CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: MARK LEVIN REFUTED

American Clarion ^ | 9/15/2013 | Publius Hulday

[BreezyDog]

I’m in the middle of reading the book and concur with what post #19 says.

[WayneS]

Where in the Constitution does it proscribe that each state appoints its own delegates to a constitutional convention called under Article V?

[WayneS]

Thank you.

[katwoman5779]

Another long winded bufoonish hit piece. I think Mark should debate her. It would be fun to watch.

[WayneS]

I think you have made an excellent point.

[Lee'sGhost]

I think Levine does that, to an extent.

The author writes, “It is idiotic to assert that you can rein in a federal government which ignores the Constitution by amending the Constitution!”

I find this statement to be totally lacking of insight into Levine’s approach. It is NOT idiotic to try and rein in a federal government which ignores the Constitution if the amendments SHIFT the power back into the hands of the states and people where it belongs. And while it may be possible that federal government would continue to ignore the Constitution — even as amended — it would require Obama despots to blatantly reject the power and demands of the people rather than simply rejecting the Constitution in a cocoon of “federal power” as is being done now.

To say it another way, it is one thing to ignore the Constitution in an environment of an ignorant, disengaged population vs. ignoring a robust and active population demanding its power back through LEGAL means. It is the brilliance of our Founders that this is possible and allows such “revolution” without arms. Should Obama despots choose to ignore THAT, then the only resort would be armed rebellion. And rightly so.

[jimpick]

I have made a mistake above in post number 19. I stated that it was 3/4 of the States that must petition Congress. Mark actually states that it must be 2/3 that petition and 3/4 to ratify.

[the_doc]

PH is dead wrong on several points. The Levin Amendments are necessary for making it an order of magnitude more difficult for Congress to become (or continue to be) a political class of Oath-breakers. PH's claim that Levin's strategy is idiotic is idiotic. Also, her point that the States can't call a Convention into being is lame. Article V says that "The Congress...shall call a Convention" whenever 2/3 of the States make Application for same.

[WayneS]

No worries. I knew what you meant.

[DJ MacWoW]

Nullification by states can not be legally accomplished. It could be illegally accomplished, by permissive or abusive prosecutorial discretion, or revolution.

Except that Jefferson and Madison did nullify a federal law in Kentucky and Virginia, the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[jimpick]

Mark has talked about previous constitutional conventions on his radio show that had state appointed delegates. I don't think this point is a valid argument based on past conventions. I may be wrong but I believe that Mark has stated this on his show. I don't have time to dig this out for fact but to the best of my knowledge this is what Mark has stated.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

What is a Publius Huldah?

Karl Rove.

[Bratch]

It is idiotic to assert that you can rein in a federal government which ignores the Constitution by amending the Constitution!

This.

You can add amendments until the cows come home but if no one in Washington pays any attention to them...

[Dick Bachert]

I’ll forward a link to this thread to PH and urge her to debate Levin. Better yet, how about you Levin listeners call in and urge Levin to throw out an invite to PH? If he refuses, it might be an indicator of his strength in his research.

[WayneS]

I think the author’s point is: If congress ignores the Constitution now, what will cause them to NOT ignore an amended constitution?

I think that is a valid question.

Also, what makes you think that the currently disengaged populace is going to suddenly become robust and active? A Constitutional Convention? I doubt it, especially if paying attention to it cuts in to their American Idol watching schedule.

I’m not saying we should NOT try to have a Constitutional Convention - I simply doubt that it would be very effective in reigning in the power-hungry elitists whom “We the People” continue to place in office.

[Postman]

Si!

[WayneS]

To my knowledge, there has only been one previous Constitutional Convention, and it was called while the country still operated under the Articles of Confederation.

[Jacquerie]

I did a quick check of two, smelly assertions by what's-her-face. She was wrong on both.

Just laugh at the sad sight of someone pitifully trying to make a name for herself.

Mark shouldn't and won't respond.

[truth_seeker]

Conservatives would do well to redirect much of this energy, to convincing, converting, persuading others to be conservative.

And getting them to vote conservative. Therefore winning more seats.

Absent that, all the philosophizing in the world, from a minority position, is mostly ineffective.

Holding a less-than-veto-proof majority of one house isn’t enough.

[Bulldaddy]

No, that would not be “better yet.” Very few will carry the flag for PH. Maybe you will, but until she demonstrates she’s even read his book, much less has a correct handle on the subject matter, I certainly won’t give her the time of day. Sad to see PH try and make a name for herself by being the “anti-Levin.”