Posted on 07/11/2016 8:59:03 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Mark Levin and others are pressuring the state legislatures to call for a "Constitutional Convention," or "Convention of States," or "Assembly of States."
Doesn't matter which name you use, it's all the same thing. It is an effort not to amend our Constitution, but to change it significantly, or to replace it entirely.
Here's how:
The authorization for amending or changing the Constitution of the United States is found in Article V of the US Constitution. It is very short. Only one sentence. In fact, only the first two lines of that sentence are important, because in them, the Founding Fathers gave us two distinct methods for changing the Constitution.
Method One: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution."
Method Two: ". . . or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments."
That's it.
Should Congress act under the first option, only members of Congress participate. But, should Congress act under the second option, all Congress can do is call for a "convention," and then just sit and watch what happens. There is no provision for members of Congress to make up the body of such a convention.
The first method works fine. That is the way each of the current 27 amendments to the Constitution has been adopted. But nobody--not Mark Levin, not George Soros, not Mark Meckler, nobody--is calling for Method One. That ought to tell you something. They are all calling for Method Two, which has never been done since our current Constitution was adopted. Why? For a very good reason. Once a Constitutional Convention is called, it could be controlled by anybody, and you can bet it...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
If it ain’t broke...don’t fix it!
At this point, after having seen the traitor FBI Direktor Comey completely rewrite the law to give Hillary Clinton a pass, there is no way in cowboy hell I would countenance ANY assemblage of persons NO MATTER WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS AND GOODNESS are to do ANYTHING with respect to the Constitution. The fact is that I simply don’t trust you f@ckers and I don’t trust you to keep control of a carte blanche realignment of anything where everything is “supposed to go like this....” but ends up “working like that.” Not NO, but HELL NO!!!!!!
so if option two is so bad, why was it put there to begin with???
What drivel! A Convention of the States simply proposes amendments that still need ratification by 38 states before they pass.
That simple.
What’s asinine and retarded are all the assclowns who insist on calling it a ‘Constitutional Convention’ (which is illegal) and who don’t have any ideas on how to stop the out-of-control Fedrasaurus that’s been rampaging all over the rights of Americans!
But thanks for feeding the liberal propaganda machine that doesn’t want us to fight back against their agenda with the one tool left for We The People.
Please don't ask for an example - I have not listened to him in a long time but I do recall listening to him and saying - "that is not accurate" a lot of times.
It’s broke.
Ouch. He missed and doesn't understand. I'm a bit disappointed by the show of ignorance by "Coach". Control of the process would actually be by the states and, process and procedure would be developed, voted on and adopted. THEN, 38 states have to ratify. It's hardly any riskier than the post constitutional America we currently live in. There is no law that the elite are not above any more. We are quickly running out of options to save our country from our fall from greatness.
WRONG.
Article V clearly states the requirement.
Just because a "convention meets" that does not give them the authority to "change the ratification requirement, or eliminate it entirely."
It is an existing part of the Constitution and can only be changed by one of the two methods indicated, not just because there is a meeting.
"The Coach" needs to get back into "practice."
.
Cognitively Challenged Clinton Voters will call this a Conspiracy.
An Article V convention of states is not a “free for all” like some people want you to believe.
Please don't ask for an example - I have not listened to him in a long time but I do recall listening to him and saying - "that is not accurate" a lot of times.
You must be new around here. That hit and run liberal BS tactic "I'm smart just believe me" crap NEVER flies on FR.
I will go with option C, both. Plus, he's one of the deranged never Trumpers.
That's Federasaurus Rex!!...or Wrecks!! Whichever applies.
So wouldn't removing or changing the ratification requirement need a change to Article V? And wouldn't the only way to change Article V would be through an amendment? And wouldn't that amendment need the 3/4 vote?
Tell it to the FIRST constitutional convention.
They met to MODIFY (add amendments) to the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they decided to throw it out and replace it with an entirely new document.
Like our current constitution, the Articles of Confederation had no mechanism that allowed for it to be replace, only a mechanism for it to be modified. Yet, they still replaced it--which was technically unlawful.
If a "Convention of States" wrote an entirely new document, and it was ratified by 2/3 of the states, is there any doubt that most Americans would declare it to be the new law of the land--the replacement for our current constitution?
From a technical standpoint, if they added an amendment to our current constitution that said the entire constitution was now null and void, and the new document was to be the law of the land, would that not effectively replace our current constitution with a new document?
No, it isn't likely to be the outcome, but the first convention set the precedent.
In either case, he is intellectually dishonest if his ego is threatened.
Some 6-7 years ago he was arguing over a tax issue with a caller who represented herself to be a retired IRS attorney. Most listeners would have agreed she was articulate, well-informed and convincingly rebutted Levin's point.
Essentially, she politely cleaned his clock, but he simply blew her off insisting he had served in the WH and knew what he was talking about.
A wide open Constitutional Convention is something I hope we’ll never see. Nobody knows what would happen, and given the general ignorance and/or depravity of the average American nowadays, I have little confidence genuine good would result. On the contrary, much evil could result.
And, by the way, we want to change the constitution that leftists like Obama are already ignoring, with no consequences? Why would changes to it result in leftist compliance? Such ideas as changing the requirement for impeachment of judges and justices to a simple majority would cut both ways. They might lose a Sotomayor, but we might lose a Thomas, depending on who is in the majority.
Save the fanboy stuff. I have confirmation from another freeper frog in a pot. Levin would get wrong technical stuff not ideology. The above freeper at #17 gave an example. I have not listened to Levin in a year so I can't recall a specific example myself.
Essentially, she politely cleaned his clock, but he simply blew her off insisting he had served in the WH and knew what he was talking about.
???? This is an example? You refer to an opinion "some 6-7 years ago" that supports your opinion as an example of proof positive that your assertion is factual? How many times has this worked for you in court?
I would never blindly agree with anyone and have found flaws in Levin's ideology and, on rare occasion, his interpretation of facts. Same goes for Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest to differing degrees. That's not the point of the objection to this article. "The Coach" is nay saying the constitutional option, of which several states have already supported (in vote anyway). I would invite you or anyone else to submit another plan to wrestle power back from the Fed to the states and put us back on a constitutional track for governance of this nation. Hell, how do we regain and re-establish the simple "Rule of Law" in this country?
Some around here argue "Revolution"! I don't think those folks REALLY understand what that might look like or how it might unfold. Groups of individuals trying to lead a "revolution" are terrorists if it involves armed insurrection. A revolution, as envisioned by the founders, has to originate as a supported movement by the state legislatures with all the power they can bear, up to and including defense of their own citizenry and commerce against the FED. Is not the Article V option the most civil approach to the same ends?
The only other far fetched option I can envision is a concerted, serious and contentious effort of a state for Secession from the Union (Texas?). So, criticism of Levin aside, the "Tea Party Movement" has been hitting pretty hard for the better part of 8 years. The hardened and powerful political elite seem to be impenetrable when it comes to voting the Elitist Establishment out of power. Most of the conservative candidates America has been sending to Washington to replace the rank and file, power hungry, career politicians get converted and fall in line with the establishment.
What is your plan? Or have you resigned the effort and will just conform to the "new normal"?
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.