Exclusive — Mark Meckler: Constitutional Convention Is How ‘We, the People’ Take Power Away from D.C.

breitbart.com ^ | 9/17/2022 | Jordan Dixon-Hamilton

[servantboy777]

>>Or the liberals take over the convention and Conservatives lose ….. too risky<<

A constitutional convention when called has an agenda before it convenes. It is not a constitutional free for all.

I for one don’t think a CV will ever happen. Too many on the state level that have national aspirations. They end up pissin off support in the U.S. Senate and or House, it may doom chances of running on the national stage.

For this reason, I don’t believe a convention of the states will ever come to fruition. It’s all about power and $$$.

[Jim W N]

No, ENFORCEMENT of the Constitution AS WRITTEN and ORIGIANLLY understood and intended is how our Free Constitutional Republic is reborn.

A constitutional convention misses the issue and opens the door for MORE abuse.

[srmanuel]

I have a tendency to agree with you, but I’m warming up to the idea that we are slowly losing the country and where the constitution is irrelevant so why not do something now that takes this situation out of the hands Washington and into the States.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

rktman :" ..Anyone think a convention today would be fair and balanced?.."

He** NO !
The Founding Fathers were principled and religious men
The number of trustworthy and principled men in Washington I can count on my two hands !
Most of the Washington establishment can be bought off,.. right Geo. Soros ?
They hold Hunter in high esteem for his craftyness.

[FreeReign]

An Article V Convention of States is NOT a "Constitutional Convention."

The term is being used interchangeably.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

This article indicates that 34 States on their own could call a Constitutional Convention and basically set up their own rules and agenda.

That's independent of an Article V Convention.

They could do that right now if they had the votes.

But they don't, so they aren't.

[MileHi]

You don’t understand how Article 5 works.

[srmanuel]

The gist of this article is the States calling for a convention which is what I was referring to and what this article details.

[glennaro]

I've spent hours "with" Mark Levin and reading the original sources of the Constitutional proceedings and debates. I have a reasonable understanding of Article 5 and a deep respect for the Founders for providing it in the Constitution.

My point is that I think that in America as our Republic exists today, it would be a dreadful mistake to attempt it. Be assured that I understand -- and mostly respect -- the thoughtful opinions of those on this forum who disagree. These differences of opinion -- as well as the topic itself -- are surely worthy of serious discussion and this forum would be an excellent place to conduct it ... in detail. Cheers!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The gist of this article is the States calling for a convention which is what I was referring to and what this article details.

You seem to be very adept at wringing your hands instead of actually doing something.

[Flying Circus]

Who do you your state reps or your federal reps? I say the state reps: they aren’t as corrupted with power, have more to gain and less to lose from new state’s right amendments. Our system of government isn’t built on our being perfect and moral creatures, but has a complex balance of powers. The balance of power has shifted too far to the feds and article V is the only way to move it back without bloodshed.

[Political Junkie Too]

Doesn’t Congress have a role in that process?

Yes.

Congress chooses the method of ratification for EACH proposed amendment, not for the slate of proposed amendments as one single ratification.

The two methods that Congress can choose are: 1) ratification by the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states, or 2) ratification by convention in 3/4ths of the states.

Only one amendment was ratified by convention, the 21st amendment, which repealed prohibition. All the rest were ratified by state legislature vote.

These days, I wonder if a Democrat-controlled Congress would choose the convention method because a majority of the state legislatures are Republican controlled? In fact, to slow things down and cause the most chaos, would they insist that each proposed amendment be ratified by its own separate convention?

-PJ

[redrhino47]

he balance of power has shifted too far to the feds and article V is the only way to move it back without bloodshed.

That’s it, in a nutshell, thanks.

[srmanuel]

You have no idea who I am or what I do other than posting and responding to articles on FR, in a respectful manner, but they’re always one person who comes along to exert their supposed expertise and offering nothing in process, congrats on being that person.

[rktman]

Leading to an actual CC. I don’t trust them even this early. 😎✌

[vpintheak]

We’ve already got the Constitution, which already does that, but the FedGov ignores it and does what it wants anyway. Including the Supreme Court.
Doing this is a pipe dream and a waste of time. There is NO WAY anyone could convince me anything good would come of this.

[bobbo666]

Another consideration that makes a CC approachable is that all subjects up for discussion and voting must be approved beforehand. So, it is impossible for changes to be slipped in — like all the pork crappola liberals use to fill their pockets.

Here is a suggestion: all executive depts must be moved out of DC and rotated regularly around the country. Spread the tax $$ and get rid of the professional bureaucrats.

[rktman]

Experts? Say, didn’t ‘experts’ tell us to get vaxxed and boostered or face certain painful suffering and death if we didn’t? Didn’t listen to them either. 😎✌

[redrhino47]

There is NO WAY anyone could convince me anything good would come of this.

Levin’s book was years ago. I’m sure the Trump team is aware of this option. I’ll let them decide.

I wouldn’t rule it out, though. JMO

[Alter Kaker]

Great! Let’s put the California legislature in charge of the country. What could go wrong???