The Liberty Amendments

[EriktheRed]

We see the pattern emerging here. Instead of intelligently discussing the proposed amendments and what they would mean for America, we have to endure the typical pablum from lefties posing as libertarians, who can only resort to attacking Mark Levin. This is what they do. They aren't interested in a debate or discussion, they want to appeal to the lowest common denominator, to the dummies of society, who sit around waiting to hear what they are supposed to think. So they think the best way to derail this train, is to attack Levin, make him out to be a hypocrite, pretend that he is a wacko, go after him personally. Forget the proposal, forget the real substance of the debate, turn it into an episode of the Kardashians, and go for the jugular.

Those of you who honestly have libertarian views and values, NOW is the time for you to stand up and marginalize these liberals who have infiltrated your ranks, and threaten to destroy libertarianism the same way they destroyed the Democrat party. Shut these punks up! Hoot them off your stage! They offer absolutely NOTHING of substance, they never will. All they serve to do, is ridicule all that isn't liberal.

Is that you, Mark?

 

[johnwk]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

Did Mark Levin mention that Madison warned against another convention? He wrote:


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….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 presumeable 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. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


I like Mark Levin but on this issue he has not given enough thought to promoting an Article V convention which is not only uncharted waters, but a very dangerous idea!



JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[OKTexas]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

Did Mark Levin mention that Madison warned against another convention? He wrote:


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….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 presumeable 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. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


I like Mark Levin but on this issue he has not given enough thought to promoting an Article V convention which is not only uncharted waters, but a very dangerous idea!



JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

An Article 5 convention would not be a "general convention", it is only to propose amendments.

 

[johnwk]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

Did Mark Levin mention that Madison warned against another convention? He wrote:


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….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 presumeable 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. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


I like Mark Levin but on this issue he has not given enough thought to promoting an Article V convention which is not only uncharted waters, but a very dangerous idea!



JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

An Article 5 convention would not be a "general convention", it is only to propose amendments.

What is your point in respect to what I wrote?

JWK

 

[eagle1462010]

On another thread, which argued about repealing the 17th Amendment I learned something.

As I read article after article on what really happened in 1914 I found an interesting thing.

The current Amendment Process we are calling for has been done before..................

2/3rds of the States were already calling for a Constitutional Convention in 1914 on the 17th Amendment, but before it could happen the Congress pushed through the other process on the Amendment and passed the 17th.

While I'm against the 17th as we are a Republic, the States did what so many are saying can't be done. It was going to happen, but the Congress wanted their piece of the pie so they circumvented it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Seventeenth Amendment - Conservapedia

The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 during the progressive era of Woodrow Wilson. The Seventeenth Amendment replaces the process of elected state legislatures picking U.S. Senators–and the Senators adhering to the principles of those elected legislatures–with a process of electing Senators by a majority vote of the people within a state, a shift in policy from the Founding Fathers Constitutional Republic to a form of Democracy. Consequently, the Seventeenth Amendment reduces state liberties and the voice of the people through elected legislatures, and it instead gives control of state Senators to special interest groups (Lobbyists, Unions and Corporations), otherwise known as legislating by "majority rule," rather than adhering strictly to the Constitutional "rule of law" which was designed to protect individual rights and freedom.
There are two impacting differences in the election and legislative process with the addition of the Seventeenth Amendment: (1) the people of a state vote for a Senator rather than the elected state legislatures, and (2) upon confirmation of an elected Senator, they are no longer under the influence of the people who elected them, nor the state legislatures, but are controlled by special interest groups otherwise known as "Mob Rule," or rule by the majority. The long-term impact of the Seventeenth Amendment modified America's Constitutional Republic by fundamentally transforming it into a more progressive form of democracy, sometimes referred to as a "democratic Republic" by Public Union teachers, and of which has essentially reduced the people's protections under Constitutional Law by giving more power to majority rule.
Before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, the Senate was comprised of senators selected by state legislatures rather than elected by the people, and they refused for years to pass this amendment. With the help of Woodrow Wilson's methodical, effective but destructive use of propaganda, the states resorted to an alternative mechanism for amendment, bypassing Congress and passing resolutions that called for a constitutional convention. When nearly enough states (2/3rd of the United States) had passed resolutions for a constitutional convention, the Senate averted a constitutional convention by finally passing the Seventeenth Amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.
The amendment has been criticized by some for eroding the principle of Federalism that the Constitution was based on.

 

[OKTexas]

Did Mark Levin mention that Madison warned against another convention? He wrote:


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….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 presumeable 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. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


I like Mark Levin but on this issue he has not given enough thought to promoting an Article V convention which is not only uncharted waters, but a very dangerous idea!



JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

An Article 5 convention would not be a "general convention", it is only to propose amendments.

What is your point in respect to what I wrote?

JWK

Can't read your own Madison quote? He also mentioned under the cricumstances at that time, which has no bearing on today.

 

[Votto]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

Did Mark Levin mention that Madison warned against another convention? He wrote:


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….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 presumeable 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. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


I like Mark Levin but on this issue he has not given enough thought to promoting an Article V convention which is not only uncharted waters, but a very dangerous idea!



JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

Dangerous idea? What are they going to do, deny us due process like under the NDAA?

Or will they send us to jail for not buying health care?

Maybe they will create a huge data bank on us and record every word we utter.....ever to use against us at any time.

Come on man, what could they do that is not already being done?

 

[Votto]

The fact that so many people oppose going back to the pre-progressive era Constitution tells me one thing, progressives prefer the government we have today over that of the one adopted in 1776.

So be it.

 

[Votto]

Seventeenth Amendment - Conservapedia

The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 during the progressive era of Woodrow Wilson. The Seventeenth Amendment replaces the process of elected state legislatures picking U.S. Senators–and the Senators adhering to the principles of those elected legislatures–with a process of electing Senators by a majority vote of the people within a state, a shift in policy from the Founding Fathers Constitutional Republic to a form of Democracy. Consequently, the Seventeenth Amendment reduces state liberties and the voice of the people through elected legislatures, and it instead gives control of state Senators to special interest groups (Lobbyists, Unions and Corporations), otherwise known as legislating by "majority rule," rather than adhering strictly to the Constitutional "rule of law" which was designed to protect individual rights and freedom.
There are two impacting differences in the election and legislative process with the addition of the Seventeenth Amendment: (1) the people of a state vote for a Senator rather than the elected state legislatures, and (2) upon confirmation of an elected Senator, they are no longer under the influence of the people who elected them, nor the state legislatures, but are controlled by special interest groups otherwise known as "Mob Rule," or rule by the majority. The long-term impact of the Seventeenth Amendment modified America's Constitutional Republic by fundamentally transforming it into a more progressive form of democracy, sometimes referred to as a "democratic Republic" by Public Union teachers, and of which has essentially reduced the people's protections under Constitutional Law by giving more power to majority rule.
Before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, the Senate was comprised of senators selected by state legislatures rather than elected by the people, and they refused for years to pass this amendment. With the help of Woodrow Wilson's methodical, effective but destructive use of propaganda, the states resorted to an alternative mechanism for amendment, bypassing Congress and passing resolutions that called for a constitutional convention. When nearly enough states (2/3rd of the United States) had passed resolutions for a constitutional convention, the Senate averted a constitutional convention by finally passing the Seventeenth Amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.
The amendment has been criticized by some for eroding the principle of Federalism that the Constitution was based on.

Democratic republic? I see the progressive era as an era of collectivism. In addition, I see collectivism as the antithesis of democratic representation.

Let me splain.

Collectivists seek to give more and more power to those in the federal government. As those in the federal government gain more and more power, the power of state and local governments is eroded. So who is the better representative? Is it our local legislature in the state house or the one in distant Washington?

Additionally, I am only able to vote for one Senator and not the rest of them. So if Congress now has all the power with the Federal Income tax at the turn of the 20th century, why is it I can't vote for or against the rest of them? It seems to me that we are in the situation that the Founders were in. The Founders were being taxed to death without being able to vote them out.

And lastly, as power is centralized your votes become diluted to insignificance. Is this what we really want in a democracy? No wonder Congress only has a 10% approval rating.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

An exercise in constructive liberty.
Mark is a good man.

Seems more like an exercise in futility.....

Yup...and look at the followers of this line of bs

 

[Boss]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

Did Mark Levin mention that Madison warned against another convention? He wrote:


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….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 presumeable 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. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


I like Mark Levin but on this issue he has not given enough thought to promoting an Article V convention which is not only uncharted waters, but a very dangerous idea!



JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

Article V does not give states authority to call a constitutional convention. It authorizes states to call an "amendments convention" which is what Levin is proposing. This has been used in the past, and Madison, along with George Mason and Alex Hamilton, made great arguments for the provision in Article V.

Today, Levin had on his program, Constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, Dr. Randy Barnett. He not only supports Levin's proposal, he has been advocating for such a convention the past several years. He says it is not possible for there to be a "runaway convention" where the Constitution would be rewritten, anymore than a runaway Congressional amendment process, which has been used 27 times. It simply replaces Congress with state delegates to a convention, and operates the same exact way from there. The state delegates simply replace Congress in the process.

It's important to understand the reason the founders included this provision. It was in the event that Congress became the problem, and would not be compelled to take measures to limit it's own power.

As for the arguments regarding the 17th Amendment, yes, the states did threaten to convene an amendments convention to establish the 17th, and Congress intervened to do it instead, when they saw the writing on the wall. The state amendment process would have succeeded in that case, they had the votes needed. For those who argue, well, the states obviously thought it was best to have the Senators elected by popular vote, I remind you that the states also ratified another amendment along about the same time, calling for the prohibition of alcohol. Turns out that wasn't such a wise decision, even though 3/4 of the states did ratify it into the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

Did Mark Levin mention that Madison warned against another convention? He wrote:


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….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 presumeable 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. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


I like Mark Levin but on this issue he has not given enough thought to promoting an Article V convention which is not only uncharted waters, but a very dangerous idea!



JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

Article V does not give states authority to call a constitutional convention. It authorizes states to call an "amendments convention" which is what Levin is proposing. This has been used in the past, and Madison, along with George Mason and Alex Hamilton, made great arguments for the provision in Article V.

Today, Levin had on his program, Constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, Dr. Randy Barnett. He not only supports Levin's proposal, he has been advocating for such a convention the past several years. He says it is not possible for there to be a "runaway convention" where the Constitution would be rewritten, anymore than a runaway Congressional amendment process, which has been used 27 times. It simply replaces Congress with state delegates to a convention, and operates the same exact way from there. The state delegates simply replace Congress in the process.

It's important to understand the reason the founders included this provision. It was in the event that Congress became the problem, and would not be compelled to take measures to limit it's own power.

As for the arguments regarding the 17th Amendment, yes, the states did threaten to convene an amendments convention to establish the 17th, and Congress intervened to do it instead, when they saw the writing on the wall. The state amendment process would have succeeded in that case, they had the votes needed. For those who argue, well, the states obviously thought it was best to have the Senators elected by popular vote, I remind you that the states also ratified another amendment along about the same time, calling for the prohibition of alcohol. Turns out that wasn't such a wise decision, even though 3/4 of the states did ratify it into the Constitution.

State politics is so partisan , only a fool would think the very same people who formed occupy and tea partys could or would agree to put rabidly partisan pitics aside for a greater good

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Levin like Obama is an academic dreamer...hope and change, only this time screwing up the actual process for amending the Constitution. Name 12 people you would trust to do good

 

[Boss]

LOL... Screwing up the process? You mean you don't like Article V of the Constitution? Oh what the fuck am I asking you? You don't like ANY of the goddamn Constitution, do ya?

Partisanship??? You want to learn a bit about partisan politics, go study the heated debates over the ratification of the Constitution. It was 12 years of passionate debate on several sides of numerous issues. Feelings were hurt, people were pissed off, anti-Federalists moaned and writhed in agony, and we still managed to ratify a Constitution. Now, I know, in your liberally-taught elementary school education, you probably learned that this was all a mere formality in our founding, and that everyone got along all hunky-dory like, and agreed on everything along the way, and the only reason it took 12 years was because there were no cell phones or internet... but that wasn't the case at all.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

LOL... Screwing up the process? You mean you don't like Article V of the Constitution? Oh what the fuck am I asking you? You don't like ANY of the goddamn Constitution, do ya?

Partisanship??? You want to learn a bit about partisan politics, go study the heated debates over the ratification of the Constitution. It was 12 years of passionate debate on several sides of numerous issues. Feelings were hurt, people were pissed off, anti-Federalists moaned and writhed in agony, and we still managed to ratify a Constitution. Now, I know, in your liberally-taught elementary school education, you probably learned that this was all a mere formality in our founding, and that everyone got along all hunky-dory like, and agreed on everything along the way, and the only reason it took 12 years was because there were no cell phones or internet... but that wasn't the case at all.

Ratification was one thing, drawing up and agreeing on the great compromises for the better good would be more aptly analogous to amending.

The men who framed the USC were trusted to put purely partisan politics and ideology aside for the better good...the whole as oppossed to the separate parts

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Federalist (papers) won the day and the Federalists later won in the courts. In one situatiion Madison was on the winning side.

 

[Boss]

LOL... Screwing up the process? You mean you don't like Article V of the Constitution? Oh what the fuck am I asking you? You don't like ANY of the goddamn Constitution, do ya?

Partisanship??? You want to learn a bit about partisan politics, go study the heated debates over the ratification of the Constitution. It was 12 years of passionate debate on several sides of numerous issues. Feelings were hurt, people were pissed off, anti-Federalists moaned and writhed in agony, and we still managed to ratify a Constitution. Now, I know, in your liberally-taught elementary school education, you probably learned that this was all a mere formality in our founding, and that everyone got along all hunky-dory like, and agreed on everything along the way, and the only reason it took 12 years was because there were no cell phones or internet... but that wasn't the case at all.

Ratification was one thing, drawing up and agreeing on the great compromises for the better good would be more aptly analogous to amending.

The men who framed the USC were trusted to put purely partisan politics and ideology aside for the better good...the whole as oppossed to the separate parts

Nonsense, those men argued vigorously over a variety of different ideas. The fact that you are unaware of history, is really not my problem. None of them set aside ideology, they all argued for their various ideologies. Hamilton was as far removed from Jefferson as two men could possibly be. Adams, Payne and Madison, all completely different in their thinking. Ben Franklin was perhaps the most radical of all, he was the Ron Paul of his time. They certainly didn't put aside their partisan political beliefs, they hashed it all out, wrote the Federalist Papers, consulted with various groups and citizenry, and it took a great deal of time to cultivate what became the Constitution. Then it had to be sold to the people, because it had to get ratified by 3/4 of the states. It wasn't easy, there was a great deal of consternation over the new government, concerns were raised, the Bill of Rights had to be constructed in order to get the Constitution ratified.

Again, they gave you apple juice in grade school, taught you Washington cut down the cherry tree and said "I cannot tell a lie" and you have this cleansed vision of how simple it all was to adopt the Constitution and forge the nation. That's all the studying you've done on the matter, and this is the basis for your frame of thought on the subject.

34 State legislatures are needed to call an amendment convention, 27 are currently held by Republicans. All that is required is a simple majority, not a supermajority. So you sit back and keep thinking this is a pipe dream that will never happen, and watch what is about to take place in America. I have no doubt this will ultimately happen... why? Because the alternative is armed revolt, and make no mistake, that option is on the table as well.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you believe Franklin was the most radical you are mad.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hamilton fought harder than most for a compromise that was more to Madison's liming than his own. He put his shit aside in order to help ratification succeed. After ratification the battles were much fiercer because what was at stake was the future and precedent.

There were anti federalists, but they lost. Later there was a Federalist party of sorts tbat fought Madison and Jefferson for the future and precedence. The Democratic-Republicans won elections and battles, but they lost in the end. Madison ended up going along with Banking, Jefferson swallowed his inane ideology too