Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: Mark Levin still promotes calling a Convention under Article V

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,025
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12
    Post Like Stats

    Thumbs down Mark Levin still promotes calling a Convention under Article V

    Mark Levin was on the air this evening and once again calling for a convention of the States under Article V to propose amendments which would alter our Constitution. Indeed, as Mr. Levin points out, our Founding Fathers did in fact put this provision in our Constitution and expected it to be used when and if Congress should not send proposed amendments to the States for ratification thought necessary in promoting good government and our nation’s general welfare

    Unfortunately, Mark Levin has still not addressed the fact than our Founding Fathers never anticipated when providing the convention method to alter our Constitution that the various States would be acting in concert with the federal government in the overthrow of our constitutionally limited system of government!

    Tell us Mark Levin, which of our state governments are not receiving revenue from our federal government for functions not authorized under our Constitution? Do you consider appropriations from our federal government for such things as highways, state created public school systems, Medicaid, public housing, etc., as constitutional appropriations? Did you know that an overwhelming portion of every State Government’s spending is from misappropriate federal revenue? And you think the State Legislatures would not love the opportunity to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional?

    Which State Government does not now trample upon its own state Constitution and in the process works to tighten the iron fist of government around the necks of its own citizens? Your panacea, Mark Levin, is a very, very dangerous idea and would only play into the hands of the very people who now exercise power at both the federal and state level.

    I believe your motives may be well intentioned Mr. Levin, but one must consider the probable consequences should a second convention be called and were eloquently stated by James Madison:

    “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 partisans 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 presumable 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

    In addition Mr. Levin, should you not consider who would be chosen to attend the convention? Surely it would not be a preponderance of freedom loving Americans such as you!

    During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery! Do you have confidence in these sorts of people who would most certainly find their way into the convention?


    The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”

    The bottom line is, calling a second convention is a gamble which I believe is a very bad idea, and particularly so when every State Government is financially dependent upon our federal government for its existence! Think wise my friend!

    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?
    Last edited by johnwk; August 7th, 2014 at 12:34 am.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Happy
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Age
    53
    Posts
    3,618
    Rep Power
    3
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    You bring up a number of points and fears about a general convention. However I fear that your fears are somewhat unfounded or if they are actually well founded, essentially meaningless. (Were the majority of states to collude with the Federal Government there would be no need to “amend” the constitution in any manner as both parties would simply agree to continue the trend of the modern post-constitutional federal government we have today.) While the population may be split roughly down the middle, a significant number of states are still solidly conservative. Moreover populations are so concentrated that even if some of the large liberal states were to break up, the result would be more conservative state votes than liberal.

    While I do not have the elegance of Mark’s rhetorical ability, the primary reason for a general convention actually concerns the reason few people discuss publically for why the federal government is in the mess that it is in. Both Congress and the Senate (the later used to be elected by the states) have fallen into a state of bureaucracy where their members are more concerned with their employment for life than for actually doing their work according to the constitution. Under the constitution neither the executive nor the judiciary can punish the legislative for not following the constitution (the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by the legislative and approved by the executive but that is their overall limit). Since the states have no direct influence in the Federal government, and since it is not in the interest of the Federal legislature to reform itself, only a general convention can propose amendments for the reformation of Congress and the Senate with any hopes of getting these resolutions passed.

    Bear in mind the many years since Madison expressed his argument against a general convention and also bear in mind how the Constitution has been altered since that time, especially in the direct election of Senators. Consider also the fundamental issues that people who wanted to amend the constitution had in the early years of the Constitution and today.

    Clearly a general convention will not solve all of the problems of the government. A general convention has the potential to propose both good and bad amendments. On the other hand, so has congress and this has been true throughout the nation’s history. It isn’t even assured that any of the amendments proposed by such a convention would actually pass.

    But what do you propose? Those who would trample their constitutions have no need to amend it; they are already trampling their constitutions. Do we just admit that we live in post-constitutional despotism? Or do we use the tools of the constitution to show the people that the constitution is actually a good method of solving the problems we face today, in spite of it being before the age of the internet.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Happy
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Age
    53
    Posts
    3,618
    Rep Power
    3
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Just wanted to add a quick note: Apparently Rush Limbaugh endorsed this on his radio show yesterday.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,025
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tzor View Post
    You bring up a number of points and fears about a general convention. However I fear that your fears are somewhat unfounded or if they are actually well founded, essentially meaningless.
    My concerns are “unfounded” or “meaningless”? Actually, the concerns I mentioned above are grounded in factually correct statements. And with regard to your comment that ”Were the majority of states to collude with the Federal Government there would be no need to “amend” the constitution in any manner as both parties would simply agree to continue the trend of the modern post-constitutional federal government we have today…”, the irrefutable fact is, the leadership of both parties are allowing the current trend of the modern post-constitutional governing you mention to continue!

    But to you point as to why would the Washington Establishment desire a convention to alter our Constitution, it seems to me you fail to take into account that there is a growing trend across America in which people are beginning to study what our Constitution really means as stated by those who framed and ratified it, and they are actually realizing our Washington Establishment [the Executive, Congress and our Supreme Court] and our various State Governments, are knowingly and willingly subverting the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. Is there any better way for those who now hold political power at the federal and state level, who now knowingly violate our Constitution’s legislative intent, to override our Constitution’s original legislative intent by amending our Constitution to allow the very acts which are now unconstitutional?

    Finally, with regard to the “reasons” you put forth as to why “the federal government is in the mess that it is in”, you overlook the primary cause which is nothing more than a knowingly and willful refusal to enforce our existing Constitution and it’s legislative intent as established from the debates during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified, and this also applies to the legislative intent of any amendments attached thereto. For example, pointing to the 17th Amendment as a cause of today’s willful violations of the defined and limited powers granted to Congress is an absurd and reckless misrepresentation of the truth. There is nothing in the wording of the 17 Amendment allowing Senators to agree to misappropriate federal revenue for functions not authorized by our Constitution. Is this not one of your major concerns today? Additionally, there is no wording in the 17th Amendment allowing the Senate to vote to lay a “direct tax” that is not apportioned among the several states! And yet, the rule of apportioning both Representatives and direct taxes, is perhaps one of the most important provisions in our Constitution designed for good government as it commands in spite of subsequent amendments, one man, one vote, and, one vote one dollar, an idea which the Washington Establishment and progressives fear with a passion and would love to repeal with a clever amendment.

    The bottom line is, we need to work to enforce our existing constitution and not add foolish amendments, although they may be offered with the sincerest of good intentions, which would actually do additional damage to the miracle our Founding Fathers left us.

    As to the tools of our Constitution, I think Mark Levin would do well to explore the provision in our Constitution which mentions the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be prohibited! The history behind this provision is very revealing and was among the first steps taken by our founders prior to an armed rebellion against King George. Our founders did not ask King George to hold a convention to legalize his acts of tyranny! Indeed, our Founders petitioned King George for a redress of grievances in a number of documents, prior to taking a more direct and forceful approach e.g., see: Journals of the Continental Congress - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774

    Is it not time for true patriots to ban together and put our federal government on notice? If not now, when?

    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?


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,025
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tzor View Post
    Just wanted to add a quick note: Apparently Rush Limbaugh endorsed this on his radio show yesterday.
    Let me assure you, neither Rush, Mark Levin nor I am the fountain of all knowledge. Let us all work together to restore our constitutionally limited system of government and not be reckless in the decisions we make.

    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sad
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,212
    Rep Power
    1
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    I never understand why other refuse to heed what it means to use article V. This is a way the founders gave us.
    Jesus loves you.

  7. Likes Roxiebell liked this post
  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,025
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos144 View Post
    I never understand why other refuse to heed what it means to use article V. This is a way the founders gave us.
    Perhaps you don't "understand" because you don't read the explanations given, and prefer to post provocative one liners.


    JWK




    Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sad
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,212
    Rep Power
    1
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Perhaps you don't "understand" because you don't read the explanations given, and prefer to post provocative one liners.


    JWK




    Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.
    I dont need a hundred words to call something wrong. Article V is a way to help fix this country. All the hyperbole many are spreading about it just shows thier ignorance about the issue.
    Jesus loves you.

  10. Likes Roxiebell liked this post
  11. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,459
    Rep Power
    5
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Unfortunately, Mark Levin has still not addressed the fact than our Founding Fathers never anticipated when providing the convention method to alter our Constitution that the various States would be acting in concert with the federal government in the overthrow of our constitutionally limited system of government!
    Since you need 3/4's of the States (38) any various other States in concert/cahoots with the Feds would be the minority and they wouldn't matter in the process and if at least 38 States are not on board to limit the Feds then the Convention won't happen.

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,025
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos144 View Post

    Originally Posted by johnwk

    Perhaps you don't "understand" because you don't read the explanations given, and prefer to post provocative one liners.


    JWK




    Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population
    I dont need a hundred words to call something wrong. Article V is a way to help fix this country. All the hyperbole many are spreading about it just shows thier ignorance about the issue.

    Of course you don't need a hundred words to ignore a fact like apples fall to earth. You can simple ignore a self-evident truth and declare apples fall up.


    I have spread no hyperbole apprehensions. However, all you have done is neglect to address self-evident concerns if a convention were called to alter our Constitution. Once again you post a provocative response rather than discuss legitimate concerns connected to calling a convention to alter our Constitution.

    I have noticed something which troubles me about the advocates of calling a convention. They cite countless sufferings we now experience as their motive for calling a convention. But the sufferings pointed to spring from a disobedience to our existing Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted. What makes little to no sense is, instead of working to enforce existing provisions of our Constitution which forbid government actions that inflict our miseries, the advocates of a convention want to alter our constitution as if it were defective, rather than working to demand enforcing existing prohibitions which would end our current sufferings.


    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?

    Last edited by johnwk; August 7th, 2014 at 9:02 pm.

  13. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,025
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roxiebell View Post


    Unfortunately, Mark Levin has still not addressed the fact than our Founding Fathers never anticipated when providing the convention method to alter our Constitution that the various States would be acting in concert with the federal government in the overthrow of our constitutionally limited system of government!
    Since you need 3/4's of the States (38) any various other States in concert/cahoots with the Feds would be the minority and they wouldn't matter in the process and if at least 38 States are not on board to limit the Feds then the Convention won't happen.
    Your assumption that the Governors and Legislatures of 3/4 of the States would not work to increase and tighten the iron fist of government around the necks of the America people is most remarkable in view of the fact that every State Government has assisted the federal government in the circumvention of our federal Constitution and its never ending assumption of powers not granted. Why on earth do you believe what you do when almost every state government has an underfunded State Pension fund which is a ticking time bomb? Do you really believe our state governors and legislatures would not be agreeable to expanding the iron fist of our federal government in return for the federal government assuming the various State unfunded debt liabilities? The facts are what they are. Be careful of what you ask for and think wise my friend.

    JWK


    “ 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, 1988,

  14. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sad
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,212
    Rep Power
    1
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Your assumption that the Governors and Legislatures of 3/4 of the States would not work to increase and tighten the iron fist of government around the necks of the America people is most remarkable in view of the fact that every State Government has assisted the federal government in the circumvention of our federal Constitution and its never ending assumption of powers not granted. Why on earth do you believe what you do when almost every state government has an underfunded State Pension fund which is a ticking time bomb? Do you really believe our state governors and legislatures would not be agreeable to expanding the iron fist of our federal government in return for the federal government assuming the various State unfunded debt liabilities? The facts are what they are. Be careful of what you ask for and think wise my friend.

    JWK


    “ 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, 1988,
    what crap.

  15. Likes Roxiebell liked this post
  16. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,025
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos144 View Post
    what crap.
    How about being a little more specific so I will have the opportunity to educate you?

    JWK

  17. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sad
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,212
    Rep Power
    1
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    How about being a little more specific so I will have the opportunity to educate you?

    JWK
    Your paranoia that there will be a big conspiracy to take power from us in a convention called to TAKE POWER BACK! Seeing as you need a massive amount of states to make any agreement your paranoid fantasy is very unlikely.
    Last edited by Thanatos144; October 2nd, 2014 at 3:13 pm.
    Jesus loves you.

  18. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,025
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos144 View Post
    Yuor parnoia that there will be a big conspiracy to take power for us in a convention called to TAKE POWER BACK! Seeing as you need a massive amount of states to make any agreement your paranoid fantasy is very unlikely.
    No one mentioned a conspiracy on this end.

    JWK


    The Obama Administration is employing the same cowardly tactics used by the Hamas. It hides behind woman and children while flooding our country with the poverty stricken, disease carrying populations of other countries!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •