Mark Levin calls for second constitutional convention ?!

7-11-13 | johnwk

[Bayard]

I don’t believe we have to see the destruction of the United States of America for the transformation of the people. I think we just have to begin by being first good people ourselves in what we do.

I support limited government in most things because that is the best way to stand against the nations own attempts at suicide. I think that if we remove the sins in our own lives, we can hope to raise a generation which will be strong enough to change this country.

[AnalogReigns]

I think Mark suffers from the illusion that we’d have a lawfully ruled country if our elites feared the law.

We’d have a lawfully ruled country only if our elites feared God...

One can sucessfully cheat the law (look at OJ Simpson), but you cannot mock God. Our leaders today—and most of the American people—no longer really fear God, hence they happily cheat the law...thinking they are getting away with it.

If you want law-keepers, you must have God-fearers (and God-lovers, as one goes with the other) first. This is what America lacks.

[JOHN W K]

There are but two ways to amend our Constitution. Mr. Levin has chosen the second option given in Article V,

JWK

[JOHN W K]

There are but two methods to amend our Constitution. Mark has chosen the convention method for proposing amendments to our Constitution.

Unfortunately Mark has overlooked what took place in the 1984 New Hampshire Convention; has also overlooked what Madison stated regarding a second constitutional convention; and seems to overlook the bargaining chip of un-funded State Pension funds which our snakes in Washington would use to bribe state delegates to the convention for new powers being granted to our Washington Establishment in return for assuming the state pension debts..

Perhaps Mark will consider our founders approach to the same problem, and began with the British Colonies joining together in a formal redress of grievances before taking an approach which resulted in the Revolutionary War, King George having his ass whipped, and the Colonies adopting our Declaration of Independence.

JWK

Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

[Macbeth]

Debating someone such as yourself when you don’t present accurate facts is nearly impossible. I’m simply going to say you are incorrect. Madison wrote Article V, for example. He advocated it Congress to the point of stating a convention call was required by Congress with no “vote, debate or committee.” Hardly the position of a man who opposes a convention.

As to your proposition regarding the states and pensions. Opponents like you say anything now a days to oppose obeying the Constitution. Even plain gibberish is advanced as deep thinking. Far from it.

I urge all to think for themselves on this. Ask John here to provide you all his references. His proof for example the 1787 convention was a “runaway.” His historic citations of persons of that time so expressing that sentiment. And so forth. I’ll save you the trouble. He won’t be able to produce a single reference.

After you’ve spent the 30 seconds required to look at John’s “evidence” go to www.foavc.org and be prepared to spend about a week reading the court cases, 736 applications from 49 states and so forth that totally disprove every statement by John.

Then simply make up your mind. Do you believe the facts—or do you believe John.

[JOHN W K]

I would like to respond to your charges but you forgot to post my words which you object to and which you claim to be inaccurate.

JWK

It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well connected in Washington.

[JOHN W K]

Macbeth,

You wrote: Ask John here to provide you all his references. His proof for example the 1787 convention was a “runaway.”

I do not recall mentioning anything about a "runaway" convention as you wrote. But since you asked and brought up the question of a runaway convention, let me inform you of the histocial facts. The factis, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“, and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution and new government, not a simple revision!

See: Credentials of the Members of the Federal Convention. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; April 9, 1787

(Seal appendt). By His Excellency James Bowdoin Esquire Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

To the Honorable Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King and Caleb Strong Esquires. Greeting.

Whereas Congress did on the twenty first day of February Ao Di 1787, Resolve "that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of Delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States to be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." And Whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their Delegates to attend and represent this Commonwealth in the said proposed Convention; and have by Resolution of theirs of the tenth of March last, requested me to Commission you for that purpose.

Now therefore Know Ye, that in pursuance of the resolutions aforesaid, I do by these presents, commission you the said Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King & Caleb Strong Esquires or any three of you to meet such Delegates as may be appointed by the other or any of the other States in the Union to meet in Convention at Philadelphia at the time and for the purposes aforesaid.

In Testimony whereof I have caused the Public Seal of the Commonwealth aforesaid to be hereunto affixed.

Given at the Council Chamber in Boston the Ninth day of April Ao Dom. 1787 and in the Eleventh Year of the Independence of the United States of America.

JAMES BOWDOIN

By His Excellency's Command.

JOHN AVERY JUNr., Secretary

_________

These same words appear in almost every State's call for the Convention of 1787, and we wound up with a entirely new Constitution, not a simple revision.

JWK

America will not regain her honor and splendor until the blood of tyrants is made to flow in our streets.

[sloop]

for someone with so much to say - you misrepresented what levin said

you should listen to what he said before exposing your ignorance of it with such a rant

[sloop]

There are but two ways to amend our Constitution. Mr. Levin has chosen the second option given in Article V,

wrong again. there is one way to amend the constitution. ratification by the states. there is more than one way to propose an amendment. another something you do not understand.

instead of railing against levin, you should listen and learn from him.

[JOHN W K]

I have misrepresented nothing. Mark Levin’s solution is to amend our Constitution!

Aside from that, until Mark does something which I am convinced is intentionally designed to mislead his followers and admirers __ I being one of his admirers __ I will continue to work under the assumption his current thinking is clouded by frustration and panic brought on by an overt rebellion against our Constitution by those who hold political power. I say this because I too went through a stage many years back when I thought amending our Constitution was an answer to a subversive federal government. I finally realized the cause of our sufferings was not to be found in a defect in our Constitution, but rather, it was a failure by the States and people therein to enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. Indeed, the States and people therein have been delinquent in rising up and punishing those who took an oath of office to support and defend “this Constitution”.

We have been amply warned in THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787. H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS that:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first [u]inch[/u] that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.”

Is it not time for the States and people therein to rise up and refuse to submit to despotism and tyranny?

Justice Roberts, for example, and those on the Court who sided with Obamacare tyranny, need to be removed from office and punished so our children and grandchildren will be schooled in addressing the roots of judicial tyranny.

Thomas Pain was absolutely correct when he wrote:

Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs [our nation’s progressives crowd]; know likewise the remedy…..___ Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

JWK

America will not regain her honor and splendor until the blood of tyrants is made to flow in our streets.

[sloop]

i am not discussing your little veiled militia wackjob threats. i was pointing out that YOU said levin called for a constitutional convention. that is a lie.

not interested in your psychological journey of discovery to your enlightened state or any of your wacky psychobabble about levin.

just pointing out to others that you either do not understand what levin’s book is about or you deliberately lied.

[JOHN W K]

When you learn to conduct yourself in a mature manner and refrain from posting insulting remarks, I might then decide to respond to your posts.

JWK

They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

[sloop]

convenient. because you are too uninformed about the subject or a flat out liar.

levin did NOT call for a constitutional convention.

you can flit off in a snit complaining about me and my manner of posting if you want. it does NOT change the fact that you misrepresented what he said and cannot explain it away.

[JOHN W K]

Just for the record, and in regard to what Mark Levin is promoting, he stated the following:

“Importantly – in neither case of amending the constitution does Article V, that process, provide for a constitutional convention.

This is important because you are going to hear critics say ‘we don’t need a constitutional convention. We’ll never get anybody better than the framers.’ And, they’re right.

This isn’t a constitutional convention.

This is a convention for proposing amendments to the constitution.

Mark Levin is proposing a convention to propose amendments to our Constitution. And this is the same process that took place which ended in the Articles of Confederation being abandoned, and a new federal government being created; a number of specific powers being ceded to this new government; and, the new government assuming state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War.

The fact is, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“ and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution and a new government, not a simple revision!

See: Credentials of the Members of the Federal Convention. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; April 9, 1787

(Seal appendt). By His Excellency James Bowdoin Esquire Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

To the Honorable Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King and Caleb Strong Esquires. Greeting.

Whereas Congress did on the twenty first day of February Ao Di 1787, Resolve "that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of Delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States to be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." And Whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their Delegates to attend and represent this Commonwealth in the said proposed Convention; and have by Resolution of theirs of the tenth of March last, requested me to Commission you for that purpose.

Now therefore Know Ye, that in pursuance of the resolutions aforesaid, I do by these presents, commission you the said Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King & Caleb Strong Esquires or any three of you to meet such Delegates as may be appointed by the other or any of the other States in the Union to meet in Convention at Philadelphia at the time and for the purposes aforesaid.

In Testimony whereof I have caused the Public Seal of the Commonwealth aforesaid to be hereunto affixed.

Given at the Council Chamber in Boston the Ninth day of April Ao Dom. 1787 and in the Eleventh Year of the Independence of the United States of America. JAMES BOWDOIN

By His Excellency's Command.

JOHN AVERY JUNr., Secretary

_________

These same words appear in almost every State's call for the Convention of 1787, and we wound up with a entirely new Constitution, not a simple revision. Mark Levin, by his very own words, is proposing to utilize the second process outlined in article V, which is exactly what took place in1787 and was the calling of a “convention” for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, but culminated in the ratification of an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government, a number of powers being ceded to the new Government, and, the new government assuming State debts incurred during the Revolutionary War.

What is Mark calling for other than a “convention” in which the various United States would send delegates to propose amendments to our Constitution? Call it what you will, but “constitutional convention” is the phrase used for countless years in reference to the second method outlined in Article V to amend our Constitution. I think it is important to focus on the process which Mark is advocating and contemplate where it may lead. And judging from the same process being used in reference to the Articles of Confederation which ended in their abandonment and an entirely new constitution and federal government being created, we ought to be very careful in what we support and take note of Madison’s warning which I posted elsewhere.

The good news is, Mark has inspired a needed debate concerning how to restore our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government”.. My belief is, we should be working to enforce our existing Constitution, and find a way to punish those who took an oath to support and defend our Constitution, but now use their authority to circumvent it and ignore the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

JWK

If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?

[RoguePolitics]

A few things everyone seems to miss.
First, Mark Levin is slightly incorrect if he thinks an Article V convention doesn't rate as a constitutional convention. Yes, it is for considering 1 or more amendments to the constitution. Since an Amendment to the Constitution can change any part of the constitution, with few exceptions (These would be super articles like 2 senators for every state.), it is for all practical purposes a Constitutional Convention. They could craft an amendment that wiped away every protection the constitution offers.
Second, that simply doesn't matter. Any amendment can be proposed but IT MUST STILL BE RATIFIED by 3/4ths of the states. Given the current political climate it seems unlike that amendments would be ratified that increased federal power. Additionally, the federal government operates far outside the constitution already. What power would they get that they do not already claim to have and already exercise? States have declined to ratify roughly 20% of the Amendments offered by congress. They can decline bad amendments.
Third, related to our problem being one of obeying laws, rather then a defect in our constitution, the fact is simple. They are disobeying the constitution and aside from the demonstrably ineffective ballot box, we have absolutely no way to force them back into line short of war which all reasonable men wish to avoid. The founding fathers knew the electorate was not capable of holding government accountable at the ballot box, they were extremely suspicious of democracy, they tried to frame a constitution that created a republic where competing interests within government would, out of self-interest, restrain each other. This system has failed for a number of reasons. Not least of which are the 16th and 17th amendments and the federal reserve. The 16th and federal reserve gave virtually unlimited funding to the federal government and the 17th removed one of the strongest methods for states to hold Washington accountable. Before the 17th, states could end a senators career for getting out of line.
While I said their was no way to hold them accountable short of war, I left out the one option the founding fathers left, for just such a situation as this. The Article V Convention of the states. Since any amendment can be proposed and if intelligent it might be ratified, we can put forth amendments that among other things provide a non-federal government accountability mechanism to restrain Washington. This might be as simple as turning all power of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution over to a council of State Supreme Court Judges who would be more inclined to consider states rights within the confines of the constitution. Or perhaps it would be as it currently is except ratified by governors. No more wife beater gets to be the divorce court judge.
An amendment should defund, in large part, Washington. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing. It would leave enough for national defense but not much else. If we keep the Federal Reserve, make it a board where each governor appoints a member instead of the president and bar it from making loans to any GOVERNMENT ENTITIY OR PROJECT and any FOREIGN ENTITY PERIOD.
Point being, yes if they obeyed the constitution we would have little problem but they are not going to obey. This isn't a supposition, it is a fact backed by 100 years of history. And we aren't going to vote the bad guys out, also a fact backed by 100 years of history.
Article V may have very real risks associated with it but the alternative has ZERO RISK. That is right, I said ZERO RISK. We are descending into tyranny. That is a fact and absent a real and consequential change there is no risk we will prevent that descent. It will happen.
I have not seen Mark's proposed amendments but there are good proposals up at AmericanAmendment.com

[RoguePolitics]

Another thing to keep in mind regarding your thought about the New Hampshire Convention:
Article 2 Section Six
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
No congresspeople can be a delegate at the convention. It is likely that even state legislators could not be delegates to an article 5 convention.

[JOHN W K]

What you posted does not exclude delegates who are former members of Congress, former federal pubic servants, existing state public servants, lawyers, legislative lobbyists, and every other special interest snake like those from ACORN, etc., who would find their way into the convention because of the powerful forces behind them. What was your purpose of posting all that? Were you trying to give the illusion that Madison was incorrect when he wrote with regard to a second constitutional convention:

“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

JWK

Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.