The Liberty Amendments

[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.

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..

Right. As I've posted before you're not only dumb but vulgar and disgusting.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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..

Right. As I've posted before you're not only dumb but vulgar and disgusting.

LOL Thanks maggot. ;-)

 

[Wry Catcher]

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..

Right. As I've posted before you're not only dumb but vulgar and disgusting.

LOL Thanks maggot. ;-)

No problem, I suppose in your world those words are high praise.

 

[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 .........

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.

The state's number of delegates issue: no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage. What does that say? Quite simply, that each state would have the same number (i.e. equal suffrage) of delegates. The procedural rules would be determined by the delegation at the convention. The delegates would be appointed by the state legislatures.

The Articles of Confederation is a defunct document that has no relevance in this debate. The Constitution and Article V is all that matters here. There is no chance of a "runaway convention" because of the Constitution, which did not yet exist in 1787. While the Constitution does not give the States power to limit the convention, the States do in fact, have the power to determine the scope by the act of calling for the convention itself. A state cannot expressly call for a convention they have no idea of what it will be about, this would completely undermine the procedural constructs of Article V. Therefore, while Article V does not expressly grant them this power, they do retain it in essence.

Now, this may very well hone down Levin's proposed Amendments to only a few at a time, or maybe even one at a time, a far easier threshold to accomplish, and one that would serve as precedent for the remaining proposals. Again, Levin admits this is not going to be something that is easy and quick. Still, he HAS actually proposed a plan.... which, curiously, you are still avoiding the presentation of here.

I ask you once again, what is YOUR plan?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Neither alleged "fact" in hazmutt's post is an actual fact.

Mr. Levin is indeed a Constitutional Scholar.

schol•ar (ˈskɒl ər)

n.
1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

-- scholar - definition of scholar by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Mr. Levin holds a doctorate in the field of law. He is an accomplished author on the topic of Constitutional law and jurisprudence. He also has a rich basis of knowledge in philosophy and history to complement his scholarship on Constitutional law.

Only an ignorant person or a dishonest one would deny that he is a scholar. Merely disagreeing with him is not the same thing as an honest denial of his qualification as a scholar.

And Mr. Levin (via Landmark Legal, which he heads) has filed numerous lawsuits and briefs and Mr. Levin has been an attorney of record on several of those suits and on those briefs. One need not appear in Court to practice law.

So, hazmutt is flatly wrong on both of the allegedly "factual" claims he made.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Neither alleged "fact" in hazmutt's post is an actual fact.

Mr. Levin is indeed a Constitutional Scholar.

schol•ar (ˈskɒl ər)

n.
1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

-- scholar - definition of scholar by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Mr. Levin holds a doctorate in the field of law. He is an accomplished author on the topic of Constitutional law and jurisprudence. He also has a rich basis of knowledge in philosophy and history to complement his scholarship on Constitutional law.

Only an ignorant person or a dishonest one would deny that he is a scholar. Merely disagreeing with him is not the same thing as an honest denial of his qualification as a scholar.

And Mr. Levin (via Landmark Legal, which he heads) has filed numerous lawsuits and briefs and Mr. Levin has been an attorney of record on several of those suits and on those briefs. One need not appear in Court to practice law.

So, hazmutt is flatly wrong on both of the allegedly "factual" claims he made.

Ted Kaczynski is a learned and erudite person too as is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Neither alleged "fact" in hazmutt's post is an actual fact.

Mr. Levin is indeed a Constitutional Scholar.

schol•ar (ˈskɒl ər)

n.
1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

-- scholar - definition of scholar by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Mr. Levin holds a doctorate in the field of law. He is an accomplished author on the topic of Constitutional law and jurisprudence. He also has a rich basis of knowledge in philosophy and history to complement his scholarship on Constitutional law.

Only an ignorant person or a dishonest one would deny that he is a scholar. Merely disagreeing with him is not the same thing as an honest denial of his qualification as a scholar.

And Mr. Levin (via Landmark Legal, which he heads) has filed numerous lawsuits and briefs and Mr. Levin has been an attorney of record on several of those suits and on those briefs. One need not appear in Court to practice law.

So, hazmutt is flatly wrong on both of the allegedly "factual" claims he made.

Ted Kaczynski is a learned and erudite person too as is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Maybe. Are they published, too?

Ted was a sick monster. Mark Levin? Not.

Jihadist pussy Nidal Hasan was a murdering traitor. Mark Levin? Not.

So, if you ever have a post that comes with a coherent rational honest "point," send up a flare.

 

[thanatos144]

Neither alleged "fact" in hazmutt's post is an actual fact.

Mr. Levin is indeed a Constitutional Scholar. -- scholar - definition of scholar by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Mr. Levin holds a doctorate in the field of law. He is an accomplished author on the topic of Constitutional law and jurisprudence. He also has a rich basis of knowledge in philosophy and history to complement his scholarship on Constitutional law.

Only an ignorant person or a dishonest one would deny that he is a scholar. Merely disagreeing with him is not the same thing as an honest denial of his qualification as a scholar.

And Mr. Levin (via Landmark Legal, which he heads) has filed numerous lawsuits and briefs and Mr. Levin has been an attorney of record on several of those suits and on those briefs. One need not appear in Court to practice law.

So, hazmutt is flatly wrong on both of the allegedly "factual" claims he made.

Ted Kaczynski is a learned and erudite person too as is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Maybe. Are they published, too?

Ted was a sick monster. Mark Levin? Not.

Jihadist pussy Nidal Hasan was a murdering traitor. Mark Levin? Not.

So, if you ever have a post that comes with a coherent rational honest "point," send up a flare.

He is progressive he doesn't know how to be coherent.

 

[johnwk]

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.

The state's number of delegates issue: no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage. What does that say?

What you posted in italics says what it says. Does it have any relevance to the number of delegates each state would be entitled to if an Article V convention were called? If it does I would appreciate you explaining it since you posted those words.

each state would have the same number (i.e. equal suffrage) of delegates. The procedural rules would be determined by the delegation at the convention. The delegates would be appointed by the state legislatures.

I see nothing in the Constitution suggesting the opinion you expressed above. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

The Articles of Confederation is a defunct document that has no relevance in this debate. The Constitution and Article V is all that matters here.

Once again you express an opinion, but your opinion of irrelevancy seems to conflict with the words of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who expressed the relevancy which was a precedent set at the convention of 1787:


“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.’ “___ Chief Justice Warren Burger

There is no chance of a "runaway convention"

Once again you express an opinion but those who speak from a position of authority disagree with you:

“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.’ “___Chief Justice Warren Burger

Barry Goldwater said: "[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]...We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986 wrote:

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.

"After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call 'a convention for proposing amendments.' In my view the plurality of 'amendments' opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget."__ Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law

While the Constitution does not give the States power to limit the convention, the States do in fact, have the power to determine the scope by the act of calling for the convention itself. A state cannot expressly call for a convention they have no idea of what it will be about, this would completely
undermine the procedural constructs of Article V. Therefore, while Article V does not expressly grant them this power, they do retain it in essence.

Once again you express an opinion which is not held by those who speak from a position of authority!

Now, this may very well hone down Levin's proposed Amendments to only a few at a time, or maybe even one at a time, a far easier threshold to accomplish, and one that would serve as precedent for the remaining proposals. Again, Levin admits this is not going to be something that is easy and quick. Still, he HAS actually proposed a plan.... which, curiously, you are still avoiding the presentation of here.

I ask you once again, what is YOUR plan?

Calling for an Article V convention to propose amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the cause of our sufferings which is a federal government acting in rebellion to our existing constitution and its legislative intent. And with regard to your assertion that I have avoided an alternative path is a groundless charge. In POST NO.370 I wrote:

What I suggest is exactly what Mark Levin suggests when he says the people must take back their government. But the people will never get to take back their government if the people depend upon our federal government and State government politicians for change!

Are we to believe that the existing entrenched corruption and tyranny at the state government level, in almost every state in the union, is different then what is practiced at the federal level? Do those who hold political power at the state level not work in harmony to plunder the wealth which the productive members of society have created? Is wealth and the assumption of power not the very object and prize of those who hold political power at both the federal and state level, and that neither will relinquish that power if they are at the helm of change? As a matter of fact, I suspect this evil lot would see an Article V convention as a means to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional and would use the convention to “legally” tighten the iron fist of government around the necks of Americas’ businesses, industries and productive laboring class citizens.


Is it not true that the leadership of our State and Federal governments have each created a massive unconstitutional and dependent voting block which lives on the public dole and is used during election time to keep our corrupted politicians in power? Do you really believe a convention which would be controlled by corrupted state officials will work to remove and surrender the iron fist of government from the necks of the people who create wealth, and they will work to restore the foundations of liberty and our “constitutionally limited system of government”?


We were warned of the inherent danger of making a group dependent upon government for their subsistence when Hamilton stated the following maxim:

“A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL” ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers


Mark Levin’s object to restore our constitutionally limited system of government, as our founders intended it to operate, is a cause I not only admire and support, but is a cause I have been working to achieve since the 1970s! Our only point of contention at this point in time seems to be his approval to call an Article V convention which I see as a very dangerous idea for reasons I have just mentioned, and also for some of the same reasons which Madison summarized as follows:


“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


What do I suggest? I believe that the leadership of Tea Party groups around the country need to meet and draw up an official list of grievances and demands which must be meet so no further action is necessary in taking back our country. Mark Levin would be an excellent choice to list our grievances such as: our federal government circumventing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and thereby violating the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is to enforce the legislative intent of our Constitution. Another grievance which I’m sure Mark would articulate in his eloquent manner would be our federal government imposing Obamacare upon the people of the various United States without their consent being obtained as required under Article V, and he could also denounce our Supreme Court changing the constitutional meaning of “public use” as found in the Fifth Amendment to also mean “public purpose” [the Kelo decision] and then allowing private property to be taken in violation of the legislative intent our Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.


Make no mistake, I do not believe our tyrannical federal government would roll over and meet the demands of a petition for a redress of grievances, but, having an official list of grievances and demands to be meet which is approved by Tea Party groups and activists from each and every state in the Union would be a powerful start and rallying point for patriotic Americans across America to unite and begin the process of taking back their government, and joining in the cause of restoring liberty, just as our founders did when they expressed their grievances in” The Articles of Association”, October 20, 1774, which were predictably ignored by King George but led to his ultimate defeat, and our Founder’s victory. See” Journals of the Continental Congress


JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[Boss]

What you posted in italics says what it says. Does it have any relevance to the number of delegates each state would be entitled to if an Article V convention were called? If it does I would appreciate you explaining it since you posted those words.

Quote: Originally Posted by Boss View Post
each state would have the same number (i.e. equal suffrage) of delegates. The procedural rules would be determined by the delegation at the convention. The delegates would be appointed by the state legislatures.

I see nothing in the Constitution suggesting the opinion you expressed above. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

It's not my conclusion, it is what Harvard School of Law determined in the constitutional study done on the matter.

Each state shall have equal suffrage, not each population will be represented accordingly, by electoral method. This has nothing to do with the population, only the state governments. Their respective populations have nothing to do with their independent suffrage as states.

Procedural rules would be established by the prevailing convention body, pursuant to rules of parliamentary procedure, just as in the case of the Congress being the prevailing convention body when they call one. Whether you see anything in the Constitution or not, is beside the point.

... 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.

Yes there is. The specific wording of Article V limits the convention to amendments. The mechanism is not limited in specific language, but the Harvard study suggests that it would not be possible to adhere to Article V without implied understanding by the states, as to the nature of the convention they were proposing. Therefore, states would simply reject proposals which didn't apply to the fundamental subject of the convention called for.

Once again you express an opinion which is not held by those who speak from a position of authority!

Well, yes I am. This comes from Harvard Freaking School of Law... do you comprehend that? They are the foremost authority on the subject. The case law and study are footnotes in Levin's book, if you care to read it.

Calling for an Article V convention to propose amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the cause of our sufferings which is a federal government acting in rebellion to our existing constitution and its legislative intent.

Well, you are right. Calling a convention does nothing at all, except to call for a convention. The ratification of Constitutional amendments to remove power from Federal government and SCOTUS and return it to the people and states, does do something to address the cause and the problem itself.

What do I suggest? I believe that the leadership of Tea Party groups around the country need to meet and draw up an official list of grievances and demands which must be meet so no further action is necessary in taking back our country.

This was tried in 2010, but just as soon as new Tea Party members landed in Washington, the establishment party heads corralled them and controlled them, as they always seem to do. This problem is systemic, it's in both political parties, it's entrenched in the body politic, part of the Federal Leviathan. It will never fix itself. They aren't going to vote themselves term limits, they aren't going to adopt a balanced budget amendment, both parties want to continue controlling federal authority and power, the executive branch wants to continue assuming power it doesn't have, the SCOTUS wants to continue feeding the beast of Federal encroachment. As I said, the Titanic is going down... when do we man the lifeboats? If we're not going to do that, what is your plan?

 

[johnwk]

What you posted in italics says what it says. Does it have any relevance to the number of delegates each state would be entitled to if an Article V convention were called? If it does I would appreciate you explaining it since you posted those words.

Quote: Originally Posted by Boss View Post
each state would have the same number (i.e. equal suffrage) of delegates. The procedural rules would be determined by the delegation at the convention. The delegates would be appointed by the state legislatures.

I see nothing in the Constitution suggesting the opinion you expressed above. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

It's not my conclusion, it is what Harvard School of Law determined in the constitutional study done on the matter.

I am still waiting for you to explain why you posted the following words in support of your opinion. You wrote:

”The state's number of delegates issue: no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage. What does that say?”

How are those words applicable to determining how many delegates each state would be entitled to if an Article V convention were called? Additionally, you never provided the source of those words. I am interested in knowing how you arrive at your conclusions and that would include you documenting your source material.

I would like to address the rest of your post, especially the unsubstantiated opinions you expressed in it, but I feel it is necessary to first clear up the significance of your above words which is necessary for a productive discussion.

JWK

"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

 

[Boss]

What you posted in italics says what it says. Does it have any relevance to the number of delegates each state would be entitled to if an Article V convention were called? If it does I would appreciate you explaining it since you posted those words.

I see nothing in the Constitution suggesting the opinion you expressed above. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

It's not my conclusion, it is what Harvard School of Law determined in the constitutional study done on the matter.

I am still waiting for you to explain why you posted the following words in support of your opinion. You wrote:

”The state's number of delegates issue: no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage. What does that say?”

How are those words applicable to determining how many delegates each state would be entitled to if an Article V convention were called? Additionally, you never provided the source of those words. I am interested in knowing how you arrive at your conclusions and that would include you documenting your source material.

I would like to address the rest of your post, especially the unsubstantiated opinions you expressed in it, but I feel it is necessary to first clear up the significance of your above words which is necessary for a productive discussion.

JWK

"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

Well, I am not really sure how else to explain it to you. Harvard's study says that it means each state would be equally represented by the same number of delegates unless they consent otherwise. Where do the words come from? They come from Article V.

With all due respect to Virginia's Attorney General, he is not completely correct in his opinion. The Harvard folks say, while there is no actual language to limit the convention, the state does retain the implied limitation of topic. It's no different than when Congress convenes a convention. Technically, Congress could allow other completely off-topic issues to be introduced, but they don't. The reason is complicated to explain, so I fear it will be over your head, since you didn't seem to know the wording of Article V.

If I tell you that you need 2/3 of a group to agree with you on something... you get 2/3 to agree... then change the thing they agreed on to something else, is that ethical or right? The state has to be able to rely on the specific subject matter of a convention before it can determine whether it supports it. You can't get their vote to have a convention about ending slavery, then once that vote is secured and the convention begins, change the issue to extending slavery for another 50 years. Harvard explains, while there is no specific language to limit the scope of a convention, it doesn't have to exist. The fact that the state cannot call for a convention if it doesn't know what the convention would be about, is what would keep the convention from running away.

As I said, congress has held these conventions 27 times, and never had one run away.

 

[Katzndogz]

The lines to buy The Liberty Amendments might be the longest EVER. And, take a look at this crowd! I'm surprised that Al Sharpton isn't calling it a KKK rally.



This is in New York!

 

[Cecilie1200]

The lines to buy The Liberty Amendments might be the longest EVER. And, take a look at this crowd! I'm surprised that Al Sharpton isn't calling it a KKK rally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiOPsDk5rOA

This is in New York!

This is one of the many reasons I use e-books.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The lines to buy The Liberty Amendments might be the longest EVER. And, take a look at this crowd! I'm surprised that Al Sharpton isn't calling it a KKK rally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiOPsDk5rOA

This is in New York!

This is one of the many reasons I use e-books.

I love my Nook.

But if I wanted Mark Levin's autograph on any of his books which I have bought, the screen might get a bit difficult to read.

 

[johnwk]

It's not my conclusion, it is what Harvard School of Law determined in the constitutional study done on the matter.

I am still waiting for you to explain why you posted the following words in support of your opinion. You wrote:

”The state's number of delegates issue: no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage. What does that say?”

How are those words applicable to determining how many delegates each state would be entitled to if an Article V convention were called? Additionally, you never provided the source of those words. I am interested in knowing how you arrive at your conclusions and that would include you documenting your source material.

I would like to address the rest of your post, especially the unsubstantiated opinions you expressed in it, but I feel it is necessary to first clear up the significance of your above words which is necessary for a productive discussion.

JWK

"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

Well, I am not really sure how else to explain it to you. Harvard's study says that it means each state would be equally represented by the same number of delegates unless they consent otherwise. Where do the words come from? They come from Article V.

With all due respect to Virginia's Attorney General, he is not completely correct in his opinion. The Harvard folks say, while there is no actual language to limit the convention, the state does retain the implied limitation of topic. It's no different than when Congress convenes a convention. Technically, Congress could allow other completely off-topic issues to be introduced, but they don't. The reason is complicated to explain, so I fear it will be over your head, since you didn't seem to know the wording of Article V.

If I tell you that you need 2/3 of a group to agree with you on something... you get 2/3 to agree... then change the thing they agreed on to something else, is that ethical or right? The state has to be able to rely on the specific subject matter of a convention before it can determine whether it supports it. You can't get their vote to have a convention about ending slavery, then once that vote is secured and the convention begins, change the issue to extending slavery for another 50 years. Harvard explains, while there is no specific language to limit the scope of a convention, it doesn't have to exist. The fact that the state cannot call for a convention if it doesn't know what the convention would be about, is what would keep the convention from running away.

As I said, congress has held these conventions 27 times, and never had one run away.

You wrote above that the following quote comes from Article V: ” no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage.” But there is no period after the word “suffrage”. That passage has absolutely nothing to do with the number of delegates a State would be entitled to should an Article V convention be called. Article V reads as follows:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.(my emphasis)


The unavoidable truth is, our Constitution is silent as to the number of delegates each state would get if an Article V convention were called. And with regard to why this is important I wrote:


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

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

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The lines to buy The Liberty Amendments might be the longest EVER. And, take a look at this crowd! I'm surprised that Al Sharpton isn't calling it a KKK rally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiOPsDk5rOA

This is in New York!

This speaks for itself..

 

[Boss]

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?

Uhm, no. Again, the Harvard study referenced in Levin's footnotes, says that Congress and SCOTUS have no bearing on such a convention. The only way SCOTUS could become involved, is if Congress refused to call the convention after the states required had requested one. That final sentence in Article V is the important aspect of establishing how many delegates each state would have, they would be an equal number, as are the Senators for each state. Article V is not addressing the makeup of the Senate, that is addressed in a completely different Article, the subject here is the conventions for amendment, and it is clear (according to Harvard) that the representation would necessarily be equal. The language does seem a bit confusing, and Harvard admits this, but that was the purpose of their study, to review this Article and determine what parameters would be and how it would work.

In the case of a convention, there is no 'weighting of delegates' based on state populations, because the convention is not being called by the population, rather by the state entities themselves. Each state, required to have equal suffrage, would have exactly the same number of delegates, unless the states consented otherwise, which there would be no logical reason for them to do.

 

[johnwk]

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?

Uhm, no. Again, the Harvard study . . .

I’m still waiting for you to clear up the following matter. You wrote above that the following quote comes from Article V: ” no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage.” But there is no period after the word “suffrage”. That passage has absolutely nothing to do with the number of delegates a State would be entitled to should an Article V convention be called. Article V reads as follows:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.(my emphasis)

The reason why I am trying to clear this matter up is because after quoting a few words from Article V, which I quote above, you went on to explain why you quoted those specific words. You wrote: “ What does that [the words you posted] say? Quite simply, that each state would have the same number (i.e. equal suffrage) of delegates.” But what you quoted from Article V had absolutely nothing to do with determining the number of delegates each state would be allotted if a convention were called. The words were exclusively added to Article V to insure “that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” When you quoted from Article V, why did you put a period after “Suffrage” and edit out “in the Senate”?

JWK


"We have only one Precedent, the Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. It was summoned, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Article of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein." From the very beginning it did not feel confined by the call and gave us a totally new Constitution that completely replaced the Articles of Confederation. I see no reason to believe that a constitutional convention, 200 years later, could be more narrowly circumscribed." - Charles Alan Wright, School of Law, The University of Texas at Austin

 

[Boss]

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?

Uhm, no. Again, the Harvard study . . .

I’m still waiting for you to clear up the following matter. You wrote above that the following quote comes from Article V: ” no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage.” But there is no period after the word “suffrage”. That passage has absolutely nothing to do with the number of delegates a State would be entitled to should an Article V convention be called. Article V reads as follows:

I realize you are myopically hung up on this, but again, it does not matter that there is no period after the word suffrage. The intention and purpose of the statement in Article V is clear and unambiguous, it is calling for "equal suffrage of the states" pursuant to the rights of equal suffrage in the Senate, as it contextually applies to a convention under Article V. There were many arguments presented during the formation of Article V, and the point was raised, the States needed some assurances they would not be disenfranchised through demagoguery and politics. The provisions of Article V allow STATES (not the population) to call for a convention. The representation at the convention HAS TO BE necessarily representative of the STATE not the population of the state. Therefore, there is no fundamental purpose for establishing greater delegate numbers for certain states, as that would give those states MORE suffrage than others. Are you grasping this yet? Do we need to break out the coloring books?

The reason why I am trying to clear this matter up is because after quoting a few words from Article V, which I quote above, you went on to explain why you quoted those specific words. You wrote: “ What does that [the words you posted] say? Quite simply, that each state would have the same number (i.e. equal suffrage) of delegates.” But what you quoted from Article V had absolutely nothing to do with determining the number of delegates each state would be allotted if a convention were called. The words were exclusively added to Article V to insure “that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” When you quoted from Article V, why did you put a period after “Suffrage” and edit out “in the Senate”?

I quoted the relevant part for clarity sake. I realize you think you've caught me in a contradiction and established some ambiguity with regard to the selection of delegates to a convention, but you simply haven't. Article V is quite simply NOT the part of the Constitution which establishes the makeup of the Senate of the United States. That is done in Article 1 Section 3, so it would be redundant (and illogical) to again make this establishment in a totally different Article, dealing with a totally different subject. The statement is establishing that the convention shall be "equal in suffrage" as is the Senate itself. It mentions the Senate as a means to illustrate the principle of equal suffrage, but you are confounding the meaning and trying to claim it has no bearing. Of course it has bearing, or it wouldn't be there!

"We have only one Precedent, the Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. It was summoned, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Article of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein." From the very beginning it did not feel confined by the call and gave us a totally new Constitution that completely replaced the Articles of Confederation. I see no reason to believe that a constitutional convention, 200 years later, could be more narrowly circumscribed." - Charles Alan Wright, School of Law, The University of Texas at Austin

But it is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION! There is no provision in the Constitution for a Constitutional Convention. And it's sort of a lie that we don't have precedent, we certainly have precedent of 27 other times the Constitution has been Amended. This process is really no different, other than the fact that the states appoint delegates which replace Congress in the process. Other than that one single aspect, the process works exactly the same way.

Another key point is, in 1787, there was no Article V or US Constitution. The fact that Article V specifically allows for states to call a convention to amend the Constitution, and not to allow them to rewrite the Constitution itself, and the fact that whatever the state-called convention does, it would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, prohibits any possibility of a "runaway convention" or dramatic rewriting of the Constitution. Furthermore, according to Harvard Law review, the convention would be in no danger of even considering such dramatic undertaking, out of sheer point of order. The States would object to any such radical proposal as it was not endorsed by the state in calling the convention. Again... you can't say: You wanna do a convention to discuss an Amendment to do X? Sure! Okay, let's discuss doing Y now! The implied purpose of the convention would already have been established, and issues unrelated or not pertaining to the general issue the convention was called for by the state, would simply not be allowed. And AGAIN... The Congress has undertaken this process 27 times, and never had any runaways.

You are quite simply, FEAR MONGERING for the sake of being obtuse. You have offered NO idea or plan to change the current dynamic. You tossed out some anecdotal idea that the Tea Party can make a formal list of demands, but we did that in 2010. First and foremost, was the REPEAL of Obamacare! Well.... Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has announced they will not try to defund Obamacare, and they lack the votes to repeal it. So, do you have any more great ideas? And if you do, can't they also be advocated and pushed for at the same time as this plan? Is there some unwritten rule that if we proceed with Levin's idea, we can't do anything else?

The biggest puzzlement I have is, you seem like a conscientious person who is on the conservative side of reigning in government and returning America to the Constitutional republic it was intended to be by the founders. Yet you are trashing and bashing this idea, which would do exactly that. Instead, you think we should continue to have faith in elected officials to fix themselves. To maintain the status quo, and hope the next crop of Republicrats will be better than the last. The questions and objections you are throwing up, are the same exact objections and questions being presented by the establishment ruling class crowd in Washington. It's important for you to realize, these people who you obviously listen to and hold great esteem for, are not interested in any state-called convention to remove them from power. They have a vested interest in derailing this train before it gains any momentum, so they can remain in their positions of power. Are you a staffer? Do you have some vested interest in maintaining the status quo?