So here we go.
An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention.
Comprende?
Does Article 5 not also open the existing Amendments to... well, amendment?
Here’s something quite a few freepers have yet to get their heads:
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Mark Levin is not God and not everything he says is infalliable wisdom on how to save our Republic.
Comprende?
See: Credentials of the Members of the Federal Convention. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; April 9, 1787
(Seal appendt). By His Excellency James Bowdoin Esquire Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
To the Honorable Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King and Caleb Strong Esquires. Greeting.
Whereas Congress did on the twenty first day of February Ao Di 1787, Resolve "that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of Delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States to be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." And Whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their Delegates to attend and represent this Commonwealth in the said proposed Convention; and have by Resolution of theirs of the tenth of March last, requested me to Commission you for that purpose.
Now therefore Know Ye, that in pursuance of the resolutions aforesaid, I do by these presents, commission you the said Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King & Caleb Strong Esquires or any three of you to meet such Delegates as may be appointed by the other or any of the other States in the Union to meet in Convention at Philadelphia at the time and for the purposes aforesaid.
In Testimony whereof I have caused the Public Seal of the Commonwealth aforesaid to be hereunto affixed.
Given at the Council Chamber in Boston the Ninth day of April Ao Dom. 1787 and in the Eleventh Year of the Independence of the United States of America.
JAMES BOWDOIN
By His Excellency's Command.
JOHN AVERY JUNr., Secretary
_________
These same words appear in almost every State's call for the Convention of 1787, and we wound up with a entirely new Constitution, not a simple revision. Mark Levin, by his very own words, is proposing to utilize the second process outlined in article V, which is exactly what took place in1787 and was the calling of a convention for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, but culminated in the ratification of an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government, a number of powers being ceded to the new Government, and, the new government assuming State debts incurred during the Revolutionary War.
JWK
Yes, I’ve heard this before. I’ve read it before. I’ve discussed this before.
You think those who disagree with you don’t understand you. But we do.
Amendments mean nothing when we don’t follow the Constitution in the first place. Yet some people believe that new amendments will make all the difference in the world. I believe that is foolish. If this was as great of a plan as the proponents believe the liberals would be wildly against it.
They are rather quiet. What does that tell you? Oh, never mind.
And stop being childish with your stuck keyboard.