Mark Levin still promoting an Article V convention. Why?

9/25/2013 | johnwk

[JOHN W K]

I heard Mark Levin this evening once again encouraging the call for an Article V convention purportedly to restore our constitutionally limited system of government. What Mark Levin does not caution his listening audience about is, that “we the people”, ordinary productive American Citizens, would not be in charge of that convention. In fact, Mark Levin’s Article V Convention if called would be controlled by the very people who now cause our miseries which are the various state Legislatures and Governors who work in concert with our federal government to enslave and plunder the wealth which Americas businesses, industries and productive working people have produced.

Is it not true that such a convention, which Madison specifically warned against, would provide the legal opportunity to make constitutional the tyranny and unconstitutional acts which our federal and state governments now rain down upon the people? This fact is indisputable, and yet, Mark Levin is insistent on calling such a convention. Why?

In addition, Mark Levin promotes, with one of his liberty amendments, a perpetuation of taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes which is the very source of power now used to enslave America’s businesses, industries and laboring class people. Why does he not promote our Constitution’s original tax plan, and especially its rule of apportionment for any general tax laid among the States which was part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787? Why is it that Mark Levin, who constantly embraces the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, ignores their wisdom when it comes to taxation?

And, why is it that Mark Levin likewise ignores the wisdom of our Founding Fathers when it comes to the existing Federal Reserve System and Federal Reserve Notes having been made a legal tender for all debts public and private which was specifically forbidden by our founding fathers, and is the second tool used by our folks in government to plunder the real material wealth created by America’s businesses, industries and laboring class people?

Why is it that Mark Levin gets it wrong when it comes to the honest money and honest taxing system our founding fathers wrote into our Constitution, and prefers to keep today’s corrupted tax and money system alive and in the hands of folks in government? Try calling Marks show to ask him these questions and see how far you get!

In closing, let me once again remind you of what James Madison had to say with regard to calling an Article V Convention which was proposed to be called shortly after our existing Constitution was ratified. He wrote:

“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 partisans 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 foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable 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


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[ziravan]

You have to understand why the federal gov’t is out of control. the co-equal branches were supposed to be a check on each other. They were supposed to be in competition enough not to let the others get something over on them.

What they discovered is that the opposite is also true. If nobody enforces the rules on the other, then they all get to act like heathens. It’s a horrible way to govern a free people, but a wonderful way to line your pockets and abuse all the power you can drink.

Seriously, do you really believe an Art. V convention that requires Congress to intervene both to call one and to choose the means of ratification, is going to put a check on that? The 16th and 17th Amendments put the state legislatures in their place. Washington isn’t about to let that go by the wayside without a fight. Without a war.

I agree that the hour is running late, and I agree that restoring our government rests with the states. We don’t need a con-con for that. We just need our state gov’t’s to man up and tell the leviathan, no.

Not NO!

Just,

no.

As has been said, conservatives are making inroads into state gov’t. The day is coming, very soon, when the states, first in ones and then in groups, tell the fedgov, “Come and make me.”

[ziravan]

My point wasn’t to malign our founders. Just the opposite! My point was this: show me those patriots today and tell me how THEY get selected for the Art V Convention.

I don’t see it.

[chris37]

No they won’t.

They don’t have any say in it.

Anything being brought up has to be agreed upon long before even being brought up.

You need to read the book or listen to Levin.

He knows, you don’t.

[John Valentine]

This whole thread is populated by willful ignoramuses. You can’t talk sense to them, you can’t reason with them, you can’t educate them.

The most profitable thing you can do with them is totally ignore them.

I just think it’s a shame that they have been able to get a toehold here on FR, which is not normally a nest of lazy, ignorant, defeatist, tinfoil hatters.

[ziravan]

An Art V convention will play out on Washington’s turf. Read Art V and see that Congress’ stamp is all over it.

The States simply telling Washington, “no.” will produce a much better result. The States, by lack of compliance, is the last check on the leviathan.

Far better than a con-con is this: I’d love to see one or more states pass a law that any income tax destined for the IRS or fedgov must first be remitted to the State Capitol and then the State Legislature will deem what portion of it should be passed along to Washington. Add language to arrest any IRS agent attempting to thwart the will of a Sovereign state.

[John Valentine]

An Amendment Convention of the States is the very method devised by the Founders whereby the States can say NO to the Leviathan.

Why would n you not want them to do that? It’s the only way the States can speak that the Leviathan is bound to honor.

[John Valentine]

Far better than a con-con is this: I’d love to see one or more states pass a law that any income tax destined for the IRS or fedgov must first be remitted to the State Capitol and then the State Legislature will deem what portion of it should be passed along to Washington.

You must be joking. It's like admitting that you like masturbation better than the real thing.

[ziravan]

I’m neither tin-foil hatted nor defeatist.

The thought that you can get to an honest process to correct decades of dishonest adherence to the Constitution seems more tinfoil to me. That particular deck of cards is rigged. Congress will set the terms of an Art V convention and the Supreme Court (if it even got that far) will agree.

It’s a logical disconnect that you can correct decades of willfully ignoring the Constitution by forcing the very same people ignoring it to faithfully execute new amendments that they won’t similarly ignore. And that’s if you even get to liberty amendments instead of the far more likely liberal ones.

An Art V Convention will produce a bastardization of the Constitution that will and can only be corrected by war.

If that war is what we want, then bring it on. But that’s where this road leads.

[Bratch]

Articles of Impeachment needs to come first.

Unless elected officials are held accountable for their malfeasance, any change to the Constitution is useless. The establishment politicians will just ignore it.

[John Valentine]

Congress will set the terms of an Art V convention...

Congress has nothing to say about the "terms" of an Article V Convention. Not a single thing.

An Art V Convention will produce a bastardization of the Constitution that will and can only be corrected by war.

Only in your mind. Your comments indicate to me that you have no idea how an Article V Amendment Convention originates, is set up or is run.

[precisionshootist]

"It’s not a constitutional convention, its the states conferencing to offer amendments! You all need to read the book and listen to his show. There’s a difference and any amendment would have to be accepted by 34 states."

They should start by just reading the constitution, specifically article V. Some of the naysayers on this thread are dangerously low information.

38 states needed to ratify

[ziravan]

“You must be joking. It’s like admitting that you like masturbation better than the real thing.”

Read Madison in Federalist 45/46. He proposes almost exactly the same remedy to an out of control fedgov.

From 46 :

“On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other.”

[ziravan]

“Only in your mind. Your comments indicate to me that you have no idea how an Article V Amendment Convention originates, is set up or is run.”

I’m very familiar with Art V and it’s set up to run exactly as you describe it to to be. I neither doubt nor argue that.

What I’m arguing is that, nevertheless, that isn’t what you’ll get. In fact, I’m arguing that it’s pollyanna to even think that you’d get that result. One branch of the fedgov will rule (Congress), another will back them up (SCOTUS), and unless you want to storm Washington, that will be that.

Understand my point. My POINT isn’t that Art V. says what it says. My point is that it’ll be a cold day in hell before the fedgov actually honors it.

Show me one single iota of evidence that I’m wrong about that. And if I’m not, and Congress bastardizes the process, whose going to do something about it?

You? A hundred thousand people like you? Either you don’t and you get a bastardized Constitution, or you do, and you get a civil war. Just as I supposed.

[precisionshootist]

Good Grief!

CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE ANY SAY SO IN AN ARTICLE FIVE CONVENTION.

That's the whole point of it. To allow the people a peaceful way of correcting an out of control central government. That is the very reason the founders added this to the Constitution.

[ziravan]

“CONGRESS DOESN’T HAVE ANY SAY SO IN AN ARTICLE FIVE CONVENTION.”

How do you propose to stop them when they have every vested interest in having their say?

Moral indignation?

I can name you 10 different ways that Washington is ignoring the Constitution without blinking an eye, and so can you.

Your proposal to stop them: use the Constitution against them. That’ll teach them. Then they’ll have to play by the rules.

It’ll be completely different than it is now.

It’s time for drastic action, but this isn’t it. The States do have the power to break the fedgov. An Art V convention isn’t going to accomplish that.

[nathanbedford]

Where are today's patriots? I admit they are thin on the ground. But that was also the case in 1860. A few months ago we would not have anticipated were Ted Cruz could have taken the country. We would not have foreseen the spine in Mike Lee. We did not understand how Rand Paul could turn the country around on drones.

There is an exchange going back about a month on several threads that I had with Publius who is extremely well educated on Article V procedures and I have relied not only on documents such as the ABA report cited by him but on his insights as well. In this exchange we reviewed the myriad pitfalls inherent in such an undertaking. The fundamental assumption of our discussion was that the Washington establishment, explicitly including the Republican establishment, would set out to sabotage the process. Indeed, Mark Levin himself makes the same point.

In that exchange, we considered many of the unknowns and Publius was able to cite historical examples which clarify but do not necessarily codify answers to procedural questions. There are many open questions and many opportunities for mischief by the establishment.

There is also inertia. Mark Levin himself stipulates that the process will require years and probably require what I describe as a "black Swan" event to precipitate an Article V convention. The country may be described as meandering toward a crisis or speeding toward a fiscal cliff, but in either metaphor the question is whether there is time enough.

Finally, there is the balancing of risks. I judge that it is riskier to proceed on automatic pilot toward the cliff with every session of Congress increasing entitlements and co-opting yet another percentage of the electorate. The task, already daunting, it becomes more difficult with the federal Rice bowl growing ever larger, with unrestrained immigration making meaningful the maxim that demographics are destiny, and with the media virtually a fifth column. With three quarters of the states, 38, needed to ratify an amendment I believe the risk of the convention turning leftwards is, on balance, worth taking.

Finally, the whole procedure is designed to end run around the Washington establishment so, even though Congress has many cards to play to derail the process, it is still a better arena for conservatives to play in.

[Crazieman]

I have finally reached the opinion that every person that opposes this process is a liberal democrat/communist.

All the so-called arguments have been addressed. The language is plain. All the opposition are the enemies of America, whether they are trying to salvage the status quo system they subsist upon, or are “concern trolls” attempting to throw a monkey wrench in to the solution.

Either way. All opposition to this needs to be declared for what it is. SUPPORTING THE COMMUNISTS IN THE COMPLETE, FEDERAL TAKEOVER. PERIOD. Enemies of the free, American, person.

[ziravan]

I agree that time is growing short, and I agree that calculated risks must be taken. In my opinion, there are only 2 possibilities for an Art V convention:

1. Congress ignores the States and refuses to call one. Again, what authority is going to make them do so? The Supreme Court? Art. V specifically gives Congress the authority to call the convention. Of course, it’s a “shall issue” event and not a matter of discretion. But. When they exercise the discretion that they don’t have, whose going to stop them? This isn’t a light point, it’s the whole crux of the matter and why we’re in the mess we are in in the first place.

2. Congress, the establishment in D.C., etc discovers a way or believes that they can game the process and calls the Convention with every intention of sabotaging the purpose. I believe this to be the more likely outcome.

A convention is playing on Washington’s turf and they’ve had decades to pervert the process and they are now confident and embolden that they cannot be countered. Look at the floor of the Senate in the hour immediately following Cruz yielding the floor if you have any doubt.

Instead of playing on their turf, which I believe will be the result of an Art V, we should have the fight on our turf.

Our turf? “Come and Take It”. The States have that power, too. “Come and Make Me.” In this case, we don’t need 38 legislatures to turn the fedgov on its ear.

We need 2.

Or 3.

Or 5.

Or 10.

Enough conservatives are taking their place in enough State legislatures that this fight is coming. This is the fight we need to have.

We don’t need more amendments. We need the 10th Amendment and the resolve to use it.

[ExGeeEye]

Well, we do have a Constitution we're not using. Maybe we should use that one.

Seriously though, an effort to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments would go a long way toward improving matters. Even with that, we need our "leaders"-- actually, our employees-- to recognize and abide by whatever we end up with.

[ziravan]

Riddle me this. You believe that a requirement of 38 States to Ratify will protect from any liberal amendments being passed.

Won’t that also ensure that no liberty amendments will be passed?

38 States is all but 12.

I’d be happy to name you at least 12 states that will NEVER ratify any of Levin’s amendments. That is, if you can’t list them off on your own. California, New York, Massachusetts . . . shall I keep going?

We are a very closely divided society, ideologically. The same device that you believe will offer protection against the liberal amendments will also protect the other side of the spectrum from the liberty amendments.

How do you get past that? And, if you can’t, then isn’t an Art V convention a moot point?