Walter Williams vs Mark Levin’s desire for an Article V Convention


#1

On Mark Levin’s first show on Fox News Channel, 2/25/18, “Life, Liberty and Levin”, Mr. Levin suggests to Walter Williams that we should convene a convention under Article V to deal with our present government which is moving toward a totalitarian system as noted by Mr. Williams __ LINK

In defending his desire for calling a convention, Mr. Levin notes that James Madison was in favor of the Convention of 1787, but he curiously neglects to acknowledge that James Madison later expressed his apprehensions of calling a convention under Article V which he did in a letter to George Tuberville dated November 2, 1788, months after New York and Virginia had ratified our existing Constitution and wanted a convention called under Article V in order to adopt a Bill of Rights.

In any event, in response to Mr. Levin’s desire to call a Convention under Article V, Mr. Williams, as did James Madison, expressed a fear that the people who would likely attend the convention will not be people line “Benjamin Franklin or George Mason”, it would more than likely be people like “Nancy Pelosi”, which is another way of telling Mark Levin the same thing Madison told George Lee Tuberville regarding a convention being called under Article V:

”… 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.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788

In answer to Mr. Williams’s belief that such a convention would draw people like Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Levin responded by saying the Nancy Pelosi types won’t be in “Kansas”.

So, how do we know the type of people who would be selected as delegates if a convention were called under Article V? To answer that question one only needs to recall what happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to revise its State Constitution. During this time a suit was filed in U.S. District Court, claiming the makeup of delegates violated the separation of powers doctrine of the of the United States Constitution. 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 people who are now causing our misery!

As reported in the Union Leader, 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 public 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.”

The bottom line is, Mark Levin’s assertion that Nancy Pelosi types won’t be in “Kansas”, is wishful thinking at best! At worst, you can bet your bottom dollar every snake on earth will be trying find, or buy their way into such a convention if one were to be called in order to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional and the very cause of our existing sufferings . The fault is not in our existing Constitution. Rather, the fault is found in a failure to enforce its defined and limited powers.

Walter Williams, as usual, is once again spot on, just as Phyllis Schlafly, America’s conservative icon was, who likewise spoke out against the call for a convention under Article V, and for some of the same reasons as James Madison.

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence


#2

Spot on.


#3

A constitutional convention could very well inspire rioting in the street not to mention an actual civil war! Sometimes I believe there are those who wish for rioting and a civil war, thinking such events could actually lead to Marshall Law and an end to self governance and an iron fisted, dictatorial type of government with current agitators at the helm.

JWK

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.


#4

I agree that the issue which dwarfs all others is the failure to respect the Constitution as written, not a lack of detail that requires editing.

The political class doesn’t respect the Constitution because the people who elect them don’t respect the Constitution, they have different priorities.

Besides, the only edit I want is one that I could not make even if I was “god for a day”, that would be establishing something less prone to corruption as a check for the Judicial Branch; but try as I might I have not been able to come up with a solution that would be better than our current failed structure.

So I see nothing to gain and everything to lose from an article V convention, with the possible exception of pushing those who still respect the Constitution further toward the only viable path of correction; peaceful secession and the establishment of a new Union under the vision of our Founders.

The common element that bound this Union together historically was the desire to be free and the individual authority to be the “last word” in our own life decisions, there are a great many regions and citizens today who do not possess such desires and the desires that they do pursue are incompatible with the Rights of Individual self determination; with such opposing foundations how can direct unity endure?

Different Nations can be allies with such philosophical disagreements because the basis of their relationship can be limited to a few specific things like trade and shared defense responsibilities; the minutia of daily governance is not shared in such an allied relationship.

But trying to have one government over a Nation that is made up of citizens with completely opposite foundational ideals is a pointless endeavor.

If an Article V convention served as the proof of my analysis to the many who think our divisions in the United States are not nearly as complete and hopeless as I am describing them, that epiphany could the shift the focus away from “fixing us” to a well organized peaceful secession; such a result would make an Article V convention worth the risk.

But that is an enormous “if”.


#5

One thing I noticed during Mr. Levin’s interview with Mr. Williams, LINK, Mark’s body language indicated he was furious when Mr. Williams expressed he was not too enthusiastic about calling a convention.

Mark’s body language, and use of the phrase “fear mongering”, also indicated great frustration when Mr. Williams correctly pointed out if such a convention were called, it would more than likely be controlled by the very type of people [Nancy Pelosi] who have, and are now causing our sufferings, and that includes Republicans and Democrats who now hold political power.

I think Mr. Levin ought to carefully consider Madison’s expressed fears if a convention were called under Article V. He should also take note of the reasons why Phyllis Schlafly battled against the calling of a convention up till the day of her death.

JWK

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.’ “_


#6

QFT

Which suggests that we won’t get anything but a new constitution that eliminates all of the impediments to their agendas.


#7

Mark Levin’s blind spot on calling a convention: common sense and logic

.
In reviewing the following quote from a Hannity transcript, keep in mind Mr. Levin is one of the primary leaders advocating the call for a convention under Article V.

HANNITY:

’’Let me ask you, and follow up on that. Because lawmakers exempt themselves from ObamaCare. And the American people, if it is good for them, why isn’t it good for them and their staffs?’’

LEVIN:

’’Because we have these governing masterminds, this professional ruling class. And when you look at the framers (audio gap), there was never supposed to be a professional ruling class. There was this thing called rotation in and out of office. That’s why the senator served six years. Congressmen, two years. But they didn’t have term limits back then because it never even occurred to them that you would have senators serving 36, 42 years, or members of the House, 20, 30, 40 years. It didn’t even occur to them. They felt strongly in a citizen legislature.

And it is interesting. Thomas Jefferson who was not at the constitutional convention, one of the complaints he had about the Constitution, and he ended up supporting it, was this issue of rotation. He thought members of the House shouldn’t serve more than one year. And interestingly just on that one subject, in most of the 1800s, members of the House served two years and that was it. Fifty percent of them there was turnover.’’

Note how Mr. Levin refers to those who now hold political power as “governing masterminds”, and a “professional ruling class.” Levin goes on to mention Thomas Jefferson’s support for a “rotation” of them [our “governing masterminds”, and a “professional ruling class.”]. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter, also referred to the delegates of the convention of 1787 as “demigods”. Why is all this important with regard to Levin promoting a convention?

To answer that question we need to be fully aware as to who would attend a convention under Article V if one were called? Who would be in charge of appointing a State’s Delegates? Would it not be the very “governing masterminds”, and a “professional ruling class” who Levin expresses a scorn for?

Considering our existing dangerous politically charged atmosphere, which in many cases has already erupted in numerous demonstrations resulting in property damage and mayhem, Madison’s fear of a convention under Article V is even more applicable to today’s circumstances than it was when he first expressed them:

”… 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.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788

JWK

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.’ “


#8

Idaho, a conservative Republican stronghold, rejects a convention of states

See: House committee defeats resolution calling for constitutional convention

Feb 10, 2018

” BOISE - Idaho will not be joining other states in calling for an Article V convention to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Despite heartfelt pleas for faith, inspiration, trust and patriotism, the House State Affairs Committee defeated an Article V resolution on a 10-5 vote Friday.”

The article is fair and balanced and goes on to point out “Article V doesn’t provide any guidelines or rules for how a convention of the states would operate. It’s unclear, for example, whether the convention could be limited to discussing a single topic, such as a balanced budget amendment. It’s unclear how many votes states would have when deciding on amendment - one per state, or multiple votes based on population.”

JWK

”The deception of the appeal for a “convention of states” lies first of all in the name of the project. If you open your pocket Constitution, it’s easy to see that the convention authorized by Article V would not be a “convention of states” in any sense of the word.” __ Phyllis Schlafly, 5/24/2016


#9

David Horowitz prefers name calling over debate on dangers of Article V Convention

.

SEE: David Horowitz: Why Conservatives Need to Amend the Constitution Now

Mr. Horowitz begins his article by writing:

”What do the John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, Common Cause and Planned Parenthood have in common? They all oppose the states’ use of Article V of our Constitution to impose and enforce constitutional limits on Washington.”

Mr. Horowitz goes on to write:

”While it is no surprise that Marxist-leaning groups would fight, tooth and nail, to resist any plan for breaking the federal government’s virtual monopoly on policy-making, all conservatives agree that this monopoly is a perversion of our federal system. But, sadly, the Left’s propaganda and junk history have brainwashed some conservatives into opposing the states’ use of constitutional power to check federal overreach.”

Indeed, in Mr. Horowitz’s view, that conservatives who oppose the call for a convention under Article V have been “brainwashed” by, “the Left’s propaganda and junk history”, is absurd and disingenuous to say the least. In fact, conservatives who oppose the call base their reasoning on historical facts and unanswered questions which Mr. Horowitz should address rather than insulting these patriotic Americans and portray the opponents of an Article V convention as sympathizing with “Marxist-leaning groups” and “the radical Left”.

Hey, Mr. Horowitz, how about addressing a few of the unanswered questions and dangers of calling a “convention of states”, which I might add is found nowhere in the text of the Constitution? The Constitution merely declares that Congress shall “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” if the required number of State Legislatures make application.

In the meantime Mr. Horowitz, let me suggest you study Here Be Dragons: Dangers Of A Constitutional Convention and then address the dangers and unanswered questions instead of adolescent name calling.

JWK

”The deception of the appeal for a “convention of states” lies first of all in the name of the project. If you open your pocket Constitution, it’s easy to see that the convention authorized by Article V would not be a “convention of states” in any sense of the word.” __ Phyllis Schlafly, 5/24/2016


#10

He didn’t “name call” anywhere, but you are being taken in by bad conceptions.

Today, as the article points out, we can’t get most things passed in Congress without a simple majority, and we had to destroy Senate Rule to allow for that.

Ratification of an amendment requires 3/4 of state legislatures to approve. That’s a rare thing to see in Congress, and individual members of Congress, isn’t a body of legislatures onto their own.

Most amendments written have never been ratified for. this. reason., and an Article V convention doesn’t offer any kind of shortcut to ratification.

For all the talk of how Congress could hijack it, Congress has more input in the typical amendment process; States get more leverage in Article V. Since we all agree States are better guided than Congress, it’s worth seeing what they can put out there.

And as to “lawsuits”, that is nonsense. Trump is getting sued over his handling of the EPA; does that mean it wasn’t worth doing?

Fallacious arguments can go hang.

And despite what you say John, we do know how an article V convention would behave, because American history gives us precedent, as Horowitz points out:

Together with Common Law rules for how conventions should operate, and States being able to condition their involvement, there’s more “control” here than nay-Sayers will acknowledge.

The Convention is not Congress, that’s basically your mistake. It won’t behave like Congress, because it cannot pass things as a simple majority, and the representative are representatives of legislatures, not popular votes.

Meaning they act like Senators did 150 years ago. Look at how voting in the Senate happened then for a better idea of what to expect.


#11

“Marxist-leaning groups” is not name calling?

JWK


#12

Who would be in charge of selecting delegates to the convention if one were called. Would it not be the very state and federal actors who now violate our constitutions, state and federal, on a daily basis?

Keep in mind the same crowd that gave us the United Nation’s Charter, the Sixteenth Amendment, the Federal Reserve paper money system, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and more recently the NAFTA, have been behind the call for a convention to rewrite our Constitution. One of its principle advocates was Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the three original members of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal “brains trust,” and he authored The Constitution of the New States of America which seems to be the goal of the globalists behind the movement.

In any event, I thought you would be the first in the forum to defend the call for a convention under Article V.

JWK

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.


#13

Considering actual marxist-leaning groups do exist, and are resiting an article V convention? No.

He properly states that other conservatives are resisting. Read it over.


#14

How often do States get to limit federal power?

That’s the key here: States will get a voice they typically don’t have, and plenty of them want less fettering from the Federal Government.

It’s worth trying out, and if it doesn’t work; go look at the long list of amendments that there never approved.
That’s the most likely result here.

Because it makes sense; only a a convention can limit or destroy the Progressive amendments, and only the States would have the will to do that.

Given a Trump administration, now is the best time we’ll get to convince republican controlled Blue-states to go along with it.

This is the best chance we have, we shouldn’t squander it.


#15

The question was:

Who would be in charge of selecting delegates to the convention if one were called. Would it not be the very state and federal actors who now violate our constitutions, state and federal, on a daily basis?

JWK


#16

:roll_eyes:


#17

What makes you think that they really want to? They could stop Medicade, Obamacare and the 55 mile an hour speed limit at the state level but they are caught in the incestuous loop of the Feds fleecing their citizens through the 16 amendment and doling it back in exchange for subservience of the states to their edicts. Going back to the original allowed funding mechanisms would break this loop; balanced budgets and term limits etc. will not.