Posted on 07/11/2013 6:10:36 AM PDT by JOHN W K
On last evening`s show [7-10-2013], Mark Levin has called for a second constitutional convention. But it is baffling why Mark Levin, who I have grown to admire as a constitutionalist would call for a second constitutional convention for proposing amendments to our Constitution, when, just like the call for immigration reform, the fault is not a defect in our law, but a failure to enforce existing law.
Indeed, the fault is not in our existing Constitution, Mr. Levin, but an unwillingness and failure of the States and people therein to enforce the existing Constitution and its defined and limited powers. If this be true, and surely this is the problem, then what magic is to be found in a second constitutional convention which would correct the problem? Would a proposed amendment adopted by the convention which is then sent to the States for ratification declaring our existing Constitution shall henceforth be enforced, be a solution, even if it then be adopted by three fourths of the states? Our existing Constitution already commands that our Constitution, and only those laws which are made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land. Have you not already told us, and correctly so, that our current miseries spring from a lawless government, and not a defect in our Constitution?
How about an amendment declaring that ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.`` Would such an amendment if adopted by a second constitutional convention and if somehow managed to be ratified by the necessary three fourths of the States, change the despotism and tyranny we now live under?
What Mark Levin seems to suddenly ignore is the cause of our misery. And the cause of our misery is nothing more than a failure of the American People to rise up and punish those who have taken an oath to support our Constitution and have not done so. The cause of our misery are those in power who are now acting in rebellion to the provisions of our Constitution and who ignore the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. This, Mark Levin, is the cause of our misery and not a defect in our Constitution which you seem to believe needs amending via a full blown constitutional convention.
And what did James Madison, who you brought up to defend your position say with regard to calling a second constitutional convention? Mr. Madison says:
“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundationsof the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville
And tell us Mark Levin, who would attend a convention if one were to be called? Could Madison be right, that every snake on earth would seize the opportunity and find its way into the convention to advance interests not in the general welfare of the United States? Let us take a look at what has already happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to amend its state‘s constitution.
During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery! Do you have confidence in these sorts of people who would most certainly find their way into the convention?
The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.” Perhaps you ought to rethink your position Mr. Levin.
And then there is another big problem Mr. Levin. State Pensions which are not fully funded. This enormous debt which almost every state is now faced with, could be made to vanish from state books by proposing to have our federal government assume these debts during your call for a second constitutional convention. Of course, the assumption of state debt would take place in return for new powers being granted to our federal government as was done during the first Constitutional Convention when the Revolutionary war debt was assumed by our new federal government as part of the deal. Did you miss this blackmailing potential Mr. Levin? Tell me, how many state legislators and governors would sell their soul to get out from under the financial debt they have helped to create in their own state?
Bottom line is, I am very disappointed that Mark Levin would, perhaps out of desperation, perhaps out of a simple oversight, is advancing the idea of calling a second constitutional convention to propose amendments to our Constitution, when a failure to enforce our exiting Constitution is the cause of our misery, and is a cause which cannot be corrected by calling a convention to add more amendments to our Constitution. Our problem is in fact a despotic and tyrannical federal government, which is the same problem faced by our founding fathers. And what did our founding fathers do? There were basically three steps.
The American Colonies repeatedly expressed their grievances to the British Government, but nothing changed. The second major step was taken on June 7th, 1776, when Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, moved in Congress the adoption of a resolution declaring that the “United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states”. On July 4th the Continental Congress, without a dissenting vote, adopted The Declaration of Independence. And the final step was kicking King Georges’ butt!
Like the sound reasoning of our founding fathers, I believe our first step in correcting our problem ought to be the various States and people therein to unite in forming an official document stating their grievances ___ the primary one being that our federal government, and especially our existing Administration, is ignoring the defined and limited powers granted by our Constitution. The document ought to also include a number of specific corrective actions and demands which must take place, e.g., an immediate repeal of Obamacare, to avoid a potential final step that our founding fathers found necessary in taking to extricate themselves from the tyranny we now suffer under.
After producing the above mentioned document, a copy ought to be transmitted to Congress, to our President, and to each member of our Supreme Court at which time their response would determine if any further action is necessary by the States to restore our constitutionally limited system of government.
Let us be very cautious in the lure of calling a second constitutional convention which would more than likely end in making legal, that which is now unconstitutional.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
Given the society and people in power we have today, any constitutional convention would enshrine the further enslavement of the american people to a ruling class.
A second Constitutional Convention would be a disaster for all the reasons you mentioned. There are no Madisons or Washingtons or Franklins in the U.S. today.
Perhaps, but this may be the only chance to enshrine some vestigages of the original document in perpetuity without an insurrection.
No. This generation is degenerate in essential elements from the top of society down. There would be no chance at all for vestiges to be considered. Instead you would open the door for all kinds of bad actions.
People make laws, when a society is as utterly corrupt as ours, the only solution is to educate and plan for the next generation.
There is a fine line between being cautious or just plain cowardly. I'm with Levin, if for the sole purpose of repealing the 16th and perhaps the 17th, if that doesn't overly complicate the process. Let's do it while we still can, for we are already headed to a place far worse than many can imagine.
Been saying this since I've been here...
No, WRONG! He is calling for a “Convention to consider amendments”. That is distinctly different than a “Constitutional Convention”.
Put them in the same, hot room for 87 days in the summer and make them wear the same clothes.
I applaud Levin for shining a spotlight on this provision in our Constitution. Shame on me for reading over it.
Yes, our federal government needs to be repaired. At the very least I would state that infinite money and infinite debt allows infinite government. So when we are pondering ways to amend the Constitution, let us find a way to severely restrain the federal government’s ability to create infinite fiscal resources and to force it to live within our means of paying.
If we allow government to spend more than we can afford, we are only buying our own serfdom because government can only levy taxes, debt or inflation upon us to pay for the benefits we vote for ourselves.
Mark should know better...Constitutional conventions can be dangerous if liberals infiltrate them. They could conceivably scrap the whole thing, as happened in 1787 when the Founders (quite illegally) scrapped the Articles of Confederation and started over.
A Constitutional Convention can only propose amendments to the Constitution. Those amendments would still need to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. They could propose making it our official religion to worship the three armed man in the moon, and the states would still need to ratify it. Generally, the state legislatures in this country skew much more conservative than the representation in Washington, DC.
Can we wait until after the revolution and the blood is cleaned from the swords?
It seems that one without the other is pretty much an exercise om futility.
A second Constitutional Convention would be a colossal error.
The Constitution, created during what was supposed to be a shoring up of the Articles of Convention, was a miraculous series of compromises by factions with differing self interests. God's hand was on that first convention and brought forth the greatest political document the world had ever seen (next to the Bible itself).
It was understood, even at that time, that the convergence of so many elements needed to create such a document would most likely not pass this way again. The gathering together of those men with their degree of knowledge, understanding, virtue, and ardor for a good and free republic was not to be repeated. Any attempt to do so was understood to have gravely jeopardized this Constitution given the warring factions that existed. The warring factions today are worse than ever.
Men today are not of the same caliber, by and large, as the stature of our Founders, who had a depth of knowledge and education few have today - they knew Blackstone and Aquinas and the Bible and were very familiar with Roman and Judeo-Christian law and ethics, some in Latin as well as English, and knew the Bible.
Besides all that, the issue is not a flaw in the Constitution - the issue is a major flaw in man, who seems unable to hold on to his God-given liberty very long. The Constitution is not perfect but acknowledges that too with provision for amending it according to the will of the people and the states.
I am absolutely opposed to a Constitutional Convention, which will do nothing but eliminate important, valid provisions of the current document, while adding all sorts of rights-cancelling new ones.
What emerges from such a convention will look more like the South African constitution than what we have now.
Proper netiquette states that you should ping the person you are talking about.
5.56mm
I fully agree. If they could burn the current Constitution and write a new liberal, leftist, communist, socialist, homo Constitution, they’d do it.
Levin made of point of saying it IS NOT a 2nd Constitutional Convention...
“..you’ll hear critics say, “We don’t need a Constitutional Convention! We’ll never get anyone better than the Framers!”
And they’re right! This isn’t a Constitutional Convention.
This is a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.”
A Constitutional Convention would be controlled by liberals empowered by the liberal media.
He had to have been drinking, having a psychotic break, or sold his soul to the devil.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid/ to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
So, 2/3 of the states call for an amendment-proposing convention, and congress gets to decide if the vote on those "proposed amendments" is from 3/4 of the state legislatures or from conventions in 3/4 of the states.
And how many delegates are at that original proposing convention, how are they chosen, and how do they vote?
I know....a "gang of 8".
And a voting convention in each state has delegates chosen how, how many, who, how do they vote?
Who gets to answer all these questions?
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.