Skip to comments.CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: MARK LEVIN REFUTED
Posted on 09/16/2013 12:39:41 PM PDT by Dick Bachert
click here to read article
If this is the same woman fill-in host Tom Marr (sp) was talking about last week he said that Levin couldn't wait to get back of the air and deal with her in the most forceful manner.
However, of the three alternatives open to us Levin's idea is far preferable to the other two.
From the twit’s blog, it appears she posted it yesterday.
Mark is an idiot to cal for a convention, after his handling of the BC issue he has lost my trust and respect.
Go home Mark, leave this to the big boys.
BTW - I was an every day listener to Mark’s show here in the DC area.
So what is your solution to prevent our pending demise?
Regarding the Constitution, IF IT'S NOT BROKE THEN DON'T FIX IT.
The problem with the "Constitution" is the following. As a consequence of federal and state governments not requiring millions and millions of constitutionally ignorant immigrant citizens, along with former slaves, to pass a basic constitutional law test stressing division of federal and state government powers before being allowed to vote, the OWG Progressive Movement has been able to bully voters who grew up under tyrant kings to do the following. The Progressive Movement has been able get constitutionally ignorant voters to abuse their voting power by turning the constitutionally limited power Oval Office into a powerful PC throne room, the "king's" main job being to authorize corrupt Congress to buy votes in exchange for constitutionally indefensible federal welfare programs.
Also, I've found one point so far that I disagree with Publius Hulday on.
So! The Convention of 1787 was called by the Continental Congress for the sole and express purpose of proposing revisions to the Articles of Confederation.
But the delegates ignored these limitations and wrote a new Constitution.
If I understand Hulday correctly, although the delegates to the Constitution signed the Constitution after they finished drafting it, that was not the same thing as ratifying it. It was the states who later had the choice of either ratifying it or ignoring it, the states ultimately choosing to ratify it.
The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven States. --United States Constitution
In other words, the product of a constitutional convention is not a new amendment to the Constitution like many people seem to think. Although such a convention can arguably propose an amendment that officially clarifies that the republic is now a communist dictatorship for example, the states can still choose not to ratify such a proposed amendment in which case the convention was a waste of time.
BUT SO WHAT! IT REMAINS THAT WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING CON-CON.
What the country desparately needs is for patriots to get off their couches, read the Constitution (RTFM), and elect lawmakers who will respect the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
Clearly, this author is attempting to gain notoriety by using Levin as a springboard or host.
His/her familiarity with the source in which he/she is trying to refute goes awry from the title. The buzz phrase for the alarmist, “Constitutional Convention”, is used in the title when this is not what’s being proposed. Also, the author advocates for nullification, but ignores the substance of the amendments i.e. repealing the 17th amendent....sheesh.
“which Levin and his mentors insist is provided by Article V of the Constitution”
It is. What’s the sarcastic implication here?
“Note that Congress calls the Convention. The States dont call it all they can do is apply to Congress for Congress to call it.”
That’s purely ministerial, as has been addressed by Mark. If they refuse to ‘call’ it, they’re acting unconstitutionally, and the states just have the convention anyway.
With these two elements being glaring examples of the author being misleading, I won’t read the rest.
Levin has adressed this point over and over. It’s a ministerial action, nothing more, and he has had constitutional scholars on who say exactly the same thing. They cannot refuse.
Totally agree w post #34. Levin should debate this author. Who wants to...and who doesn’t....would go far to see who is correct.
This would be like a dissertation for both.
Defective or not, attempted refutations, successful or not, are very useful in keeping the topic current, and for people who have read Levin's books (I am reading two as we speak) it will fill in the "other side," of each argument. The generally better informed will find the weaknesses in argument, or the misrepresentation of history, or more importantly, the context of time and place.
My refutation is much more simple:
Assuming ALL of Levin's amendment pass and are adopted, what's to prevent any two parts of the American Constitutional Representative Republic government from ignoring with impunity the NEW improved Constitution?
Without standing, "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE STILL OUT OF LUCK!
What Mark Levin is trying to do is instigate a movement to restore freedom in the United States through a legal process.
The question is: Will the Progs go peacefully?
They have instituted socialized schooling, murdered 57 million babies, and several million more people, in order to get hold of the power they have now.
There is no natural expectation that a mere political, legal process will restore freedom. Levin has said that he sees what he is doing as the last chance to do so without war.
I suspect the author is just a detractor inspired by the Rovians and other ruling class elitists. Her role here is to discourage and detract from what Levin in trying to do. I side with Mark Levin, and the heck with these naysayers and surrender monkeys.
“Are you saying that Mark Levin acknowledges that congress calls the convention?”
They issue a procedural acknowledgement.
Read the book, he explains it concisely.
Back to the top.
An excellent essay.
ping to self
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.