He is brilliant, but his idea scares the crap out of me. Mainly because today’s Low Information voter is so woefully ignorant of the Constitution. I fear such a convention would get hijacked by activists and begin implementing FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (right to a job, right to health care, etc.)
There has been a Constitutional question out there that no one has been able to really answer for me yet:
When a Constitutional Convention is called, is the matter(s) laid down in the Convention document the only ones that may be discussed?
Your fears are completely unfounded. Read the background and get educated.
People like you will spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) that will impede the best hope America has of righting itself.
He is not calling for a Constitutional Convention where the Constitution is up for re-write. He IS calling for states legislatures to submit for approval a bunch of amendments. There would have to be approved as amendments to the existing Constitution, as is the more typical case of amendments initiated by congress.
“but his idea scares the crap out of me:
So what do you suggest we do? Stand idly by and watch our Country turned into a Marxist state? At what point do you say, enough? At what point do you stand and fight for your Country against the Marxist? We have gotten to this point, by being complacent and allowed the values that have made our Country great to be eroded over the years by the Marxists. Our founding fathers stood against much great odds than “Low Information voters”. “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” Thomas Jefferson
You do understand that a Constitutional Convention is not a free-for-all townhall? If it is convened by a state legislature, that legislature determines the delegates, and those delegates determine the Rules of Order, including the agenda.
The fear that such a convention could be “hijacked” is a scare tactic intended to keep people quiet.
I just ask, though, that people now stop calling the French cowards
We are living off the courage our WW II forefathers exhibited.
The French are now ahead of us in this dept.
Sure about that? I really doubt it.
I agree with you regarding an Article V Convention getting hijacked and so did James Madison! Madison 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 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 foundationsof 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
I should also add that at the time of the above letter being written which was after our existing Constitution had been ratified, there was a movement afoot by a number of States to call another convention to adopt amendments and a bill of rights to the Constitution, Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph were prominent leaders advocating this idea.
During this time period George Washington recommended that Congress draw up a bill of rights and send it to the States for ratification, and James Madison took up the cause in the House. Washington and Madison both feared a second convention and that a bill of rights proposed by Congress would end the call for a second convention.
On March 4th 1789 Madison and Washington’s efforts paid off when 12 amendments were sent to the states for ratification. SEE: Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
But getting back to you point about a convention being hijacked and who would attend a convention if one were to be called today, Madison appears to be right. During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention called to amend its state constitution, it would up being challenged in U.S. District Court because of the 400 delegates, 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and two legislative lobbyists….the very snakes who are now causing our misery!
The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”
And so, the very snakes who cause our miseries would more than likely dominate the convention. It would not be “We the People” as some may foolishly believe.
Additionally, keep in mind that while the Articles of Confederation were in effect, the convention of 1787 was called for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“, See: Credentials of the Members of the Federal Convention. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; April 9, 1787
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 what happened? We wound up with an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government, powers ceded to the new government, and the new government was instructed to assume the various State debts incurred during the Revolutionary War as part of the deal agreed to during the convention. The historical fact is, once the convention convened it considered itself as having a greater latitude than the limited purpose for which the States convened the convention.
Here is a great article by David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh’s brother: Constitutional Convention Is a Dangerous Idea
The article begins: The left's assault on liberty never rests, so don't ever be sucked into supporting the dangerous idea of a new constitutional convention, even if its stated purposes purport to be limited.
I would love to hear Mark Levin address the following questions. If two thirds of the Legislatures of the States did make “Application” for an Article V Convention, who is actually in charge of calling the “Convention for proposing Amendments”? Is it not Congress? And who is in charge of making the rules and regulations governing the convention? For example, will Congress be in charge of selecting the delegates to a convention and determine their necessary qualifications? Perhaps Congress will give us another “Gang of Eight” to rewrite our Constitution or the gang of 12 which gave us sequestration.
Just what are the rules which govern an Article V Convention? Seems to me, in the final analysis, Congress and our tyrannical Supreme Court have extraordinary manipulative powers over the whole Article V Convention process.
Why would any true patriot place the fate of our country in the hands of the very folks who now cause our sufferings by giving them an opportunity to fundamentally transform America’s Constitution and make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional?
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?