It is not a constitutional convention (CC). It is a states convention that proposes amendments in accordance with the Constitution to the already existing Constitution. It takes 2/3s of states to propose an amendment. That’s 34 states. Then it takes 3/4s of states to ratify the amendment, that’s 38 states.
There is no risk of states conventions becoming a full blown CC that will run amok.
Would the leaders of the two political parties ultimately be the ones deciding the amendments and their passage or failure?
John Boehner is the most powerful politician from my state and John Kasich is my Governor. If those two would have any degree of influence in the process, I think I would just as soon pass.
Our laws are not our problem. Our ignorant, lazy, virtue-less, greedy, jealous, entitled, power hungry, covetous people are our problem.
Levin would be correct if there were a sea of good, virtuous people being oppressed by this tyrannical government. The part he misses is that we have consistently voted for this tyrannical government because it is easier than being responsible for ourselves.
“It is not a constitutional convention (CC).”
Oh, my bad. I should read an article some time.
-— It is not a constitutional convention (CC). It is a states convention that proposes amendments in accordance with the Constitution to the already existing Constitution. It takes 2/3s of states to propose an amendment. That’s 34 states. Then it takes 3/4s of states to ratify the amendment, that’s 38 states.
There is no risk of states conventions becoming a full blown CC that will run amok. ——
This will have to be repeated continually.
Anyway, COUNT ME IN.
MAKE THEM RESPOND TO OUR AGENDA.
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