Mark Levin calls for second constitutional convention ?!

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.

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.

I heard it. It was jaw dropping.

ConCon is the Hail Mary Pass. Fraught with dangers as we run a high risk of it being hijacked by activists with the Obama “positive rights” agenda.

The fact that a Conservative voice as prominent as Levin has given up on all other methods is quite telling.

It's too late for that now....the Amnesty will take us to the next level of Parasitic Populace, which outnumbers the Constitution-supporting HONEST Americans.

The U.S. Constitution would look like the Communist Manifesto, which we are living under now. The Constitution is totally ignored by ALL THREE "Branches" of Government.

A Constitutional Convention can only propose amendments to the Constitution. Those amendments would still need to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states.

BINGO!

No way. It is a time of peril for the Constitution and only a jerk would call for revisions while we have to deal with a dictator and a tyrannical administration. Talk about giving an enemy of America an opportunity to sink us totally. NO!

I fear a second convention because of all the bad that such an action could introduce. How many of the original rights do you think would be recognized from our current Bill of Rights? How many of those rights would contain "qualifiers," if they were recognized?

Somewhere, in such a new document, would give whatever future government, the "flexibility" to suspend such rights when the government sees fit. And such a document isn't worth the paper on which it's printed.

It's been done before... Are we not able to do it again???

I Say Farewell 16th Amendment!

I did not misrepresent what he proposes.

JWK

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

The only thing that can save us now is the same thing that just saved Egypt from the Brotherhood, IMO.

Which is exactly WHY Obama moved quickly to defund the military, fill its ranks with queers and purge any non-apparatchiks from the officer corps.

"exactly WHY Obama moved quickly to defund the military, fill its ranks with queers and purge any non-apparatchiks from the officer corps"

That's EXACTLY how I saw it, too.

38 States to ratify.

Given that Liberals will prevail in CA, OR, WA, ME, MA, VT, CT, RI, NH, NJ, NY, NH, MD, DE, MN, MI, that makes 16 states that Conservative Amendments could never win ratification in.

I say, a New Amendment is needed that re-states the Tenth Amendment to make very, very, very clear what powers the States have, vis-a-vis the Feds. Even to the point of perfect specificity where the Fed Govt cannot intrude.

I dread to think what ‘modern’ moderates and progressives would do in a constitutional convention.

Of course, the attendees would be appointments by current political interests. Having a general election would not necessarily improve things. Consider Congresses of the last 2 decades — they get to Washington and go about completely ignoring the will of the people.

I can't think of 10 6 3 any people I would trust writing new constitutional provisions.

I can foresee the results, and I didn’t even need to call Miss Cleo:

A 10,000 page document with 100 amendments — that they have to pass before they can know what is in it.

{cringe}

The fix would be in, no good amendment would ever make it.

We’re dealing with thieves, not honest people. Those running it, and those reporting on it can ensure that such a process will kill any good amendments in favor of the lattest faggotry.

The only things I’d be interested in are repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments (and on days when I’m in a particularly bad mood, the 19th as well(just kidding, sort of )).

Wht we need is a better generation. What we need are people willing to call out the truth when they see it. We need people above reproach.

Only a morally upright people can have the honesty to do the right things. Only morally upright can fix what is wrong in any document or institution.

Wht we need is a better generation. What we need are people willing to call out the truth when they see it. We need people above reproach.

Only a morally upright people can have the honesty to do the right things. Only morally upright can fix what is wrong in any document or institution.

The Constitution was made for an upright people who prized virtue. Such is no longer the case regarding the American people. In the sermon last Sunday at my church, the Pastor stated he would be fine with seeing the destruction of this country, if it meant America would be brought to repentance. I think that is now the only hope.

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.