendment)...do YOU wish to go that route?

Personally? I do NOT.

~T

Are we in agreement that an Article V convention is a dangerous idea and proposing amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the tyranny and despotism which our federal government rains down upon the people and the States?


JWK

What's DANGEROUS is the FED (Since the 17th has been in place), is Dangerous and has usurped STATES authority.

Clear?

 

[francoHFW]

States suq- lol a waste of money... HUGE!

 

[The T]

States suq- lol a waste of money... HUGE!

And the FED spends better/ Really? Franco? Go back to sleep...your natural state.

*MORON DUPE*