Posted on 08/23/2013 9:56:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
When Mark Levin decided to write his book "The Liberty Amendments" to advocate a convention to propose a series of amendments to the U.S. Constitution, he may not have realized how quickly and deeply his profound idea would resonate. But throughout the nation, people are inclining their ears.
The first obstacle Levin faced was the widespread misconception that he is calling for a constitutional convention that could be hijacked by enemies of our founding principles and converted into a forum to hammer the final nails into our constitutional republic by fundamentally and radically changing our founding document.
In fact, Levin's proposal couldn't be more at odds with that misperception. He is, first and foremost, a constitutionalist. His goal is neither to eradicate nor to substantially change the Framers' blueprint for government. It's to restore it with specific, defined amendments intended to re-establish the proper balance between the power of the government and the liberty of its citizens, with due emphasis on the latter.
Levin is not arrogantly presuming to improve on the ineffable work of the Framers in crafting "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man" but humbly calling on his fellow patriots to recognize that we have strayed from the principles they enshrined in the Constitution and join him in his effort to advance the necessary correctives.
The Framers didn't meet in Philadelphia in the 18th century with the burning desire to pass super-legislation to codify an ideological political agenda to establish fundamental rights in health care or education, and they certainly didn't want to guarantee, by law, certain economic outcomes.
They met ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation and ended up scrapping it entirely and replacing it with our Constitution.
They were determined to design a system of government that would maximize individual liberties. That would require establishing a government strong enough to protect citizens from domestic and foreign threats but no stronger than that, for they knew that historically, unchecked, tyrannical governments had been the enemies of freedom.
Their challenge was to find that optimal balance between the power of government and individual liberties, so they created a system that divides and diffuses power between the national and state governments (through a system of federalism) and between coequal, competing branches of the federal government (the separation of powers), which hold one another in check.
It was not the affirmative granting of rights that would establish liberties -- many meaningless constitutions have paid lip service to that endeavor -- but the imposition of defined, specific and enforceable limitations on the federal government.
We must not lose sight of the fact that their overarching concern was liberty, an idea that gets little attention today -- apart from conservatives, constitutionalists and tea party patriots.
What constitutionalists understand is that upholding the integrity of the Constitution and its designed system of limited government is essential to preserving our liberties, and usurpations of power by all three branches of government and by an out-of-control, unaccountable administrative bureaucracy have imperiled them. Constitutionalists abhor abuses of power by any and all branches, irrespective of the substantive political agenda being served by such usurpations.
When King Josiah found a copy of the Jewish law in the Temple, which was being restored in 621 B.C., he was mortified by the extent to which the nation had departed from its teachings. He called for rededication to the law and a revival of its presence in the lives of the people.
Mark Levin is a modern-day constitutional prophet whose purpose is not to revamp the Constitution. It is to revive it and refurbish it -- to restore the cracks in its foundation caused by lawless officials through the years who were more interested in guaranteeing outcomes than they were liberty.
The goal of every one of Mark's proposed amendments is to restore the delicate balances the Framers originally designed; it is to restate and revivify the system of limited government they established by replacing bricks in specific places in our constitutional foundation -- bricks that statists have forcibly dislodged over time.
The sagacious and prescient Framers knew that no matter how well they crafted the Constitution, no matter what kind of protections it included, it would always be vulnerable to the abuses of lawless men who simply refuse to honor its provisions. They also understood that experience would enlighten their successors as to possible pitfalls and weaknesses in the framework that could be breached by such scofflaws over time, so they provided specific methods for amending the Constitution to shore up those trouble spots -- always keeping in mind that preserving liberty was the greatest imperative.
Today's statists have no regard for the Constitution or rule of law and have severely weakened it in many places, and as a result, our liberty, our prosperity and our very nation are in decline and in grave jeopardy.
Mark Levin is calling on us to take corrective steps -- through a process anticipated and expressly sanctioned by the Framers, no less -- to restore our system and reinvigorate our liberties. Let's pray his effort becomes an inexorable movement that sweeps the nation like the Great Awakening.
Speaking very well of Mark’s new book.
"The first obstacle Levin faced was the widespread misconception that he is calling for a constitutional convention that could be hijacked by enemies of our founding principles and converted into a forum to hammer the final nails into our constitutional republic by fundamentally and radically changing our founding document.
In fact, Levin's proposal couldn't be more at odds with that misperception. "
Opens a convention none-the-less and once it's open ....
However, considering that half of the reps do not share even one hair of our Founder's thinking, any attempt to change the Constitution or to improve it at this point will only end in a huge mess. Much like the French Revolution where competing philosophies created utter chaos.
The only way to restore it is for people to wake up. We need a huge come-to-Jesus moment.
I'd assume also he'd demand strict adherence to it (Where IS that Roe v Wade?)
Once it’s opened, its agenda is controlled by the Chair and by the delegates. There is no reason to believe that they will let the left wing hijack the convention into a marxist circus. And if they do, the conservatives simply walk out.
Better yet, since there are no rules establishing what such a convention looks like, establish it so that each state’s legislature is accorded an equal number of delegates. Don’t let the liberal strongholds be over-represented.
Whom chooses the chair and delegates ?
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
There is no hard rule on how the delegates are chosen. I think the architects of the convention can decide that. It would be one of the things the state legislatures voted on when deciding whether to call the convention.
Once convened, I would assume the delegates — either by a floor vote or committee — would select the Chair.
While those may be useful guidelines, neither is a binding document. The architects of the convention are free to propose whatever structure they choose.
There is no reason to believe that they will let the left wing hijack the convention into a marxist circus.
Which they will try to and often do.....
-OR- plan for and accomplish a hijack in the opposite direction...
Then the liberals walk out exposing themselves as the fascists they are..
Truth is “blue” states will never go for this.. never..
They are so brain washed.. the very concept of States “rights” is abhorrent to them..
They are indeed “the Borg”.. the collective Hive is home...
There is no living with the Borg.. it’s their way or the Highway..
BUT this gathering COULD organize freedoms forces..
A tool to start the conversation... and advance it..
The leftist will stay just to find a way to “Snark” it..
The “red” States MUST FORM a Coalition a block...
This could be the start of that..
Some states are barely blue others are completely blue..
A line must be drawn... the Hive -OR- FREEDOM..
This conversation HAS NEVER BEEN HAD!... Ever!..
IT’s TIME!.. NOW....
Socialism -OR- Capitalism a mix will NEVER WORK...
They are anti-thesis of each other.. total enemies..
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
The goal of socialism is communism. -V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism .-Karl Marx
Many here are missing a basic point: The convention cannot modify the Constitution. It can only propose amendments. Any amendment proposed still must be ratified. No left-wing progressive rewrite would ever be ratified.
Why would anyone believe the idiots that don’t follow the current Constitution would follow new amendments?
You need to read the book.
True. There are no precedents to follow because we’ve never held an Amendments Convention under the Constitution. Two centuries of case law have left so many tangled gray areas in the entire amendatory process. I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions of the ABA Report, but at least the commissioners were thorough and conscientious in identifying all the gray areas. In that, at least, it is a treasure trove of information.
The architects of the convention are free to propose whatever structure they choose.
They can propose, but that doesn’t mean their proposals will carry the day.
Here’s the problem. Two Supreme Court decisions – Dillon v. Gloss in 1921, and Coleman v. Miller in 1939 – ended up giving Congress wide latitude in regulating the amendatory process, provided such regulation does not contravene the words of Article V itself.
From 1967 to 1991, three senators, Dirksen of Illinois, Ervin of North Carolina and Hatch of Utah, proposed legislation regulating all aspects of an Amendments Convention. This included timeliness of petitions, relevance of petitions, selection of delegates and conduct of the convention. What prevented these bills from becoming law was a lack of urgency. Dirksen had first proposed his bill when it appeared that there might be enough states on board to request a convention repealing the Supreme Court’s “One Man/One Vote” decision. The possibility of a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment drove Ervin and Hatch. Because of those two Supreme Court precedents, Congress believed it had the right to regulate an Amendments Convention.
Does it really?
I question whether it does, but those precedents are there, and so is the will of Congress to act.
How will it play out?
If two-thirds of the states request a general convention to discuss Levin’s proposals, Congress will feel enough urgency to legislate standards for the convention. Then a number of state attorneys general will go into federal court making your arguments that an Amendments Convention is the property of the states and that Congress has no say in the matter. (I concur with that position.) Eventually the Supreme Court will either expand the Dillon and Coleman precedents to give Congress the power to regulate a convention, or the Court will limit those precedents and take Congress, partially or totally, out of the process.
How will the Court rule?
I don’t know. I simply recognize that the decision we want may not be the decision we get.
"Moreover, the state legislatures determine . . . the method for selecting their delegates; and the subject matter of the convention. In addition, Congress's role in the state application process is minimal and ministerial."
Bottom line: The progressive institutions and people who drove our once republic into the dirt, and profit very well from it, have no interest in republican restoration. It is a waste of time to focus all our attention to DC. Much more of our efforts should be directed at state assemblymen and senators. Send them Mark's book and explain how the salvation of the grand experiment called America is in their hands.
I wouldn't DARE call for a CC with the political make-up of our houses
You have a book already? Outstanding!
“Here’s the problem. Two Supreme Court decisions – Dillon v. Gloss in 1921, and Coleman v. Miller in 1939 – ended up giving Congress wide latitude in regulating the amendatory process, provided such regulation does not contravene the words of Article V itself.”
They are slick little devils aren’t they, those progressives? They get people tied up in mental knots.
No court in this nation has jurisdiction over people getting together and discussing constitutional amendments. No way, period. States can get the process started until freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are taken away.
If Congress ‘bans’ an amendment, rename it and keep talking. Nuts to them!
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.