Posted on 11/08/2012 9:58:12 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
So, listening to The Great One, Mark Levin last night in regards to the election. He stated his ideas haven`t quite congealed yet but would comment sometime in the future while mentioning the GOP now had 30 Governors across the nation.
Upon hearing this I could come to no other conclusion as to what he was refering to:
"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, ..."
But the process requires that the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Was Mark Levin thinking this? If so, is he at wits end as to how rescue what`s left of the Constitutional Republic?
To achieve 3/4s of states to implement proposals of a Con-Con, that would take 38 states.
Do you think there are 38 states that will delete the 2nd Amendment? Delete the 4th Amendment? Make new socialism amendments?
If you think that could happen, then why has the Left not taken that route before? Seems it would be faster for them to get what they want that way.
I think you are fanning flames of fear towards conservatives when in fact it is Leftists that should fear a Con-Con.
A Con-Con is strict and difficult. Americans can have their Republic back if they use what the Constitution leaves for them to utilize.
This is not correct. A Con-Con must be called with a specific goal or bill. A Con-Con isn’t called and mustered just to “talk.” A Con-Con is called with specific documents on the table for a vote. They have to get the plurality of governors to vote.
The worst that would happen is that poison pills are placed in the amendments and are thus voted down. No Con-Con would be called to rescind the 2nd Amendment or any of the things you suggest.
Win.
How would Alinskyites hijack a conservative grassroots movement that is taken through state legislatures?
Can you explain that? I don’t think you can.
And if they can, then why have they not done so?
Your thesis is flawed on its face.
Now proposing amendments like balanced budget, like ending the Fed, an amendment making it illegal to sign a treaty that gives any foreign entity force of law over US citizens, like overturning Obamcare and clarifying the commerce clause. That would be workable.
But no con con. Another reason, how about the two term limit for President suddenly being removed and we get Obama for 3 or 4 terms like FDR?
A Constitutional Convention is a Wild West crapshoot.
You seriously believe you can hold a Constitutional Convention and prohibit certain US citizens from participating?
an anchor baby no-citizenship amendment would also be good. But not as a con con, just as single amendments.
In fact, there is no evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was ever ratified, yet we have the income tax anyway.
Mess with the Constitution at your peril. You don't own process. The Alinskyites do.
It certainly is easier to tell a thieving, indebted, tyrannical central government where to go...and if 3/4 of the states choose to do so..they most certainly can.
The Federal Leviathan’s response of course will be to basically swing wide open the Southern border.
If a Con-Con is such a bad idea, why did the Founders write it into the Constitution?
Good post. Heartening.
“Per the constitution, the Senators represent the states while the Reps represent the people”, not after the 17th Amendment was passed.
Aren't we all?
State legislatures are now in the hands of conservative grassroots. A Constitutional Convention can be called by the same grassroots organizers through their state legislatures. state legislatures can memorialize the Con-Con and compel Congress to call for a Con-Con.
Try not to obfuscate the issue here.
Answer the question posed to you without flying into hysterics.
How are 38 states going to be hijacked by the Alyinskyites?
Let the question be repeated and stick to it:
How are 38 states going to be hijacked by the Alyinskyites?
Now if you can just get 2/3 of Congress to go along...
If you listen to Mark Levin, you must have also heard him explain how a Constitutional Convention would be a nightmare, and something which should be avoided at all costs.
He explained how it would allow the America haters to tinker under the hood and gut the Constitution completely, rewriting it to suit themselves. In other words, it’s a leftist dream-come-true. Bye-bye America.
Heed the Great One, and shelve any idea that resembles this one. Please.
This might be what he’s thinking:
QUOTE: “Some fear that any amendments convention might exceed the limited purpose for which it was called. Under the Constitution, however, any amendments proposed by a convention would still need to obtain the approval of three-quarters of all the states.”
MORE DETAILS ON THE BILL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett
“QUOTE: details of the BILL:
The amendments, summarized by number below, would:
1.Disallow federal income taxes (i.e., repeal Sixteenth Amendment), as well as gift, estate, and consumption taxes; allow FairTax; require a 3/5 supermajority to raise or set new taxes
2.Set limits on the Interstate Commerce Clause
3.Disallow unfunded mandates, and conditions on funding.
4.Close a constitutional loophole that allows treaties to override established limits on power
5.Extend free speech consideration to campaign contributions, and to cover any medium of communication (including the Internet)
6.Allow a resolution of three-quarters of the states to rescind any federal law or regulation.
7.Establish Term Limits for Senators and Representatives.
8.Provide the President with a line-item veto to balance the budget on any year in which it is unbalanced.
9.Reinforce the Ninth Amendment by specifying additional rights and by providing a process for any person to prove the existence of an unenumerated right.
10.Restrict judicial activism by mandating an originalist method of interpretation.
THIS IS BRILLIANT.
Exceedingly dangerous!
The fundemental definition didn't change. The intent was subverted by the 17th Amenedment. So, I agree, you are correct in application. The state legislatures no longer pick their senators. The 17th made the people pick them and thus function about the same as house reps except with much less accountability.
There is no doubt that if Senators had to answer to Governors and could be replaced by state legislatures, they would behave and legislate much differently.
The 17th Amendment may actually be the most damaging thing we have ever done in that it moved power from the states to the Fed by accidentally removing the Senators accountability. Term limits wouldn't be discussed if Senators had to deal with Governors.
@E. Pluribus Unum “Mess with the Constitution at your peril. You don’t own process. The Alinskyites do.”
The Alinskyites have owned the process since 1913. They scare everyone from doing anything like a con-con by saying exactly what you are arguing.
Exactly who owns this process? At what point do we stop siting by while our freedoms boil away in the pot every 2 years? Do you see the GOP restoring the Constitution? Did we make headway this week?
It was the States that stepped up and saved us from the Articles of Confederation and perhaps it needs to be the States that step up once again? We have waited over 100 years for leaders in our Federal Government to fix these problems. It is only getting worse. They have no motivation to fix the problems. It is to their advantage to stay with what we have.
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.