See Talk radio star Mark Levin joins Fox News Channel with weekly show
”Fox News announced on Tuesday that nationally syndicated radio talk show personality Mark Levin will join the network with a weekly, weekend primetime show titled, “Life, Liberty & Levin.”
“Mark’s passion for the principles found in the Constitution and success in talk radio has made him a distinct figure in the media landscape. We look forward to adding this spirited program to our weekend lineup,” Fox News President of Programming Suzanne Scott said.”
This is good news and bad news! Being one of the few who have actually taken the time to have passionately studied the making of our Constitution ___ researching Madison’s Notes on the Convention, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliots’ Debates and other historical documents documenting our Constitution’s legislative intent ___ I appreciate Mark’s endless task of educating people to the legislative intent of our Constitution and exposing today’s assault upon it by Congress, and especially federal judges and Justices who knowingly and willingly ignore both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution.
On the other hand, I am very distressed that Mark Levin has been calling for an Article V convention under which our entire Constitution would be put up for grabs by all the snakes and other Swamp Creatures who would find their way into the Convention should one be called.
I remember during the 1980s many so-called "conservatives" were pushing for a Convention to allegedly write a "balanced budget amendment", but the amendment these "conservatives" were pushing, if adopted, would have made it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget.
On almost all issues I agree with Mark, but his desire to call for a convention under Article V is a very, very suspicious and dangerous idea as indicated by James Madison:
”3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.” ___ Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville, dated November 2, 1788
The fact is, an Article V Convention is a very dangerous idea because:
1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;
2) that Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;
3) that every snake on earth with self-interests such as ACORN would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;
4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;
5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;
6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;
7) and, we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention would adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.
Chief Justice, Warren Burger, stated in 1988, “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that 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 the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
See Talk radio star Mark Levin joins Fox News Channel with weekly show
Actually, not entirely true. A convention can be called by 2/3rds of the States and 2/3rds of the States are under GOP control. State Legislators can control what’s discussed and considered. Right now, the talk is about assessing term limits on Congress-critters the judiciary and passing a balanced-budget amendment like most States must deal with…period. All such a convention has to do is agree to those things and they BECOME amendments automatically. The US Supreme Court and/or Congress have nothing to do with anything in an Article V convention.
What isn’t true? And what are your comments with regard to my list of objections? Just curious.
Our Global Governance Crowd would certainly love an Article V Convention.
State legislators have no control over the convention proceedings. The delegates to the convention control that. What are the rules for selecting the delegates? Answer: There are none. Who will make the rules? Answer the body that CALLS the convention. Who is that? Answer: The United States Congress CALLS the convention upon APPLICATION of 2/3-rds of the states.
No, the convention proposes amendments which then must be ratified by the legislators of 3/4-ths of the states. There might be a time limit for ratifications, like 10 years for the ERA, or it might be open ended in terms of when ratifications can occur. Historical precedent with the 14th amendment has shown that once a states ratifies, it cannot un-ratify. I don’t care how many state legislatures are controlled by republicans TODAY. How many in 2020, 2025 or 2030?
As johnwk has pointed out, it will be a political nightmare. The rules for selecting delegates will come from the deepest part of the swamp…The United States Congress.
During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very type of swamp creatures who are now causing our misery! Should we really have any confidence in these sorts of people who would most certainly find their way into the convention?
The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”
Is it not obvious Madison was right when he said calling a second Convention would "…probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric."
**Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.**
It’d be extraordinarily difficult to both hold a convention, and get the provisions it wrote up accepted into the Constitution.
You need delegates from 33 states just to hold the Convention, and then you need 38 state legislatures ( both houses) to ratify it for whatever measures the Convention decided on to be adopted as amendments into the Constitution.
Right now, Congress avoids Supermajority rules, because they can’t manage anything more than simple majorities themselves most of the time.
The idea you could easily get a super majority of State legislatures is pretty specious.
It doesn’t matter: If they can’t propose a measure that can get the legislatures of 38 states to agree to it, it’s dead on delivery.
Not true; our misery is due to runaway Exercises of Federal power, which are made possible by its runaway capability to spend more and more money.
The government in the 19th century stayed contained, because its main source of revenue was tariffs. It was too small and too underfunded to interfere in most matters of the States.
Starve the beat, force it to make choices, and its power over everyone else will diminish. It directly answers our problems.
Your post indicates it’s a stupid idea to call a convention. While it may be stupid, it is also a very dangerous idea.
Your words indicate you agree the root cause of our misery is a failure of our federal government to adhere to our written Constitution and its legislative intent. If this be true, and it is, then calling a convention is an absurd attempt to compel our federal government to adhere to the rule of law.
Nope, John, you just haven’t actually read on what the restrictions on the convention actually are, and you don’t get just how prohibitive a restriction “super-majority” is. You underestimate how hard that is to get.
Super majorities (3/4 int his case) are an exceedingly rare consensus, that’s why the Founders listed it as a condition for amendments to pass. To make sure only something with a consensus that strong could pass muster.
It’s certainly a better vetted measure then simply letting Congress take care of it. State legislatures together are more trustworthy in crafting amendments, I’ll bet money on it.
Your assertions are unsubstantiated and intended to obfuscate with regard to the specific objections listed in the OP.
Congress gutted their own super majority rule, and that wasn’t even 3/4.
Either prove how 3/4 is easily attainable, or you’re wrong John.
What on earth does your postings have to do with the listed concerns should a constitutional convention be called?
If you can’t get a supermajority to sign off on the amendments, there is no risk.
Unless a 3/4 consensus is reached, nothing is adopted.
ACORN can’t suggest whatever they want, and expect states like North Carolina, Georgia and Texas to sign off on them.
You haven’t thought this through John. How are they getting the Supermajority?
You pretend this is easy, yet you give no indication of how they would get Red State approval, which they would need in order to reach that Supermajority.
Well, you apparently are not familiar with the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Keep in mind the Delegates at the 1787 Convention ignored the rule that the Articles of Confederation could not be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States, and they decided that the new constitution would become effective if a mere nine States ratified it.
Calling a constitutional convention, contrary to your thinking, does pose very real risks.
That wasn’t an article V convention.
Article V convention, has rules, listed in Article V. You need 2/3 of the States just to hold a convention, and 3/4 to pass anything as amendments.
Those are the listed rules.
So either tell me how it is liberal will get this consensus, or you’re criticisms aren’t correct.
Doesn’t matter: they applied it only to those states who accepted it. Eventually, all the states did. If any states hadn’t, those states would have become their own country.
And the Articles of Confederation had rules. Were they not ignored by the convention?
And it was followed retroactively. Only states who agreed with the 1787 convention adopted it. Any of the states could have refused, and become their own country (or less than 7 could have accepted, and made the measure fail altogether).
None did, thus, all of the states gave their consent.
It’s not likely at all that an Article V convention would risk breaking up the Union in the same manner. It’s more likely anything they propose simply wouldn’t be adopted.
Mark Levin’s egotistical and wrongheaded call for a constitutional convention
Mark Levin, when confronted on his radio show with questions that indicate his call for a constitutional convention are wrongheaded, constantly hides behind insulting remarks [referencing the caller as an idiot, stupid, etc.] and panhandles political identifications [liberal, left-wing, socialist, etc.] which have no bearing on the questions asked. He also filibusters callers and prevents them from defending their position. This is how he avoids a sincere discussion regarding very real concerns which surround the calling of a convention under Article V.
It appears Mark Levin would rather put our entire Constitution up for grabs than diligently defend both its text and legislative intent which gives context to its text. I say this because, the countless sufferings we now experience are not because of defects in our written Constitution. They are a result of people like Mark Levin who are unwilling to defend specific provisions in our Constitution, an example being the reasons why the Founders demanded both representatives and direct taxes would be apportioned.
Mark Levin desires to re-write our Constitution to accommodate his personal predilections and beliefs. Are we to forget his egotistical “Liberty Amendments” which are a sophomoric and ill-advised attempt to accomplish, in several instances, what our original Constitutional already commands?
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly,
Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?'A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin
Excellent! I love Mark!
I also like Mark Levin. But when it comes to his desire to call a convention under Article V, he constantly avoids addressing various concerns which arise and indicate calling a convention is a very, very dangerous idea.