Replies

I take it from your response that you do not disagree that:

1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;

2) that Congress and our Supreme Court would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

3) that every snake on earth with self interests such as ACORN would be draw to the convention as a delegate;

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be draw up by the Convention;

5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

7) And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention will adopted to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, they arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

SEE: Articles of Confederation

XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

There are many unanswered questions concerning an Article V convention, and yet, Mark Levin has decided to jump on the Article V bandwagon which Madison warned us against! The problem with this is, there is a very well funded organized effort by some very devious actors who have been trying to get enough State Legislatures to make application for an Article V convention and they are having success, e.g., see: Georgia lawmakers seek constitutional convention for federal budget

By Walter C. Jones
Morris News Service
Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:13 PM
ATLANTA _The Georgia Senate voted Thursday to petition Congress for a constitutional convention to consider requiring the federal government stick to balanced budgets.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to hold a convention if 34 states pass resolutions calling for one.
Thursday’s vote of 39-13 was largely along party lines on Senate Resolution 267 by Sen. Bill Cowsert, R-Athens.

The fact is, this Article V convention crap has been going on in the shadows for several years. With Mark Levin now jumping on the Article V convention bandwagon, although he may not be connected with the above mentioned group, his call as a “conservative” for an Article V convention aids these scoundrels by having a trusted "constitutional conservative leader" promoting their idea which in effect will have many of Marks fans dropping their guard because they have faith in Mark.

Mark Levin needs to take off his rose colored glasses and carefully study Madison’s warning about calling a second convention. He also needs to answer some of the unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention.

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.