The Liberty Amendments

[Boss]

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

A resounding NO! Not in agreement, not going to be in agreement. There is no danger in an Article V convention, the danger lies in sitting on our thumbs waiting for Congress to fix itself. You keep making invalid arguments against the convention, because you are a partisan hack. Your kool aid dispensers have told you what you need to think on this, and you have your orders. Do you really believe that no one expected this? You want to be flippant, fine.. but we're pushing for this convention with you or without you. You want to demagogue and obfuscate, fine.. but we're advancing the idea.

To put it in the words of Nancy Pelosi... We will go through the gate, if the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in.

When you start talking about "tyranny and despotism of the federal government" it sounds like you fully understand that desperate measures are needed here, but it's bizarre that you lack the courage to stand up and fight for those desperate measures, and instead, want to sit on the sidelines talking it all down. What's YOUR idea? Where is YOUR plan? How do YOU propose we fix this? Elect some goofball Libertarian or kook Anarchist? And what the hell will THEY do about it?

 

[The 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

*NO* It is a mechanism in which the Founders put in place when the Federal Gubmint got out of line and began to IGNORE THE PEOPLE...much less the States.

Sorry I DO NOT agree.

The States, the PEOPLE...are sovereign, and deserve a voice...especially when they are ignored by the political class in power especially NOW.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

A resounding NO! Not in agreement, not going to be in agreement. There is no danger in an Article V convention, the danger lies in sitting on our thumbs waiting for Congress to fix itself. You keep making invalid arguments against the convention, because you are a partisan hack. Your kool aid dispensers have told you what you need to think on this, and you have your orders. Do you really believe that no one expected this? You want to be flippant, fine.. but we're pushing for this convention with you or without you. You want to demagogue and obfuscate, fine.. but we're advancing the idea.

To put it in the words of Nancy Pelosi... We will go through the gate, if the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in.

When you start talking about "tyranny and despotism of the federal government" it sounds like you fully understand that desperate measures are needed here, but it's bizarre that you lack the courage to stand up and fight for those desperate measures, and instead, want to sit on the sidelines talking it all down. What's YOUR idea? Where is YOUR plan? How do YOU propose we fix this? Elect some goofball Libertarian or kook Anarchist? And what the hell will THEY do about it?

the danger lies in sitting on our thumbs waiting for Congress to fix itself.

never going to happen

it is time to act

 

[The 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

A resounding NO! Not in agreement, not going to be in agreement. There is no danger in an Article V convention, the danger lies in sitting on our thumbs waiting for Congress to fix itself. You keep making invalid arguments against the convention, because you are a partisan hack. Your kool aid dispensers have told you what you need to think on this, and you have your orders. Do you really believe that no one expected this? You want to be flippant, fine.. but we're pushing for this convention with you or without you. You want to demagogue and obfuscate, fine.. but we're advancing the idea.

To put it in the words of Nancy Pelosi... We will go through the gate, if the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in.

When you start talking about "tyranny and despotism of the federal government" it sounds like you fully understand that desperate measures are needed here, but it's bizarre that you lack the courage to stand up and fight for those desperate measures, and instead, want to sit on the sidelines talking it all down. What's YOUR idea? Where is YOUR plan? How do YOU propose we fix this? Elect some goofball Libertarian or kook Anarchist? And what the hell will THEY do about it?

the danger lies in sitting on our thumbs waiting for Congress to fix itself.

never going to happen

it is time to act

Agreed!

 

[The T]

It is time for the People, The States...to assert their ultimate authority over the FED as outlined in the Constitution.

Mark Levin is quite correct. This movement as well as Levin's idea, his book are gaining momentum. And all the better for next year when the people will have their say as they see their country crumbling unto the feet of the political class that care zero of those they are supposed to represent.

ONLY in their quest for power...to get re-elected...to dole out the treasury...to squander our children's futures...and their children's...and on...ad mass naseum.

This shall not stand. Not now...or ever. God Bless This Republic.

 

[The T]

Our children deserve much better than debt they are being handed with no voice over the stupid that place them in this situation.

Yeah that means YOU people that vote for letters and not principle.

Those of you that quest for power over others...and speak of 'the children'.

Shame on you...and don't let me hear you utter 'for the children' ever again.

You know whom you are...and oddly? SO DO I. I will be watching for the children.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Our children deserve much better than debt they are being handed with no voice over the stupid that place them in this situation.

Yeah that means YOU people that vote for letters and not principle.

Those of you that quest for power over others...and speak of 'the children'.

Shame on you...and don't let me hear you utter 'for the children' ever again.

You know whom you are...and oddly? SO DO I. I will be watching for the children.

"Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."Adolf Hitler

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Bump for liberty~

 

[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

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

Clear?

The 17th did not repeal the Tenth Amendment.

What written amendment can a convention write which will force our federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution? We have to deal with the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government, and state governments as well, to be obedient to our existing Constitutions.

We are at a point in time where we the people, those who value liberty, must stand up and defend our constitution and confront our tyrannical federal government. When the Supreme Court found Obamacare constitutional, did a few million Americans find their way to Washington and demand the removable of those on our supreme court who spat upon it? Spending years and valuable resources to add more amendments to our Constitution is a fools mission, it perpetuates existing despotism and does nothing to address a tyrannical government which is the root cause of our sufferings.

JWK

The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE‘S nightmare and not the American Dream

 

[johnwk]

It is time for the People, The States...to assert their ultimate authority over the FED as outlined in the Constitution.

Mark Levin is quite correct.

What I suggest is exactly what Mark Levin suggests when he says the people must take back their government. But the people will never get to take back their government if the people depend upon our federal government and State government politicians for change!

Are we to believe that the existing entrenched corruption and tyranny at the state government level, in almost every state in the union, is different then what is practiced at the federal level? Do those who hold political power at the state level not work in harmony to plunder the wealth which the productive members of society have created? Is wealth and the assumption of power not the very object and prize of those who hold political power at both the federal and state level, and that neither will relinquish that power if they are at the helm of change? As a matter of fact, I suspect this evil lot would see an Article V convention as a means to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional and would use the convention to “legally” tighten the iron fist of government around the necks of Americas’ businesses, industries and productive laboring class citizens.


Is it not true that the leadership of our State and Federal governments have each created a massive unconstitutional and dependent voting block which lives on the public dole and is used during election time to keep our corrupted politicians in power? Do you really believe a convention which would be controlled by corrupted state officials will work to remove and surrender the iron fist of government from the necks of the people who create wealth, and they will work to restore the foundations of liberty and our “constitutionally limited system of government”?


We were warned of the inherent danger of making a group dependent upon government for their subsistence when Hamilton stated the following maxim:

“A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL” ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers


Mark Levin’s object to restore our constitutionally limited system of government, as our founders intended it to operate, is a cause I not only admire and support, but is a cause I have been working to achieve since the 1970s! Our only point of contention at this point in time seems to be his approval to call an Article V convention which I see as a very dangerous idea for reasons I have just mentioned, and also for some of the same reasons which Madison summarized as follows:


“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


What do I suggest? I believe that the leadership of Tea Party groups around the country need to meet and draw up an official list of grievances and demands which must be meet so no further action is necessary in taking back our country. Mark Levin would be an excellent choice to list our grievances such as: our federal government circumventing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and thereby violating the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is to enforce the legislative intent of our Constitution. Another grievance which I’m sure Mark would articulate in his eloquent manner would be our federal government imposing Obamacare upon the people of the various United States without their consent being obtained as required under Article V, and he could also denounce our Supreme Court changing the constitutional meaning of “public use” as found in the Fifth Amendment to also mean “public purpose” [the Kelo decision] and then allowing private property to be taken in violation of the legislative intent our Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.


Make no mistake, I do not believe our tyrannical federal government would roll over and meet the demands of a petition for a redress of grievances, but, having an official list of grievances and demands to be meet which is approved by Tea Party groups and activists from each and every state in the Union would be a powerful start and rallying point for patriotic Americans across America to unite and begin the process of taking back their government, and joining in the cause of restoring liberty, just as our founders did when they expressed their grievances in” The Articles of Association”, October 20, 1774, which were predictably ignored by King George but led to his ultimate defeat, and our Founder’s victory. See” Journals of the Continental Congress


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.

 

[johnwk]

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

A resounding NO! Not in agreement, not going to be in agreement. There is no danger in an Article V convention, the danger lies in sitting on our thumbs waiting for Congress to fix itself. You keep making invalid arguments against the convention, because you are a partisan hack. Your kool aid dispensers have told you what you need to think on this, and you have your orders……
it?

I do not appreciate your insulting remarks or your groundless accusations. Instead of personal attacks, would it not be more productive to address the various points I have raised as to why a convention is not only a dangerous idea, but adding more amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to deal with a federal government which is acting in rebellion to our Constitution?

BTW, I noticed you did not respond to the two posts I addressed to you, POST 346 AND POST 347.


JWK


Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs [pinko progressives on our Supreme Court]; know likewise the remedy…..___ Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

 

[Boss]

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

A resounding NO! Not in agreement, not going to be in agreement. There is no danger in an Article V convention, the danger lies in sitting on our thumbs waiting for Congress to fix itself. You keep making invalid arguments against the convention, because you are a partisan hack. Your kool aid dispensers have told you what you need to think on this, and you have your orders……
it?

I do not appreciate your insulting remarks or your groundless accusations. Instead of personal attacks, would it not be more productive to address the various points I have raised as to why a convention is not only a dangerous idea, but adding more amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to deal with a federal government which is acting in rebellion to our Constitution?

BTW, I noticed you did not respond to the two posts I addressed to you, POST 346 AND POST 347.


JWK


Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs [pinko progressives on our Supreme Court]; know likewise the remedy…..___ Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

The quote you are repeating from Madison, as well as the comments from Hamilton, are their arguments for not including a provision for "constitutional conventions" to be called, either by Congress or the States. Article V does not authorize a constitutional convention.

In Federalist 43, Madison considered both Article V amendment processes equally prudent and judicious. He wrote, in part, “That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.*.*.*.*”

Here is what George Mason had to say:
"The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in any easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account."

In Federalist 85, Alexander Hamilton—a leading advocate of a robust federal government—explained that “the national rulers, whenever nine [two-thirds] States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged ‘on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.’ The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress ‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air.”

We see in the comments of all three men, there was indeed a valid reason and purpose for including the state amendment process in Article V, it was not "dangerous" or they wouldn't have included it.

If you fear is, they will not abide by these amendments because they aren't abiding by the Constitution as it now stands, then why not completely abandon the Constitution and organize a military overthrow of government? It sounds like what you are suggesting, that we've gone too far to fix this with the Constitution. I do not believe we are at that point, I believe we can use Article V, and avoid a bloody conflict. If this fails, I will be inclined to support the idea of armed revolution.

I have now read Levin's book, cover to cover, and I am currently on my second read. I've actually read the 1st chapter several times, and made notes. This chapter lays out the case as presented by the founders, for an Article V convention, and the best part is, it's absolutely free.

Chapter One -- The Liberty Amendments

 

[Wry Catcher]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

It was to address just such a situation as we find ourselves in today. We have an out of control Federal Leviathan, a Congress that is comprised of two parties serving their own interests and power, a President who brazenly defies the Constitution as he pleases, a SCOTUS who literally rewrites the Constitution as it pleases, and We The People have seemingly lost ALL control over our country. The Progressives have waged a 100 year war on our Constitutional constructs, and we find ourselves in a post-Constitutional era, where there is literally no more Constitutionality and no power of the States or people.

From interviews Levin has done, I have pieced together the basics of his 10 proposed Amendments:

1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.
3. Term Limits for SCOTUS
Capped at 12 years.
4. 3/5ths of States or Congress can override SCOTUS decisions
Limiting the scope and power of SCOTUS rulings.
5. Limit Federal Spending
A balanced budget amendment.
6. Limit Federal Taxation
Congress is never going to do this on their own.
7. Limit Federal Bureaucracy
Eliminating the "4th branch" of government for good.
8. Promote Free Enterprise
Self explanatory.
9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.

Levin says none of this is 'written in stone' and the states would have to ratify with 3/4, just as with the Congressional process. Because of that rigid criteria, he doesn't feel there is an undesirable downside, like special interests becoming involved to add all kinds of unwanted crap. There is also no danger in the entire Constitution being rewritten, because even though the process is called a "constitutional convention" it is limited to amendments only.

This process bypasses Congress completely. They would serve as administers of what the states ratify, and have no say in the makeup of delegates which are appointed by the states. Critics say it would be an "uphill battle" to accomplish this... Levin answers with the question: "What battle isn't uphill?"

I have read the first chapter of the book, I am waiting for my Amazon order to arrive, so I can read more details, but this sounds very promising. The chapter I have read, lays out the case the Founding Fathers made for establishing Article V, and the reasoning behind it. Madison, Mason, and Hamilton, all agreed, the Constitution needed some mechanism for the people to use to re-establish the social contract, short of violent revolt, should Federal government go rogue. We are at that precipice, the time is now.

Levin is a kook, but a smart cookie. His 'ideas' are the red meat which put money in his bank account.

Don't any of you (those who thanked the OP author) think critically? That means look at the pros and cons of such radical ideas and really think about the long term consequences.

 

[Boss]

There is nothing "radical" about this, really. It's laid out for us in Article V, and is a part of Constitutional process. The consequence is restoring our constitutional republic. Levin is not a "kook" but you are right, he is a smart cookie and does sell a lot of books.

 

[thanatos144]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

It was to address just such a situation as we find ourselves in today. We have an out of control Federal Leviathan, a Congress that is comprised of two parties serving their own interests and power, a President who brazenly defies the Constitution as he pleases, a SCOTUS who literally rewrites the Constitution as it pleases, and We The People have seemingly lost ALL control over our country. The Progressives have waged a 100 year war on our Constitutional constructs, and we find ourselves in a post-Constitutional era, where there is literally no more Constitutionality and no power of the States or people.

From interviews Levin has done, I have pieced together the basics of his 10 proposed Amendments:

1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.
3. Term Limits for SCOTUS
Capped at 12 years.
4. 3/5ths of States or Congress can override SCOTUS decisions
Limiting the scope and power of SCOTUS rulings.
5. Limit Federal Spending
A balanced budget amendment.
6. Limit Federal Taxation
Congress is never going to do this on their own.
7. Limit Federal Bureaucracy
Eliminating the "4th branch" of government for good.
8. Promote Free Enterprise
Self explanatory.
9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.

Levin says none of this is 'written in stone' and the states would have to ratify with 3/4, just as with the Congressional process. Because of that rigid criteria, he doesn't feel there is an undesirable downside, like special interests becoming involved to add all kinds of unwanted crap. There is also no danger in the entire Constitution being rewritten, because even though the process is called a "constitutional convention" it is limited to amendments only.

This process bypasses Congress completely. They would serve as administers of what the states ratify, and have no say in the makeup of delegates which are appointed by the states. Critics say it would be an "uphill battle" to accomplish this... Levin answers with the question: "What battle isn't uphill?"

I have read the first chapter of the book, I am waiting for my Amazon order to arrive, so I can read more details, but this sounds very promising. The chapter I have read, lays out the case the Founding Fathers made for establishing Article V, and the reasoning behind it. Madison, Mason, and Hamilton, all agreed, the Constitution needed some mechanism for the people to use to re-establish the social contract, short of violent revolt, should Federal government go rogue. We are at that precipice, the time is now.

Levin is a kook, but a smart cookie. His 'ideas' are the red meat which put money in his bank account.

Don't any of you (those who thanked the OP author) think critically? That means look at the pros and cons of such radical ideas and really think about the long term consequences.

Only a progressive would call rdstorin the constitution radical

 

[regent]

I think it's great that Levin has put forth a book regarding Constitutional change. Not for the changes which aren't going to happen but for creating interest in the Constitution. Any means we can use to get Americans to explore that document I think is great. It also puts a few bucks in Levin's pockets and scholars can usually use the money. In fact, it is now up to other Constitutional scholars and social scientists to explore and respond, but will they?

 

[Boss]

No, it's actually up to the people to lobby their state legislatures to call for a convention. Then it will be up to the convention to propose amendments to restore a constitutional republic. After that, it will be up to the states to ratify the amendments. This process takes time, and will not happen overnight. It may not even happen in my lifetime, but it can indeed happen, and I believe it will happen. If it fails to happen, I predict a bloody insurrection and overthrow of government.

As for Levin, he provides online links to his show for the past 6 months, he gives you the first chapter of his book for free, and his website is full of totally free information. While I am sure he does make a profit from book sales, it is modest compared to other authors, his books are among the lowest priced on Amazon.

 

[thanatos144]

No, it's actually up to the people to lobby their state legislatures to call for a convention. Then it will be up to the convention to propose amendments to restore a constitutional republic. After that, it will be up to the states to ratify the amendments. This process takes time, and will not happen overnight. It may not even happen in my lifetime, but it can indeed happen, and I believe it will happen. If it fails to happen, I predict a bloody insurrection and overthrow of government.

As for Levin, he provides online links to his show for the past 6 months, he gives you the first chapter of his book for free, and his website is full of totally free information. While I am sure he does make a profit from book sales, it is modest compared to other authors, his books are among the lowest priced on Amazon.

Gee makes you wonder did Obama give up its profits for his two books? I am sure Obama gave up all his proceeds frin his books

 

[The 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?

The 17th did not repeal the Tenth Amendment.

What written amendment can a convention write which will force our federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution? We have to deal with the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government, and state governments as well, to be obedient to our existing Constitutions.

We are at a point in time where we the people, those who value liberty, must stand up and defend our constitution and confront our tyrannical federal government. When the Supreme Court found Obamacare constitutional, did a few million Americans find their way to Washington and demand the removable of those on our supreme court who spat upon it? Spending years and valuable resources to add more amendments to our Constitution is a fools mission, it perpetuates existing despotism and does nothing to address a tyrannical government which is the root cause of our sufferings.

JWK

The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE‘S nightmare and not the American Dream

Tell us why the Imperial FED runs roughshod over the States? WHY did the progressives of the time alter the structure of Congress? What was the purpose? Look around you. We are living it.

The 9th and the 10th were neutered precisely because of the 17th.

Wake up.

 

[johnwk]

A resounding NO! Not in agreement, not going to be in agreement. There is no danger in an Article V convention, the danger lies in sitting on our thumbs waiting for Congress to fix itself. You keep making invalid arguments against the convention, because you are a partisan hack. Your kool aid dispensers have told you what you need to think on this, and you have your orders……
it?

I do not appreciate your insulting remarks or your groundless accusations. Instead of personal attacks, would it not be more productive to address the various points I have raised as to why a convention is not only a dangerous idea, but adding more amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to deal with a federal government which is acting in rebellion to our Constitution?

BTW, I noticed you did not respond to the two posts I addressed to you, POST 346 AND POST 347.


JWK


Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs [pinko progressives on our Supreme Court]; know likewise the remedy…..___ Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

The quote you are repeating from Madison, as well as the comments from Hamilton, are their arguments for not including a provision for "constitutional conventions" to be called, either by Congress or the States. Article V does not authorize a constitutional convention.

I provided no quote from Hamilton regarding the calling of a convention. In regard to Madison’s letter to George Turberville which I have quoted from, Madison wrote that with regard to an Article V convention being called to add amendments to our Constitution, which is exactly what Mark Levin is now calling for.

What I quoted from Madison was written just after our Constitution had been ratified and there was a persistence among a number of states for an Article V convention. Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph were prominent leaders advocating this Article V convention to add a bill of rights to our existing Constitution which had just come into effect. During this time period George Washington recommended that Congress draw up a bill of rights and send it to the States for ratification to avoid another convention which he too believed was not a good idea. In response, James Madison took up the cause in the House and on March 4th 1789 Madison and Washington’s efforts to avoid an Article V convention paid off when 12 amendments were sent to the states for ratification. SEE: Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

Getting back to Madison’s quote in which he warned against calling an Article V convention [the Madison quote you are referring to], it is important to take note of his warning because it was made just after experiencing what took place during the Convention of 1787 and Madison was expressing the dangers of convening an Article V convention, which is exactly what Mark Levin is now calling for. Madison wrote:

“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 foundationsof 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

Mark Levin has not presented the various dangers of calling an Article V convention which strikes me as being unusual because he is always quick to educate his listening audience to the hidden dangers of what our folks in Washington have up their sleeve. In this case I am alarmed why Mark has been delinquent is discussing some of the dangers and consequences should an Article V convention be called, and he prefers to dwell on a number of proposed amendments to our Constitution, not one of which addresses the root cause of our miseries which is a federal government acting in rebellion to our Constitution and its legislative intent.

I entered this thread to point out some of the dangers in calling an Article V convention because Mark Levin may have simply overlooked them in his haste and frustration to do something to restore our constitutionally limited system of government. But it seems that discussing these dangers is not a welcome discussion among a number of posters who suggest by their actions that we ought to call a convention so we may then find out what is in store for us, much like Pelosi telling us to pass the health care bill so we could find out what’s in it.

JWK


Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.