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

SEE: Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.

If Duncan Hunter wants to balance the annual budget, then why does he not “push” for and demand the apportioned direct tax which is in our Constitution be used to extinguish annual deficits as our Founding Fathers intended?

The liars are at it again, pretending their objectives are noble, but their ultimate aim is to convene a convention so those who now hold power at the federal and state level may rewrite our Constitution and make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional.

How is the budget to be balanced? The answer is found in a number of our State Ratification documents which gave birth to our Constitution, for example see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s share is determined.

Did you ever hear Mark Levin inform his listening audience that our founders put the emergency apportioned direct taxing power in the Constitution to be used when imposts, duties, and excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures ? I haven’t. But Mark Levin wants a convention so he can promote his socialist flat tax which he now does with one of his “liberty amendments”.

A flat tax calculated from incomes, even if “flat”, does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners.

Hey Mark, does your flat tax end our despotic federal government from arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not taxable income? No! Does your socialist tax on profits gains and other “incomes” end our Washington Establishment’s use of taxation to intentionally seek out America’s productive hard working citizens and transfer the bread they have earned to a dependent voting block who prostitutes their vote for free government cheese? No! Tell us Mark Levin, how about the devastating and slavish manipulations carried out under this socialist tax calculated from incomes? Does your flat tax end that and class warfare? No! Or, would your flat tax end taxation being used as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government? Heck No! So why are you comfortable with a flat tax which in turn is a component part of a despotic federal government? I know why….you are part of the Washington Establishment which works to defeat the miracle our founding fathers created.

If you were really sincere about supporting our founding fathers Mark, you would be promoting a return to our Constitutions ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate with the following H.J.RESOLUTION:

House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.

JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.