Mark Levin calls for second constitutional convention ?!

You wrote:

"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."

History is not on your side. During the federal convention of 1787 which was called for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“ we wound up with an entirely new Constitution and new government, a number of powers ceded to that new government, and, the state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War were assumed by the new government.

With the various State Pension funds being under funded and their total obligations at about $3.5 trillion, would the state delegates chosen to a second constitutional convention not be susceptible to granting extraordinary new powers to our federal government in return for the federal government assuming the various State unfunded dept liabilities?

And when such a proposal is brought back to the States for Ratification, are we to believe the “progressive” leadership of bankrupted states like California would not embrace enlarging the iron fist of the federal government in return for their state debt being wiped clean? SEE: California on the Brink: Pension Crisis About to Get Worse

JWK

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 [progressives on our Supreme Court]; know likewise the remedy…..___ Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

Neither of your responses answers the factual point that the federal government currently does not recognize ANY LIMIT on its power.
Congress legislates on any subject, the president starts wars and otherwise acts according to his whims without authority and the judiciary decides every case based on personal preference which historically means in favor of the federal government's right to limit state power or limit the rights of the individual.
Absent a convention, there are only two outcomes for the current situation. War or subjugation. And war is probably followed by subjugation either by losing the war or kneeling down to the man who wins it. George Washington was a major anomaly in history.
So let's say you are correct in your assessment that states give away even more power in exchange for goodies. What power are they going to give away? What power do they still hold unequivocally? NONE. Washington already dictates everything. Washington orders states to repeal laws. It orders states to make laws. States have been ordered to raise taxes and lower them. It invalidates state constitutions that existed before Leviathan was created. We allow our children to be molested by federal agents at airports. We allow government to dictate our healthcare. We have zero financial privacy. Washington monitors our phone calls, emails and this site. So what actual right do you see us losing? When it comes to rights, none are recognized and all are under assault.
The actual result of a Convention is unlikely to be ratified. That is the simple truth. Even if good amendments are proposed, amendments that limit federal power, states will chicken out when faced with a reduction in the federal gravy train. I still support it as the most likely way to restrain Washington but there are a lot of moochers and skunks out there and they will oppose anything good. I believe the states will probably stop bad amendments as well. 3/4ths is a pretty high barrier and they have refused to ratify 20% of the amendments congress has proposed. History is on my side. They are capable of rejecting bad amendments. The truth is that the most likely outcome of a convention is a few watered down ineffective amendments that fail to be ratified. Yes progressive states will embrace bad amendments based on bribery but most states aren't California, it is why we make fun of California. Since each state gets ONE VOTE California, IL and NY are going NOT to be able to force things through or control the agenda. Bad amendments probably won't even make it out of convention. Your proposed bribery amendments would likely fail because states would be in a position to force Washington to pay without giving up anything. Why would a state agree to give away some right in order to make Washington pay when they could keep the right and make Washington pay?
Be Real And Be Specific, What Rights Do You See Being Eliminated?
Why hasn't congress already proposed an amendment to do that? They are already "In Convention" everyday they meet. Any congress person can offer an amendment and they have over 5000 times. What has restrained them that wouldn't restrain a convention of the states?
The founding fathers took great risks and for them the downside wasn't a few unratified amendments, it was a hanging.
Our country is going to hell, no doubt about it. Our choices are simple, we can do nothing and watch it go. We can try something that has a possibility of saving it. Even if it is a long shot.
We don't need to waste our time on what we have been doing with the hope it will make a difference.
Yes get out and vote, just don't expect much of the SOB you voted for. 70% of the "Tea Party" congress people voted to raise the debt ceiling without any concession. You can never elect enough of them to make a difference when you lose the majority of those you elect.
A convention offers one hope that electing Tea Party people to congress can't. John Boehner won't be there with a carrot and a stick, bribing the new guys into betraying their principles and punishing the ones who refuse. No re-election campaign will be hanging out there in need of cash or other support. Congress will have no hand in or control over the convention or the delegates.

RoguePolitics wrote “Neither of your responses answers the factual point that the federal government currently does not recognize ANY LIMIT on its power.”

And promoting a second constitutional convention does not address the factual point that the federal government currently does not recognize ANY LIMIT on its power.

In fact, adding new amendments to the Constitution does absolutely nothing to compel our federal government to be obedient to the Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. But it does open the door for every snake to find their way into the convention and sap the very fabric of our Constitution as Madison warned us:

“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

In response to your question regarding a “bribery amendment”, I never mentioned anything about a “bribery amendment“, but stated a fact, that

During the federal convention of 1787 which was called for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“ we wound up with an entirely new Constitution and new government, a number of powers ceded to that new government, and, the state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War were assumed by the new government.

I went on to ask:

And then I asked:

I believe those questions are valid, and ought to be resolved in such a manner as to remove the threats which are very real.

In any event, I am very disappointed that Mark Levin would, perhaps out of desperation, perhaps out of a simple oversight, advance 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: redress of grievances, the Declaration of Independence, and finally a justifiable ass whipping for King George.

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. Is the right of the people to “petition the Government for a “redress of grievances” not contained in our Constitution and one of the tools to be used under existing conditions? Should the States and People therein not put our federal government on notice and be united in articulating a list of particulars describing our grievances and the corrective actions which are demanded so no further action is necessary?

Another “tool” contained in our Constitution, and one I specifically embrace is the impeachment of those who hold and office of public trust who violate their oath to support “this Constitution”. Is it not dutiful of those we elect to Congress to start impeachment proceedings when a Justice on our Supreme Court blatantly lies about our Constitution and the specific taxing powers granted, pretending our Constitution’s taxing powers allows for the implementation and enforcement of Obamacare? If those we elect do not work to impeach members of our supreme court who blatantly ignore the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and the defined and limited powers granted to Congress, is it not our duty to remove those members of Congress and elect others who will join in the cause of liberty and restoring our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government?

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?

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.