Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

5/13/14 | johnwk

[Political Junkie Too]

But will a convention work in his favor? To what extent? Where is the guarantee that nothing will go wrong?

I get the feeling that there is a notion out there, based on the fear of states proposing amendments, that Congress proposing amendments is just fine.

Is that the sentiment?

In Congress, we have a much smaller number of people proposing amendments. 51 Senators and 238 Representatives is all it takes to get a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. And we all know how Senators and Representatives are elected today, and what agendas are driving them.

In the Senate, each state has equal suffrage, but in the House, the smaller states have fewer "delegates" to participate in proposing amendments. Will state delegations to a convention to propose amendments have a similar proportioned make-up, or will the states decide to have more even representation, perhaps giving the smaller states more power in proposing amendments than they would get within Congress?

Conversely, there would be more balance against bad amendments coming from a convention of the states than we might see coming from Congress, due to the larger representation in a state proposing convention. Yes? No?

So why this imputed sanctity for the Congressional method of proposing amendments, versus the outright fear of states proposing amendments?

-PJ

[sickoflibs]

To promote anything some consistency in ideas is required, not swapping constitutional views every time the WH switches parties

Last November Levin goes nuts over last years change by Dems of the Senate filibuster rule. In this video Levin states that minority filibusters of POTUS appointees : '....is exactly what the founders envisioned....obstruction was their intent...'
Video: Mark Levin Goes Nuclear On Obama, Reid, McConnell Over Filibuster Vote (November, 22, 2013)

. But back in 2005 he was recommending that GOP Senate majority Republicans under GWB do exactly what Reid and Obama did last year, that he went nuts over.

Levin :"The problem today is a systemic one, i.e., the misuse of a Senate rule to block judicial nominees from receiving the consent (or rejection) of the full Senate. Each of these candidates reportedly has enough votes for confirmation, but for the unprecedented use or threat of filibusters. The majority has every right and reason to change the rule
Will On Filibusters Considering a column and a battle to come. By Mark R. Levin (NRO March 21, 2005)

[okie01]

On one level, one might claim that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

On another level, one might note that one rarely agrees with anybody else on everything. I know I don't. But that doesn't keep me from respecting the body of another's work.

I'm aware of Levin's dichotomy toward the filibuster. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I also recognize that his argument is directed more toward the Republicans consistently fumbling their approach to the device.

On balance, I appreciate his thinking. And his actions.

You evidently don't. You're welcome to your opinion.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”On one level, one might claim that “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.
On another level, one might note that one rarely agrees with anybody else on everything. “

That example I had had nothing to do with me disagreeing with Levin,
He made one argument when the GOP was in charge of Senate and minority Dems filibustering their nominees, then makes the exact opposite argument ~ 8 years later when both parties were moved to the others shoes.

Worse yet in his 2004 book on judges ‘Men in Black’ he said the majority in Senate has a constitutional right to have a simple majority vote on judicial nominees.

People contradict themselves, Dems sure do,
but we are talking about someone who convinces millions of fan listeners that he is the absolute authority on the constitutions.

That makes it different.

I find him entertaining sometimes, and back in GWB first term or so I was an enthused fan, I still have that book.

[Tenacious 1]

I like listening to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage from time-to-time, but fortunately I can't think for myself and don't regard every word that comes out of their mouths as brilliant scholarly constitutional wisdom.

Well stated. Now you make perfect sense.

[Tenacious 1]

I can’t speak for Mark Levine on your wanting example of hypocrisy. But the grounds for the filibuster on each side of the isle was different BY A LOT.

The Republicans were filibustering based on qualifications and radical political activism pasts. The democrats were filibustering because the judges were strict constitutionalists. The dems did not even make a case. They just said it was their right. The republicans were, in rare form, making cases for their objections to closing debate about the nominees appointments.

[Tenacious 1]

but we are talking about someone who convinces millions of fan listeners that he is the absolute authority on the constitutions.

I don't recall Mark ever claiming that "he is the absolute authority on the constitution." But I have read the Federalist and Anti-Federalists papers, largely inspired by Levine to do so. I have also read some of his books. I have studied the constitution (to some degree) and read some of the founders explanations, arguments and concerns about the founding of our nation. There may very well be a more qualified expert about what's written in the constitution. But I have never heard or known of anyone else that can cite writings, documentation, proof, evidence and rationale about how our founding documents should be interpreted like he does.

Say what you will. I am a very objective and independent thinker. I don't trust anyone (well 2 or 3 other humans maybe). I investigate and have informed opinions. I also humbly change those opinions when warranted if new information is presented that affects my original conclusions. In my mind, there is a lot to learn from Mark Levine. And his passion and frustration is therapeutic for me. It reminds me I'm not the only one who can barely tolerate our political & economic conundrum.

[Loud Mime]

So why this imputed sanctity for the Congressional method of proposing amendments, versus the outright fear of states proposing amendments?

Congress does not meet to propose amendments to the Constitution. Although they do during the course of their session, no amendment has passed muster for many years.

Now we have a proposal for a meeting what's purpose is to engage solely in the Amendment process. We're talking two entirely different processes and designs here.

Anyway, that's besides the points that I wrote earlier.

[Loud Mime]

Best: Repeal of Amendment 17
Worst: States power to override Federal statute by 3/5 vote.

What he’s missing:

Sunset all laws and taxes. Every one has an expiration date and must be reenacted.

[Jacquerie]

Okay, your favorite is a structural amendment. His others are also structural in nature, which cannot be gotten around by activist black-robes. Taken as a whole, his changes would not only re-federalize the government, they would super federalize. Currently unaccountable leftist courts and administrative agencies wouldn't have the final word, for the states could overrule regulations and overturn Scotus decisions.

No argument from me regarding the sunset of laws and taxes.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The Republicans were filibustering based on qualifications and radical political activism pasts. The democrats were filibustering because the judges were strict constitutionalists. The dems did not even make a case. They just said it was their right. The republicans were, in rare form, making cases for their objections to closing debate about the nominees appointments.”

Of course each party filibustered the others judges because they disagree with them. That's not breaking news.

‘Its OK for me but not for thee’ is pretty lame.

[Political Junkie Too]

Congress does not meet to propose amendments to the Constitution. Although they do during the course of their session, no amendment has passed muster for many years.

That's because of the whacky nature of many of the amendments that get proposed, such as the recent one from Chuck Schumer about curtailing political speech in the wake of the Citizen's United ruling from SCOTUS. Just today, Harry Reid is supporting Schumer's proposal. But, the other's in Congress don't take these partisan ideas seriously, and it won't see a vote.

And that's what will happen in a state proposing convention, too. Whacky amendments won't get serious consideration, either, and won't make it to the states.

Now we have a proposal for a meeting what's purpose is to engage solely in the Amendment process. We're talking two entirely different processes and designs here.

No, this is not a "proposal for a meeting," it is states exercising their proper Constitutional powers as a check and balance against an overreaching federal government. One cannot delegitimize it simply because it hasn't been exercised before.

I'm sure that a proposing convention would just as similarly reject a Schumer-like amendment restricting political free speech, and never send it to the states for ratification.

What about other powers in the Constitution that haven't been exercised before? Should those be abandoned too? What about the power of Congress to eliminate or reorganize the lower federal courts? Should Congress never try to exercise their Article III Section 1 power to eliminate and/or recreate "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" in order to oust runaway liberal judges?

-PJ

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[JOHN W K]

What is evil is what Mark is promoting.

Mark Levin promotes keeping the socialist tax on incomes alive with one of his “liberty amendments”! He also promotes keeping the Federal Reserve swindling operation alive with another one of his “liberty amendments.” And, let us not forget that he also promotes a fraudulent balanced budget amendment which would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the federal budget.

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

[Fledermaus]

Pick at those nits and keep watching out for the anal probes.