The truth is, “One of the great objections raised to the new plan of Government had been that the delegates to this Convention had only been empowered by their States to amend the Articles of Confederation, an not to frame a new Constitution”___ The making of the Constitution by Charles Warren, 1937. Pg. 350
Also see letter TO GENERAL WASHINGTON September 30th, 1787:
“It was first urged, that, as the new Constitution was more than an alteration of the Articles of Confederation, under which Congress acted, and ever subverted those Articles altogether, there was a constitutional impropriety in their taking any positive agency in the work.”
Also see the Anti Federalist Papers, John DeWitt, Massachusetts, October 27, 1787, To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
In my last address upon the proceedings of the Federal Convention I endeavored to convince you of the importance of the subject, that it required a cool, dispassionate examination, and a thorough investigation, previous to its adoption -- that it was not a mere revision and amendment of our first Confederation, but a complete System for the future government of the United States…
The truth is, an Article V convention cannot be controlled, just like the delegates to the Convention of 1787 were not controlled. Even Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger confirmed in a letter “…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederated Congress…"
Mark Levin needs to rethink the Pandora’s Box he is willing to open especially when our problem is not a defect in our existing Constitution which needs amending, but rather, our sufferings are caused by our federal government acting in rebellion to our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
JWK
> “Mark Levin needs to rethink the Pandora’s Box he is willing to open especially when our problem is not a defect in our existing Constitution which needs amending, but rather, our sufferings are caused by our federal government acting in rebellion to our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.”
You have entirely missed the big picture here.
There are in effect two potential congresses, one of elected members and one of the people.
For every scare tactic you throw at the congress of the people, that is the state conventions, you could likewise throw at the congress of elected members.
The congress of elected members consists of 535 Senators and Representatives and state convention delegates can be a like number but the key distinction is that the convention delegates can only vote with their state. So in effect the convention effect is of 50 votes and no more.
What makes you think the 535 elected member votes are more controllable than 50 effective state convention votes?
ANSWER: The elected members are not more controllable. In fact they are now more uncontrollable in the sense they pass laws that Americans do not want. They would be content to rewrite the Constitution if it wasn’t for the pesky fact that ratification is handled by states and not them. In fact if the ruling class of elected members could ratify amendments on their own, we would have a de facto socialist form of federal government embedded in our Constitution.
The fact is that conservatives have an overwhelming advantage at the state level. Conservatives will be solidly in favor of convention delegates writing law rather than the ruling class of elected incumbents.