Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

5/13/14 | johnwk

[Biggirl]

Why is this wrong?

[Mr. K]

If liberals hate it, it must be good.

The libtards have been warnign us about a ‘runaway convention’ that would give liberals everything they wanted- but they would be the first ones SCREAMING FOR a convention if that were true.

[Mathews]

No good could possibly come out of this.

[unixfox]

And when the CON CON doesn’t work it will be time to convene another Civil War.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Because it opens up the bill of rights to be re-written by the left’s own fair hand.

[cotton1706]

They don’t like constitutional, republican government, i.e. they don’t like the people being involved in their own governance. They like the aristocrats deciding everything.

See my book at the website in my tagline.

[Biggirl]

Not really.

[Biggirl]

Did not Mark Levin write a book not long ago about Constitutional articles?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Maybe it’s risky, maybe not, but doing nothing will change nothing.

[woofer2425]

I don’t think what Mr Levin wants is called a constitutional convention. I think it’s called a convention of states. I understand there is a difference.

[RginTN]

Its a Convention of the States. From article 5 of the US Constitution. Not “evil”.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Article 5 is not a constitutional convention. You can't rewrite the constitution. You can only add amendments. A balanced-budget amendment, for instance. Or an amendment that says that members of Congress cannot exempt themselves from laws they impose upon the peasants.

[JRandomFreeper]

Once again you lie about what is being called for. A Convention of States is not a Constitutional Convention.

/johnny

[4rcane]

I honestly do not believe GOP leadership/establishment really want a balance budget amendment. They could simply refuse to vote for increasing the debt ceiling and the balance budget amendment would be enforced right there.

They’re only pretending to support balance budget when its a distant impossibility, but when it might actually happen, they will oppose it

[narses]

A Convention of States is not a Constitutional Convention.

Article 5 is not a constitutional convention. You can’t rewrite the constitution. You can only add amendments. A balanced-budget amendment, for instance. Or an amendment that says that members of Congress cannot exempt themselves from laws they impose upon the peasants.

[achilles2000]

Correct, Pope Calvin. Does anyone think that any such conventions would be conducted according to rules? The left would show up and psychologically push the Rs into “compromises”. And there would be violence to make sure that the left gets at least part of its way and that everything looks chaotic. If the left loses on anything, they would claim that the Rs “suppressed” votes or somehow “cheated when, in fact, it is always the left that lies, cheats, steals, and assaults. The whole scene would look like a football game in which the Seahawks are playing some girls field hockey team. Apart from that, Levin’s proposals ratify the administrative state, thereby making something evil and unconstitutional constitutional. And who would the R or conservative delegates be? The kind of semi-socialists you find in the RINO party and here?

[Rashputin]

If you want a Constitutional Republic back you better repeal the 17th as well.

[John Valentine]

Because it opens up the bill of rights to be re-written by the left’s own fair hand.

Total BS. You are either ignorant of the truth or a bald-faced liar.

[JRandomFreeper]

What part of 3/4s of all states must still ratify any amendments do you not understand? The left can't just re-write the bill of rights.

/johnny