Hannity`s interview with Mark Levin: calling an Article V convention

I was somewhat disappointed after listening to Hannity`s Friday night special dealing with calling an Article V convention as proposed by Mark Levin. There was no informative discussion concerning the vagueness of what the rules are after two thirds of the State legislatures apply for an Article V convention, and Congress calls for it to convene. Should these rules not be fully understood before a discussion occurs on what particular amendments ought to be proposed which are believed will restore our constitutionally limited system of government?

For example, how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will each state be entitled to an equal number of delegates, or will each State’s number of delegates be determined by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if each state is represented by the rule of apportionment at Mark’s convention, could our progressive crowd not steamroll their agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire united States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed to effectuate their alterations to our Constitution?

Another question not addressed Friday night is, could the delegates sent to the convention change the rules for ratification that are now stated in our Constitution? This questions is important because under the Articles of Confederation, the only precedent we have, a unanimous consent by the States was necessary to alter the Articles of Confederation, but the Delegates to the 1787 Convention ignored that rule and required a mere nine states to ratify the new government they created for it to become effective.

And, what happens if several states refused to send delegates to Mark Levin’s convention? Could the convention proceed to do business without these States and then force their doings upon them? And why couldn’t the convention decide that a mere majority vote of our existing Senate members is sufficient to ratify the convention’s doings?

What I’m driving at is, an Article V convention is unchartered waters, and it would appear that our existing federal government, meaning its three branches, would be in charge of deciding any questions which may arise, i.e, the fox would be in charge of protecting the hen house, figuratively speaking. Do we really want to give our federal government the “legal” opportunity to fundamentally transform our system of government and make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional?

If Mark Levin’s convention sounds too good to be true in restoring our constitutionally limited system of government, it probably is!

"At a minimum...the Federal Judiciary, including The Supreme Court, will have to resolve the inevitable disputes over which branch and level of government may be entrusted to decide each of the many questions left open by Article V." - Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School

”I’ve heard him acknowledge the risks, but he says that keeping going down the road we’re on is even riskier, and I agree.”

aquila48

Well, at least we are all in agreement that calling a convention is risky. And I would add it is more than just risky, it is a totally uncertain path on which to lose our constitutionally limited system of government, and a path which James Madison warned against! Having said that, should we not then deal with the specific threats which are the root cause of our miseries? Is that root cause not tyranny and despotism?

I wish Mark was offering a workable plan, but how can it be workable when there are a number of critically unanswered questions involved with it? In addition, our founders wrote into our Constitution the petition for a redress of grievances which was their first step in addressing the tyranny and despotism of King George. Why should we ignore that part of our Constitution?

Mark Levin is promoting an Article V convention, which is the second method by which to amend our Constitution. I didn't know our Constitution now allows for tyranny and needs amending.

One of the problems with Marks plan is, once two thirds of the states apply for an Article V convention and Congress calls for a “Convention for proposing Amendments” as required under Article V, we are in unchartered waters because of the vagueness of the wording in Article V. For example, how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Article V is silent on this. Does each State get an equal number of delegates, or will each state’s number of delegates be determined by the rule of apportionment? If each state’s number of delegates is determined by the rule of apportionment then our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention and could steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and then force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed to effectuate their proposed amendments.

Of course, Article V does say that three fourths of the states are necessary for ratification, but as I pointed out before, during the convention of 1787 which was called when the Articles of Confederation were in effect and required a unanimous consent for any alterations to be made to the Articles, the convention there ignored the unanimous consent requirement and provided that a mere nine states could effectuate the new Constitution they created.

What I’m pointed out is, there are countless questions which arise when Congress calls for the convention, and one must ask, who will be in charge of answering those questions other than our existing federal government [Congress and our Supreme Court], the very tyrants who now cause our sufferings. Do we really want to give them the opportunity to “legally” make what is now unconstitutional, constitutional and tighten their iron fist around our necks?

We are at a point in time where we the people, those who value liberty, must stand up and defend our existing constitution and confront our tyrannical federal government. When the Supreme Court found Obamacare constitutional, did a few million Americans find their way to Washington and demand the removable of those on our supreme court who spat upon it? Spending years and valuable resources to add more amendments to our Constitution, does not address a tyrannical government which is the root cause of our miseries, but it does perpetuate existing despotism and tyranny!

We have been amply warned in THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, HOW 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 inch 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 to resist the tyranny rained down upon us by our federal government? Or do write an amendment from the comfort and safety of our living rooms that the Tenth Amendment to our Constitution shall hereby be observed by Congress, our president and every Justice on our Supreme court?

I believe our founders approach to tyranny is the only approach to tyranny and began with putting King George on notice with a petition of grievances and expressed corrective steps to be taken to avoid further action by those who were willing to fight for their liberty.

JWK

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

Have any of the defeatists on here actually READ the book? Read the book, read All the amendments and think it through before tossing it out.
If not, exactly what do you propose? going along like we have for the last 50 years? That has worked really well.

The Liberty Amendments are probably our last possible method of reigning in the federal government constitutionally, apart from a civil war. It is a way to restore power to the STATES, which is where the power was to originally reside. They are well thought out and really amazing.

I wish people would READ the book before dismissing it. Shall we all just go hide in a hole and pull the covers over us? That kind of defeatist thinking is exactly what the liberals want.

We could reign in this beast, if people aren’t too lazy or scared to try!

From review on Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/12/Review-The-Liberty-Amendments”There is a path forward,” he writes, “but it requires an enlightened look back at our founding. And what we find is that the Framers rightly insisted on preserving the prominent role of the state legislatures as a crucial mechanism to containing the power of the proposed new federal government.” Levin applies that argument to each of his proposals, showing how each new amendment fits into a old procedure whose hour has come.
....It is difficult to overstate the importance of history to each of Levin’s arguments. Indeed, the book could be described as an historical study, in which the author traces the Framers’ original intent to each of his new proposals. For that reason, the book is useful as a primer on the history of debates—including key input from the Anti-Federalists—about some of the key features, and emerging weaknesses, of our constitutional system.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/07/11/mark-levin-constitution-article-v-and-the-liberty-amendments/
Article V was specifically designed to cover the situation we face today — an over-reaching federal government. The Founders knew that such a government, once entrenched, would never vote for amendments that would reduce its own hold on power. So they deliberately included a separate amendment process in Article V that keeps Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court out of the loop.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/07/11/mark-levin-constitution-article-v-and-the-liberty-amendments/

Article V was specifically designed to cover the situation we face today — an over-reaching federal government. The Founders knew that such a government, once entrenched, would never vote for amendments that would reduce its own hold on power. So they deliberately included a separate amendment process in Article V that keeps Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court out of the loop

boxlunch

But, the fact is, our federal government is not out of the loop once Congress calls for a convention to propose amendments to our Constitution! Will it not be our tyrannical Supreme Court who gave us Obamacare that determines constitutional questions regarding the limits and latitude of the Article V convention process?

For example, we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. But instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates to that convention arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did. And this precedent is the only one we have to go by.

Aside from that Mark never commented on another important question: how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will it be by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if they do, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire united States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification?

I understand these questions are not only difficult for Mark to answer, but they do reveal a second convention is a very dangerous idea, especially when Congress and our Supreme Court will be in charge of answering these questions.

Mark Levin needs to be honest with his listening audience or he will lose the respect of many constitutional conservatives. There are many unanswered question which arise with regard to calling an Article V convention and Mr. Levin needs to discuss and acknowledge they exist.

Do we really want to open the doors of an Article V convention with all of its uncertainties and give our tyrannical federal government the “legal” opportunity to fundamentally transform our system of government forever, and make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional?

JWK

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

You said," Aside from that Mark never commented on another important question: how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will it be by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size?"

----------

If this is a convention of the STATES, and the purpose is to reign in the Fed government and to bring power back to the states, the one and only type of representation would be EQUAL representation for each state (whether each state gets one rep, or two or whatever), and the representatives to the convention need to be elected by the state legislatures. Otherwise, it's just a glorified US congress and yes, the more populous states(which are mostly liberal) would overrun it.

---------------

So, because we are "afraid" that the convention would head in a different direction than what we envision, we sit back and do nothing? Hope the GOP throws us a bone now and then before we get shipped off to reeduction camps, or our nation totally collapses, or a bloody civil war breaks out?

We could be pressuring the U.S. Congress right now to be passing amendments to fix the some of the blatant issues that need to be corrected. Why don't we?(rhetorical question)BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER EVER WILLINGLY GIVE UP POWER!! Do you actually trust the current people we have in power at the federal level more than you trust the state legislatures? I sure don't!

---------

Not understanding what you are saying here: For example, we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members

---- A mere majority vote by our existing Senate members? Are you talking about U.S. Senate members, or state senates? I'm just not following your question here.

The purpose is to BYPASS the federal government in every branch and have the states reassert their power as delineated in our US Constitution..It's how the government was originally intended to work, and we have gone FAR astray

maybe I'm just not understanding what you were saying there.

Just curious, have you read the book yet

And I freely admit I am just started reading it, have read the first several chapters.So I want to be honest.) Have you read where Mark talks about the history of why they put that provision for amending the constitution in there? If our founding fathers were so wise, as most of us think they were, I think they had thought it through carefully and foresaw that someday we the people might need to do an end run around the federal government to preserve our constitutional republic to avert impending tyranny by constitutional means rather than having to resort to civil war because we had no other options.

I admit I need to learn more - need to read it, study and ponder it - I just wish more on FR were reading the book and discussing rather than just dismissing it as being a dangerous idea. I may be wrong - but I think the main people it is going to be dangerous (politically) for are just power hungry lifetime federal politicians and judges who want to hang on to power for their entire lives.

I really believe that just starting the process of talking about some of these amendments, and starting to bring it up before state legislatures will be a great education for all Americans on our constitution and the way it works, and open people's minds up to the possibility of how we can get the nation back on track.

You wrote:

This is your opinion and not found in the wording of Article V of our Constitution. You also wrote:

This is not about being afraid. This is about fully understanding what we would be getting into by calling an Article V convention.

You ask me if I read Mark’s Book. No, I have not and don’t plan to. But, during the 1980’s when Gingrich and others considered to be “conservatives” were pushing an Article V constitutional convention to balance the budget, I almost jumped on their bandwagon until I realized they were advancing a fraudulent balanced budget amendment which, by its very wording, would have make it constitutional to not balance the federal budget! At this same time I had just finished a thorough research project at the University of Maryland which established our founders provided a specific provision in our Constitution to be used to extinguish deficits should they occur, but not one of those “conservatives” who were pushing a convention to balance the budget would even mention our founder’s solution. This caused me to become quite suspicious as to why they were working so desperately to have an Article V convention to write a balanced the budget.

After speaking with Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, and a few others, I was convinced calling a convention was a very dangerous idea, and there were some very dangerous folks behind calling the convention. This does not mean that all those who were calling for a convention to balance the budget had evil motives in mind. But many supporters were being manipulated by some very powerful internationalists who, to this very day, see America’s Constitution as an obstacle to their “world view”, and getting a convention going is their pathway to eliminating those obstacles!

In any event, I believe critical thinking at this point in time is absolutely essential to preserving our existing constitutionally limited system of government. And finding a way to enforce our Constitution’s existing provisions, which our current Administration is totally ignoring and circumventing, is key to ending the tyranny and despotism we have been experienced during the past five years! I cannot even imagine how adding more amendments to our Constitution deals with a tyrannical and despotic government which just happens to be the root cause of our miseries

But the uncertainty involved with the rules and limitations of calling a convention and its very real dangers is an issue which Mark seems to give little attention to. Should we not be fully informed with what we may be getting into before giving our support to the call for an Article V convention?

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.

“I believe our founders approach to tyranny is the only approach to tyranny and began with putting King George on notice with a petition of grievances and expressed corrective steps to be taken to avoid further action by those who were willing to fight for their liberty.”

And exactly how do you propose to do that today?

I think the closest parallel today to do what the colonies did in 1776 would be for a state or multiple states to declare their intention to secede from the US. That is essentially what the colonies did vis-a-vis the british empire (successfully), and what the confederate states did to the USA (unsuccessfully). This was the case of a political entity separating itself from a bigger political entity.

You seem to be suggesting more the French style of revolution where a subordinate, politically disorganized class of people rebel against the ruling class in a fit of rage. In other words, a mob action, like we’re seeing in Egypt.

Of the two, I much prefer the former. If a state like Texas (perhaps joined by other similarly minded states) were to declare their independence, do you think we would have another civil war?

aquila48

What I suggest is exactly what Mark Levin suggests when he says the people must take back their government. And the people will never take back their government if the people depend upon Congress and their State government politicians for change!

Are we to believe that the corruption and tyranny at the state government level in almost every state in the union is different then that at the federal level? Do those who hold power at the federal and state level not work together to plunder the wealth which the productive members of society have created? Indeed, the theft of what our productive members of society have created is the prize of those who hold political power at the federal and state level, and they will not relinquish that power if they are at the helm of change

. Is it not true that the leadership of our State and Federal governments have each created a massive dependent class who lives on the public dole and is used by them during election time to keep themselves in power? Do you really believe a convention which is controlled by the corrupted state political leaderships will work to remove the iron fist of government from the necks of the people and they will work to restore the foundations of liberty and a “constitutionally limited system of government”?

Mark Levin’s object to restore our constitutionally limited system of government, as our founders intended it to operate, is a cause I not only admire and support, but have been working to achieve since the 1970s. Our only point of contention at this point in time seems to be his approval to call an Article V convention which I see as a very dangerous idea, and for some of the same reasons which Madison summarized as follows:

“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 foundations of 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

“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.

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.