The Liberty Amendments

[thanatos144]

Why do liberaltarins always ignore evidence ? Dishonesty is a progressive trait

 

[Boss]

You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York.

A "general" convention is not the same as a convention to propose amendments. Apples and oranges.

 

[thanatos144]

You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York.

A "general" convention is not the same as a convention to propose amendments. Apples and oranges.

You know he will ignore that and call it a straw man . It is what they do when the truth gets in the way

 

[johnwk]

You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York.

A "general" convention is not the same as a convention to propose amendments. Apples and oranges.

Madison was referring to an Article V convention being called when he wrote those words. What is your point?

Additionally, an Article V convention has been referred to as a constitutional convention for generations. We all know what is being discussed. Are you suggesting Madison was not referring to an Article V convention when he wrote those words?

JWK

 

[Boss]

Mark Levin has not presented the various dangers of calling an Article V convention which strikes me as being unusual because he is always quick to educate his listening audience to the hidden dangers of what our folks in Washington have up their sleeve. In this case I am alarmed why Mark has been delinquent is discussing some of the dangers and consequences should an Article V convention be called, and he prefers to dwell on a number of proposed amendments to our Constitution, not one of which addresses the root cause of our miseries which is a federal government acting in rebellion to our Constitution and its legislative intent.

I entered this thread to point out some of the dangers in calling an Article V convention because Mark Levin may have simply overlooked them in his haste and frustration to do something to restore our constitutionally limited system of government. But it seems that discussing these dangers is not a welcome discussion among a number of posters who suggest by their actions that we ought to call a convention so we may then find out what is in store for us, much like Pelosi telling us to pass the health care bill so we could find out what’s in it.

I encourage you to read The Liberty Amendments and see for yourself. Levin addresses every concern you have presented and more, and lays out the case for why this is our only possible hope, short of armed revolution, for restoring a Constitutional republic. I continue to read your responses in hopes of learning what alternative you have, and I am not seeing anything presented. You keep claiming this would not fix the problem, but you aren't offering any ideas on how we fix the problem. Levin has repeatedly asked, if anyone has any ideas on how to fix the problem, other than what he is proposing, step forward with it now. So am I to assume, you have no solution, and we're to curl up in the fetal position and wait for our imminent demise? We're on the Titanic and it's going down, and you are warning that there aren't enough lifeboats and it would be dangerous to dispatch them.... so what are we supposed to do? Nothing? Pray? WHAT?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.

It was to address just such a situation as we find ourselves in today. We have an out of control Federal Leviathan, a Congress that is comprised of two parties serving their own interests and power, a President who brazenly defies the Constitution as he pleases, a SCOTUS who literally rewrites the Constitution as it pleases, and We The People have seemingly lost ALL control over our country. The Progressives have waged a 100 year war on our Constitutional constructs, and we find ourselves in a post-Constitutional era, where there is literally no more Constitutionality and no power of the States or people.

From interviews Levin has done, I have pieced together the basics of his 10 proposed Amendments:

1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.
3. Term Limits for SCOTUS
Capped at 12 years.
4. 3/5ths of States or Congress can override SCOTUS decisions
Limiting the scope and power of SCOTUS rulings.
5. Limit Federal Spending
A balanced budget amendment.
6. Limit Federal Taxation
Congress is never going to do this on their own.
7. Limit Federal Bureaucracy
Eliminating the "4th branch" of government for good.
8. Promote Free Enterprise
Self explanatory.
9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.

Levin says none of this is 'written in stone' and the states would have to ratify with 3/4, just as with the Congressional process. Because of that rigid criteria, he doesn't feel there is an undesirable downside, like special interests becoming involved to add all kinds of unwanted crap. There is also no danger in the entire Constitution being rewritten, because even though the process is called a "constitutional convention" it is limited to amendments only.

This process bypasses Congress completely. They would serve as administers of what the states ratify, and have no say in the makeup of delegates which are appointed by the states. Critics say it would be an "uphill battle" to accomplish this... Levin answers with the question: "What battle isn't uphill?"

I have read the first chapter of the book, I am waiting for my Amazon order to arrive, so I can read more details, but this sounds very promising. The chapter I have read, lays out the case the Founding Fathers made for establishing Article V, and the reasoning behind it. Madison, Mason, and Hamilton, all agreed, the Constitution needed some mechanism for the people to use to re-establish the social contract, short of violent revolt, should Federal government go rogue. We are at that precipice, the time is now.

Levin is a kook, but a smart cookie. His 'ideas' are the red meat which put money in his bank account.

Don't any of you (those who thanked the OP author) think critically? That means look at the pros and cons of such radical ideas and really think about the long term consequences.

This leftist just admitted he see's the Constitution as kooky, radical.. THIS IS WHY this book is soo vital^^ Zombies like this one who want to trash everything good about this nation and turn it in to Stalinist Russia.. "NO GOD, NO MORALS, TURN IN YOUR NEIGHBOR if he dares to criticize their leader, Strict rules and regulations on what you may drink, eat, smoke, how many breaks you can take, FREE ABORTIONS even after birth, every perversion your sick mind can invent, YES YES YES.. Hate Israel, Cheer TERRORISTS.." We've all seen it and witnessed it with our own eyes.. The Marxists can no longer hide so they must attack the Republic and God forbid anyone who dares to stand up for the Constitution daring to suggest a return to the founding principles..-- you're the kook--Not the Marxists.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Lastly, only a leftist would point a finger at capitalism (selling books) as if it's a dirty word.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is nothing "radical" about this, really. It's laid out for us in Article V, and is a part of Constitutional process. The consequence is restoring our constitutional republic. Levin is not a "kook" but you are right, he is a smart cookie and does sell a lot of books.

This is the kind of 'thinking' I suspected - maybe Boss ought to read each one very slowly and consider them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lastly, only a leftist would point a finger at capitalism (selling books) as if it's a dirty word.

With all 'due' respect you're really dumb.

 

[johnwk]

Mark Levin has not presented the various dangers of calling an Article V convention which strikes me as being unusual because he is always quick to educate his listening audience to the hidden dangers of what our folks in Washington have up their sleeve. In this case I am alarmed why Mark has been delinquent is discussing some of the dangers and consequences should an Article V convention be called, and he prefers to dwell on a number of proposed amendments to our Constitution, not one of which addresses the root cause of our miseries which is a federal government acting in rebellion to our Constitution and its legislative intent.

I entered this thread to point out some of the dangers in calling an Article V convention because Mark Levin may have simply overlooked them in his haste and frustration to do something to restore our constitutionally limited system of government. But it seems that discussing these dangers is not a welcome discussion among a number of posters who suggest by their actions that we ought to call a convention so we may then find out what is in store for us, much like Pelosi telling us to pass the health care bill so we could find out what’s in it.

I encourage you to read The Liberty Amendments and see for yourself. Levin addresses every concern you have presented and more .........

Well then, why haven't you posted Mark's responses to the dangers I have mentioned? It certainly would add to a productive discussion! For example, what did Mark say in regard to the rule by which each state’s number of delegates is determined? How many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will it be an equal representation or by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if this is the case, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification? This question is important because under the Articles of Confederation, the only precedent we have, a unanimous consent by the States was necessary to alter the Articles, but the Delegates to the 1787 Convention ignored that rule and required a mere nine states to ratify the new government they created for it to become effective.

Keep in mind our despotic Supreme Court would be answering this and other questions should an Article V convention be called!


So, what did Mark have to say concerning how each State’s number of delegates to the convention will be determined?

JWK


It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.

 

[thanatos144]

Lastly, only a leftist would point a finger at capitalism (selling books) as if it's a dirty word.

With all 'due' respect you're really dumb.

She was smart enough to expose you for a fraud

 

[johnwk]

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 people who are now causing our misery!

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.”

Madison was absolutely correct when he warned us that an election into a second convention “…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”

JWK

 

[The T]

Lastly, only a leftist would point a finger at capitalism (selling books) as if it's a dirty word.

Anti-Capitalists sell books all the time...especially that asshole occupying the Whitehouse.

Interesting those that are against capitalism...use it...I'd say they were hypocrites of the first order, no?

 

[thanatos144]

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 people who are now causing our misery!

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.”

Madison was absolutely correct when he warned us that an election into a second convention “…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”

JWK

what you're talking about what Mark is talking about are two separate things and you know it

 

[johnwk]

Lastly, only a leftist would point a finger at capitalism (selling books) as if it's a dirty word.

Anti-Capitalists sell books all the time...especially that asshole occupying the Whitehouse.

Interesting those that are against capitalism...use it...I'd say they were hypocrites of the first order, no?

A SUGGESTION! The word “capitalism” is one used and popularized by Karl Marx to describe our system in an evil light and attack it. Our founders often referred to “free market” and “free trade“. But I have never found them using the word “capitalism” to describe the free market system they sought to protect by our written Constitution.

The very reason for granting power to Congress to “regulate commerce’ among the States was to protect and advance free trade among the States. Our progressive domestic enemies do not like the word “free” being used to describe our system [free trade and free market] which is hard to attack because it implies the people are to be “free” to engage in commerce and trade as each individual thinks fit ___ an original and inalienable right of mankind. “Capitalism” on the other hand gives progressives great latitude to cast America’s system in an evil light as did Karl Marks after popularizing the word.

Aside from that I believe we are on the same page except for this Article V convention thing.
Regards,

JWK

The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE‘S nightmare and not the American Dream

 

[johnwk]

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 people who are now causing our misery!

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.”

Madison was absolutely correct when he warned us that an election into a second convention “…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”

JWK

what you're talking about what Mark is talking about are two separate things and you know it

Mark Levin is talking about an Article V convention and that is what I am talking about. The question which was asked in the post you responded to was: Who would get to attend Levin's Article V Convention?


JWK



A few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?"

... One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being. ___ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lastly, only a leftist would point a finger at capitalism (selling books) as if it's a dirty word.

With all 'due' respect you're really dumb.

She was smart enough to expose you for a fraud

You're as dumb as she. Some capitalists are demagogues, some are not. Some capitalists sell crack to minors. Do you approve of them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

I believe those were King George's exact words....

It's always "impossible" to change the "already too powerful" ruling class . . . until it suddenly isn't.

One thing for certain, though: You are never going to make the world a better place if you're convinced it can't be done before you even try.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Lastly, only a leftist would point a finger at capitalism (selling books) as if it's a dirty word.

With all 'due' respect you're really dumb.

A leftist calling someone dumb is comical. No one listens to leftists. See Talk Radio, Cable news wars, etc.. This site represents the most extreme trash on the left who flock here like maggots in a shitpile..

 

[Cecilie1200]

FACT 1: Mark Levin is not a Constitutional Scholar. Or any type of scholar.

FACT 2: Although he went to law school, he has never practiced law.

ONLY FACT: You using the word "fact" to describe anything you say creates such a cognitive dissonance that it's a wonder it doesn't rupture the fabric of space and time.