Posted on 05/10/2014 10:27:02 AM PDT by VitacoreVision
The state legislature of Vermont has approved a call for a constitutional convention. Mark Levin has been noticeably silent on this "success."Why Is Mark Levin Keeping Quiet About Vermont’s Article V Resolution?
Advocates of an Article V constitutional convention crow about every state legislative body that passes a resolution calling for such a convention. Chief among these cheerleaders is “conservative” talk-show host/entertainer Mark Levin.
During his daily radio show, Levin regularly reports on the success of states in signing on to the Article V roster. Curiously, however, there is one recent resolution that Levin has failed to flog.
On May 2, the state legislature of Vermont approved a measure making application “for Congress To Call A Convention For Proposing Amendments To The U.s. [sic] Constitution.”
Even a quick peek at the Vermont resolution reveals why Levin has uncharacteristically kept mum about it.
Vermont’s call for a convention purports to limit that meeting to being conducted “for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America that would limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process, including, inter alia, by overturning the Citizens United decision.”
Surely even those self-professed “conservatives” in the Article V camp can see the folly of such language. In fact, it is likely that if they were at liberty to give their opinion without offending those bankrolling this movement, many of them would push hard to shove resolutions such as this one off of the Article V bandwagon.
In fact, some of those monied shot-callers may have been behind the alterations to the text that appear in the final version of the Vermont resolution.
As originally drafted, the proposal read as follows:
That the General Assembly, pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, hereby petitions the U.S. Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and be it furtherResolved: That not intending to condition this petition, Vermont requests that its specific concerns notwithstanding, the agenda of the convention be limited to those matters enumerated by at least 10 of the states calling for the convention.
Noticeably different, but not different enough to remove the fatal flaws.
There are so many potential loopholes in the Vermont measure’s language, each one large enough to allow radical “repairs” to our Constitution to squeeze through. (I have written elsewhere on the enormous and critical distinction between repairing the Constitution and restoring it.)
The John Birch Society has for decades been on the front line of the battle to prevent the Constitution from being opened up to the tinkering of con-con delegates that could be at best, inept, and at worst, purposefully aiming to alter our form of government and replace the current Constitution with something more “progressive” or “democratic.”
On its website devoted to providing educational resources regarding the movement to call a constitutional convention, The John Birch Society explains its position:
Many view a con-con as a quick way to pass amendments they think will stop the big-government juggernaut. Why would politicians suddenly start following an amended Constitution after ignoring and violating the Constitution for so long? The remedy so desperately needed to return our country to good government is to enforce the Constitution, not amend it.
Another disturbing aspect of the Vermont con-con resolution that might explain Levin’s silence is the way it leaves the gates of the Constitution wide open for radical leftists to get their adherents admitted to the convention like some sort of Trojan Horse.
As The New American first reported earlier this year, within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.
Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con.
On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “convention of the states” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:”
To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.
In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will "inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks."
The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and one would imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the “world’s largest online news network.”
For those Article V advocates unfamiliar with the Young Turks, but curious about the journalistic efforts of their fellow con-con collaborators, they should take a few minutes and watch some of their “news” reports. Warning: So much of it is vulgar, vile, and downright unwatchable.
Beyond the puerile content produced by this group, it is certain that conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills so the Young Turks can pump out their videos: George Soros.
Dan Gainor reports:
In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization "is a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets." The list is predictable — everything from Alternet to the Young Turks.
George Soros — the financier of global fascism — is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen.
What will those in Wolf-Pac do if they are able to get “their amendment” proposed and accepted by an Article V convention?
“Celebrate the fact that we had the courage and persistance [sic] to accomplish something truly amazing and historic together.”
Anything a group with this anti-constitutional agenda would do to our Constitution would certainly be historic — in the worst way.
Finally, perhaps the most likely excuse for Levin’s deafening silence on the Vermont measure is the conflict of interest that would be exposed were he to familiarize his followers with the philosophical pretext laid out in the language of the Vermont resolution.
The resolution claims that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case “has resulted in the corrupting influence of powerful economic forces, which have supplanted the will of the people by undermining our ability to choose our political leadership, write our own laws, and determine the fate of our State.”
Setting aside the trite misunderstanding of the First Amendment displayed in that provision, the very mention of Citizens United in a derogatory way puts Levin in a difficult position vis à vis the Vermont measure.
Consider this news item published on the Citizens United website on March 7:
Conservative radio host Mark Levin accepted the first annual Citizens United Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday afternoon before a standing-room-only crowd of hundreds of conservative activists.
Admittedly, it would be hard for Levin to shake his fist at Citizens United with one hand and accept an award from that very organization with the other.
Apart from the uncomfortable conflicts of interest, the language of the Vermont con-con resolution provides a lesson for just the sort of serious damage that could be done should a convention be called and amendments be approved that leave this Republic unrecognizable to those who framed it and sacrificed all to secure its liberty.
Constitutionalists savvy to the serious dangers posed by an Article V constitutional convention are encouraged to seek out representatives of The John Birch Society for more information on this critical contemporary issue.
Related articles:
Nullification vs. Constitutional Convention: How to Save Our Republic
Article V: Con-Con or Nothing Is the Cry of This Cause Célèbre
Article V Group Ignores States' Complicity in Federal Power Grab
Article V Convention: Dangerous Precedent, Dangerous Loyalties
Convention of States and Article V: Tearing Up the Talking Points
Compact for America Proposal Could Increase Federal Power
Convention of the States: Wrong on History, Nullification
Convention of the States: Scholars Ignore History
Repair vs. Restore: Why Constitution Doesn’t Need Article V Fix
In Defense of Con-Con, Meckler Chooses Ridicule Over Rebuttal
Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention
Vermont has always had such a bent. Study their early history and it reveals the same old gar-bage.
Article V ping.
The Birchers really get it wrong on the Article V movement, as their infantile “con-con” snark indicates. It is the only way to take our country back.
The problem is, no one is enforcing it.
Vermont, the state that elected Bernie Sanders to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving 16 years in the House of Representatives.
Exactly. There's some Birchers in my Tea party group and they can never tell me HOW they will go about enforcing it while at the same time asking me how we would enforce any new amendments. They also say a convention would destroy the constitution while at the same time saying the constitution is being destroyed by Washington, D.C.! Apparently, no explanation is necessary on their side while they dismiss the explanations given by the Article V proponents.
It all sounds suspiciously like progressive disinformation and propaganda to me. They are advocating "business as usual" and that helps only the status-quo and the establishment elite in D.C.
And why would we expect these statist administrations to enforce even more conservative amendments?
Because the ultra-left has wanted this convention for as long as I can remember. I do not know what brand of Kool-Aid mark has been drinking, but this convention will see the complete undoing of our liberty.
I lost all respect for Mark when he failed to report on the BC issue in any meaningful manner, in fact he derided those who brought it up as if he was afraid, so he is either a coward or a moron.
Change the Constitution through the process which already exists: remove or add amendments without calling for an Article V Resolution.
Calling for a what would essentially be a Constitutional Congress is like going to war — once that happens, you cannot predict or control the outcome.
I believe it would destroy our Constitution as it now exists, and am opposed to an Article V Resolution action.
You are exactly right—the argument about enforcing the amendments is fixed right in the amendments. The amendments that can get the support of the states and citizens to be enacted are those that shift power back toward the states and away from the fed govt. The fix to the problem of enforcement is clear—the fed won’t support citizens’ rights but the closer power gets to the citizens, the more those rights are likely to be protected.
Having Vermont propose an amendment that shifts power from non-govt groups to the fed govt (which is what it does)is what Vermont does. Vermont is more like Sweden than a state of the US. It no longer fits in the US and its interests will not have the support of the rest of the US. They might as well propose an amendment that maple syrup be legal tender. They are merely jokes to thinking people.
Translation: Business-as-usual. Elect more RINOs.
"I believe it would destroy our Constitution
The Constitution IS BEING DESTROYED! TODAY! RIGHT NOW! THIS MINUTE!
The status-quo is not the answer. If it's risky, so be it. It's time to take a risk.
And I wouldn't put it past them!
They don't need a convention. They're doing it anyway. Every day.
boy the libtarss hate Citizens United~!
[ The Birchers really get it wrong on the Article V movement, as their infantile “con-con” snark indicates. It is the only way to take our country back. ]
Oh I love the Bircher snark of “Well they are already not following the Constitution, so what difference does it make” as if they were Hillary testifying on Ben-Ghazi.
Many if not all of the “Liberty Amendments” would be very hard to ignore like the Term Limits and the repeal of EPA statutes that the states effective veto.
And ALL of the amendments are very much of the “Limit the power of government” type which are very much the opposite of the “Progressive Amendments”.
I see the Article V as a Test/Exit Ramp, if we cannot pass the test or take the exit from the cliff then we deserve to go over the cliff or break apart as a country.
[ “Change the Constitution through the process which already exists”
Translation: Business-as-usual. Elect more RINOs.
“I believe it would destroy our Constitution
The Constitution IS BEING DESTROYED! TODAY! RIGHT NOW! THIS MINUTE!
The status-quo is not the answer. If it’s risky, so be it. It’s time to take a risk. ]
The Constitution is already having a convention it is called the supreme court.
I agree the “The Great one” we need term limits on Supreme Court judges and a mechanism for the states to Void moronic decisions set by the Supreme Court.
I like Levin, but it looks to me like a country that could elect Obama a second time could very well screw up a Constitutional Convention. It’s not like we would have an exclusive rewrite. The Left would get so much crap in there it wouldn’t be funny. Entirely too risky. Better to insist the existing constitution be followed and the Federal government be reduced in size and scope.
George Soros — the financier of global fascism — is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen.
**********
Interesting. This “George Soros/pumping millions into the Art V campaign” meme is quite popular. Looky here how many time/places they’ve used it....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.