CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: MARK LEVIN REFUTED

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

[itsahoot]

he’d probably give her an opportunity to learn something..

You have to admit there is a certain illogic to the notion that amending the Constitution to make a government obey a Constitution, that they already ignore, seems pointless.

[kevao]

As you see, Art. V makes no provision for a “state convention process” where the States control the convention.

And here I thought a "state convention process" was how the U.S. Constitution was created in the first place. And we're to believe that those founders, who were so famously fearful of centralized power, decided that theirs was the first -- and the very last -- state convention that would ever be allowed under the Constitution?

[kevao]

You have to admit there is a certain illogic to the notion that amending the Constitution to make a government obey a Constitution, that they already ignore, seems pointless.

For one thing, if 2/3 of the state legislatures actually got on board with this, presumably because they believed Fedzilla needed to be reined in constitutionally, then the 17th Amendment would be out, and those state legislatures would each appoint two senators who would follow the constitution.

Sure, that still leaves the House and the Presidency still potentially running afoul of the Constitution, but that was a possibility foreseen by the Founders, and their remedy was the Judiciary -- and note how disastrous that 17th Amendment was to the makeup of the Senate. Judicial confirmations would be much more sane if the senators were once again representing the interests of the states and not the popular will of the people.

[WayneS]

Why did you post this to me?

I have never stated otherwise.

[WayneS]

I was responding to a grammatically ambiguous post made by someone else, and was trying to figure out what HE was saying - I was not declaring my own opinion in that post.

But, now that you mention it, the term "procedural acknowledgement" cannot be found in Article V of the United States Constitution. Congress does not simply "acknowledge", they actually CALL the convention - and Article V tells them that they SHALL call one when 2/3 of the States say they want one.

I have a reasonably thorough understanding of how Constitutional Conventions can or shall be called under Article V of the United States Constitution.

What is not described, or addressed in any way, in the Constitution is the specific make-up of such a convention, including exactly how delegates would be chosen/appointed. These things are not proscribed in our Constitution, and I think Mr. Levin and his constitutional scholars are making a huge mistake if they assume that the States will choose their own delegates just because that is how it was done at the first convention.

The first Constitutional Convention was convened under the Articles of Confederation. There has not been one since. Thus, calling a convention under our Constitution would be new territory.

Unlike Mr. Levin I prefer not to make declarations regarding how congress and/or the courts will address items not specifically detailed in the Constitution. He and they have concluded that the States would choose their own delegates; and while that would be a logical approach, I am not at all sure that is how it would be done.

A Constitutional Convention with delegates hand-picked by the U.S. congress, supreme court and/or president would be a dangerous thing for our republic, in my opinion.

[WayneS]

I agree with everything you wrote, but can you tell me where we can find some candidates "who will respect the federal government's constitutionally limited powers" to elect?

99% of the time, the only candidates I see on the ballot are either the latest hacks from the two ruling crime families, or fringe-element whack-jobs.