REVIEW--THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS: AMEND THE CONSTITUTION--TO SAVE IT

Radio host Mark Levin does not follow the news cycle. He often opens his shows by warning listeners that he will not talk about the the day's headlines, or play clips from cable TV programs. Instead, he focuses on agendas: those of the "Statists," i.e. the progressive left; and those of the constitutional conservatives to whom, and for whom, he speaks.

Levin's The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, released Aug. 12, is an ambitious plan to save the American political experiment from the encroachments of big government in Washington, D.C. Yet his solution is not a political one that looks for new ways of winning elections, or a policy formula to enact conservative ideas. Levin proposes to amend the Constitution itself--not once, but eleven times.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia also involved states without input from Congress. Most delegates were under the impression the purpose of the Convention was to merely modify the Articles of Confederation but James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay had different plans. They intended all along to use the Convention as a means to replace the Articles of Confederation with a stronger Federal Government via the Constitution. They were able to bargain with most of the delegates, bit by bit, to support a stronger federal government. Some objected and left before the Convention was adjourned but most supported the Constitution.

Article 12 of The Articles of Confederation required approval from all the states and Congress to alter the document. This process did not occur. Only 9 states were needed to ratify the Constitution. Congress under the Articles of Confederation never approved the Constitution. It can therefore be argued the Constitution is illegal.

An equally important point is that delegates and those they represent can demand the Convention for a particular purpose or purposes but all that can change once delegates get behind closed doors. Anything can happen as occurred in 1787 and no one on the outside can stop a sudden turn of events. The result could very well be a document unlike what was originally intended. A Convention would be a dangerous proposition.

It. Is. Not. A. Constitutional Convention. It is a process where 2/3 of states propose AMENDMENTS rather than congress. They still need to be ratified in the same manner.

Please read and comprehend before you shoot your mouth off.

The Articles of Confederation did not provide for a an amendment convention; the Constitution does. By your logic, the calling of a convention itself by Congress in 1787 violated the articles.

State delegates today to an amendment convention will arrive with commissions that define their authority. There is no possibility of a runaway convention.

Levin is pretty cagey, good thing he's almost always on our side.

The motivation is the fact that states can take power from the Federal Government through a Constitutional Convention and would not be allowed to do so any other way, plus, if the Convention is pirated to destroy the Bill of Rights, those same states can refuse to ratify, as only a quarter of states plus one will kill the pirated document.

However, nothing is without risk, including inaction which will likely lead to a Soviet Islamicist America.

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.