Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: MARK LEVIN REFUTED
American Clarion ^ | 9/15/2013 | Publius Hulday

Posted on 09/16/2013 12:39:41 PM PDT by Dick Bachert

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: Jacquerie
RE: Mark shouldn't and won't respond.

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.

41 posted on 09/16/2013 2:00:22 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
You make good points.

However, of the three alternatives open to us Levin's idea is far preferable to the other two.

42 posted on 09/16/2013 2:00:36 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

.


43 posted on 09/16/2013 2:03:12 PM PDT by Gator113 (The mighty Bear ate the cowardly rat. Obama must resign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael

From the twit’s blog, it appears she posted it yesterday.


44 posted on 09/16/2013 2:06:19 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V baby. An Article V amendment convention of the states is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

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.


45 posted on 09/16/2013 2:07:40 PM PDT by stockpirate (My great, great, great, great, grandfather fought in the Revolution, stand up patriots......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

So what is your solution to prevent our pending demise?


46 posted on 09/16/2013 2:13:07 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V baby. An Article V amendment convention of the states is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
I see "rebutted." I don't think I'd call it "refuted."

-PJ

47 posted on 09/16/2013 2:26:32 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert; All
Based on what I've read so far, I agree with most of the things that Publius Hulday said about "conservative" celebrity and Obama guard dog Levin's idea to amend the Constitution.

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.

48 posted on 09/16/2013 2:28:09 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


49 posted on 09/16/2013 2:47:03 PM PDT by Kaosinla (The More the Plans Fail. The More the Planners Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

“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 don’t “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.


50 posted on 09/16/2013 2:50:28 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

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.


51 posted on 09/16/2013 2:52:02 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

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.


52 posted on 09/16/2013 4:10:11 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (A person who does not want to tariff Communist Chinese goods has no problem with taxing you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jimfree
I just read a single point and it was defective. I don’t have much hope for the rest since it is clear that the author has not talked to Mark, listened to his commentary, or possibly even read his book.

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!

53 posted on 09/16/2013 4:50:17 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Great Post!
Thank you, cousin.
54 posted on 09/16/2013 4:55:40 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

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.


55 posted on 09/16/2013 5:30:30 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan (If you're FOR sticking scissors in a female's neck and sucking out her brains, you are PRO-WOMAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

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.


56 posted on 09/16/2013 5:45:32 PM PDT by Jay Redhawk (Oh Crap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

“Are you saying that Mark Levin acknowledges that congress calls the convention?”

They issue a procedural acknowledgement.

Read the book, he explains it concisely.


57 posted on 09/16/2013 9:37:32 PM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

Back to the top.


58 posted on 09/16/2013 9:49:11 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

An excellent essay.


59 posted on 09/16/2013 10:25:44 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

ping to self


60 posted on 09/16/2013 10:29:13 PM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson