Posted on 08/17/2013 9:25:57 AM PDT by JOHN W K
.
I was somewhat disappointed after listening to Hannity`s Friday night special dealing with calling an Article V convention as proposed by Mark Levin. There was no informative discussion concerning the vagueness of what the rules are after two thirds of the State legislatures apply for an Article V convention, and Congress calls for it to convene. Should these rules not be fully understood before a discussion occurs on what particular amendments ought to be proposed which are believed will restore our constitutionally limited system of government?
For example, how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will each state be entitled to an equal number of delegates, or will each State’s number of delegates be determined 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 each state is represented by the rule of apportionment at Mark’s convention, could our progressive crowd not steamroll their 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 to effectuate their alterations to our Constitution?
Another question not addressed Friday night is, could the delegates sent to the convention change the rules for ratification that are now stated in our Constitution? This questions is important because under the Articles of Confederation, the only precedent we have, a unanimous consent by the States was necessary to alter the Articles of Confederation, but the Delegates to the 1787 Convention ignored that rule and required a mere nine states to ratify the new government they created for it to become effective.
And, what happens if several states refused to send delegates to Mark Levin’s convention? Could the convention proceed to do business without these States and then force their doings upon them? And why couldn’t the convention decide that a mere majority vote of our existing Senate members is sufficient to ratify the convention’s doings?
What I’m driving at is, an Article V convention is unchartered waters, and it would appear that our existing federal government, meaning its three branches, would be in charge of deciding any questions which may arise, i.e, the fox would be in charge of protecting the hen house, figuratively speaking. Do we really want to give our federal government the “legal” opportunity to fundamentally transform our system of government and make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional?
If Mark Levin’s convention sounds too good to be true in restoring our constitutionally limited system of government, it probably is!
JWK
"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
The interview was an opportunity to present the idea of using article V. I don’t think there was enough time to get into specifics.
Mark Levin talks about his new book with conservative panel on Hannity
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3055708/posts
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-talks-about-his-new-book-with-conservative-panel-on-hannity/
With feeble Repubics littering the landscape, be prepared for a barrage of UN style "resolutions" designed to destroy American
The Federal Government is already transforming our way of life and this is the only way to change that. Remember it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendments to the Constitution.
The details can/will get worked out. Step one— build consensus that an Article 5 Convention is more than a pipe dream....
My thoughts on the matter:
1. At this point, only some type of radical reform is ever going to steer us back towards the nation our founders intended.
2. While Levin's proposal is perfectly within the constraints of the Constitution, I think, certainly at this time, too many Americans are far too apathetic to force the issue.
3. While there's a good chance that an Article V Convention may never see the light of day, there's a 100% chance it will not happen unless somebody starts that discussion. Levin has done just that.
4. If it does come to pass, the rules, procedures and parties involved will have to be carefully vetted.
As Mark pointed out last night, they are destroying America right now. The path is clear. We will fall on our present course.
His recommendations are probably the only way to reverse the fall.
He is STARTNG the conversation, not giving the entire argument.
The founders left us a number of tools to prevent a runaway federal government. But I suppose they never envisioned what a inept and cowardly lot we would become.
Here, read how it's done for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Obviously, we as a whole, have become so utterly shortsighted and feckless, we are unable to do much more than suck our fingers while waiting catastrophe.
While I agree that this is the only way to change the direction of this country, I believe that its too late. This burden of debt cannot be overcome. I see only Anarchy and WW3 in our future.
I have similar apprehension about a Constitutional Convention in the current political atmosphere.
Politicians, Lawyers, Unions, Lobbyists, Bureaucrats, self-interest political groups, Party Elites (both Dem and Pubbie) would be lined up for miles to peddle influence and push agendas. And they will have judges at many levels on standby to step in, where possible.
Unintended consequences. They WILL happen. They always do in politics.
Then again, I’m sure they never envisioned state sanctioned murder of innocents or promotion of abominations either.
I listened to Melanie Phillips on Book TV last night. She is of the opinion Americans might do something to stop our going over the edge. She stressed we will need a Leader. I guess we will find out if the times create the leader or if a Leader creates the times.
I was always of the opinion that the times, the circumstances, create the leader. If not Hitler, someone else would have filled the spot. If not Obama, it would have been Hillary. Now I am not so sure.
An Article V Convention would be an absolute disaster. Don’t think for a nanosecond it would mean America would move TOWARD Conservative principles.
I'm not sure if that's the case.
, could the delegates sent to the convention change the rules for ratification that are now stated in our Constitution? This questions is important because under the Articles of Confederation, the only precedent we have, a unanimous consent by the States was necessary to alter the Articles of Confederation, but the Delegates to the 1787 Convention ignored that rule and required a mere nine states to ratify the new government they created for it to become effective.
And, what happens if several states refused to send delegates to Mark Levin’s convention? Could the convention proceed to do business without these States and then force their doings upon them? And why couldn’t the convention decide that a mere majority vote of our existing Senate members is sufficient to ratify the convention’s doings?
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
Madison warned us against a second convention just after our Constitution was ratified, and before our Constitution’s bill of rights was added to our Constitution. He 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 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
And more recently, here is what Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “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.’ “
The simple truth is, there are too many unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention and in the end our existing Supreme Court and Congress would be in charge of answering these questions.
Let us review the reasons why an Article V convention is a dangerous idea:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;
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 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 a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states 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, they arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.
BTW, did you see the great article by David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh’s brother?
Constitutional Convention Is a Dangerous Idea
The article begins: “The left's assault on liberty never rests, so don't ever be sucked into supporting the dangerous idea of a new constitutional convention, even if its stated purposes purport to be limited.”
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
in a word .....NO
it’s opening a can of worms that’ll allow the Dems to destroy such rights as the 2nd Amendment.....Wanna change the Constitution? Use the way the Founders designed...by amendment with supermajority approvals in congress and among the states.
Despite some conservatives denials the Constitution is a living document and can change albeit in a very deliberate and considered way. (The Dems think it can be changed by judicial fiat and they are just as wrong.)
You assume the states will send representatives, rather than delegates. Each delegate will have a commission which will define their cognizance.
How many brutal deaths can he and those of like mind in power take credit for; from promotion of world wide infanticide, sexual deviancy, false religion, and conflict?
I have to realistically agree with anyone that thinks we haven't the time now to change the outcome. But I sincerely believe in speaking out and doing what is possible. It may be all that one can do is save oneself, and as many others as possible - perhaps through extrication.
Y'shua spoke about things that must come to pass. I'm not sure if what we are facing is that of which he spoke or it just seems like it. But let's chance the doubt I say - if we can find the fortitude.
I guarantee not one of you have read the book yet. Before you say no, you should at least read the book. I don’t see anyone with a better idea unless it is to crawl under a rock and hope when you come out, it is all over with. That what’s wrong with America today. We have forgotten how to fight for our liberty. Unfortunatley, I think the time is coming where we will see who the fighters are and who the cowards are. May God have mercy on us all.
I think that something John Adams said comes to mind. He separated the war for independence and a “revolution.” He said that a revolution had already been won in the minds of the people before the war was even fought.
In the case we have now, the larger coherent group that feels a revolution has been made and won is the progressives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.