The Liberty Amendments

[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 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.

Well, let me be the first to tell you the words you quote from Article V are not confusing as suggested by Harvard when one takes the time, as I have, to actually study the Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention
While debating the provision for amending our Constitution [Article v], Sherman of Connecticut realized the proposed wording as it stood on September 15 were vague enough to allow equal representation of the States in the Senate to be overridden by the amendment process as well as the internal affairs of the states being infringed up. On September 15th he ”expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate. He thought it reasonable that the proviso in favor of the States importing slaves should be extended so as to provide that no State should be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its equality in the Senate.” Sherman went on to propose with reference to Article V "that no State shall without its consent be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Sherman’s proposal was defeated, however, Morris moved to add ”that no State without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate” which was agreed upon.

The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which you indicate establishes how many delegates each state would have, and it would be an equal number, is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process!

I have learned from bitter experience to “Trust, but verify”. We need to be very cautious about calling an Article V convention, and each must do their own verifying from original source material.


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. ___ Supreme Court Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece for the Miami Herald in 1986.

 

[Boss]

The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which you indicate establishes how many delegates each state would have, and it would be an equal number, is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process!

And thus, neither can the state legislatures be deprived of equal suffrage in a state-called convention. There is nothing in the Constitution that would allow for California to send more delegates to a convention for amendments than another state legislature. In fact, it is unlikely California, New York, or any largely BLUE state, would even support the idea of a convention, so they wouldn't be there! The convention, as outlined in Article V, is called by the states and for the states, not the populations. There is no Constitutional basis for anything else.

Levin, today on his show, addressed this very topic of the "runaway convention" and he points out, in 1787, of the states sent to Philadelphia to the convention, ten of the twelve states authorized the delegates to propose an entirely new constitution. The delegates represent the states and their limited proposed purpose for calling for a convention. They are not radical entities from outside the state, or operating of their own accord. They are agents of the state, sent by the state legislature to do a specific thing. He explains he has heard this "myth" since he was 13 years old, and that's all it is, a MYTH! There can be no "runaway convention!" The states, who sent the delegates for a proposed purpose and reason, would not ratify anything outside of those bounds.

Now... what about the rest of my post, are you going to continue to ignore my questions about where you stand and what your compelling interest is, in trying to derail this movement before it gets started? Or are you going to continue being a dishonest player, who is like a snake in the grass, pretending to be full of foresight and pragmatism, but vehemently intent on clinging to the status quo, where the Federal Leviathan remains unchallenged?

Let me explain this to you... The proposal Mark Levin makes, it bypasses you. It bypasses the special interests, career politicians in Washington, the Supreme Court, the Congress, the President. Those of you who want to sit back and find ways to disagree, to obfuscate and fear monger, to reject the idea and laugh and chortle at the futility... you don't matter here, because this process completely bypasses you. This is not a political argument, it is a matter to be determined by state legislatures across the country, and has nothing to do with you, or what you personally think. 2/3 of the people did not support the American Revolution, half of them didn't care and the other half were loyal to the Crown. 1/3 of the nation fought and won that battle, and it was difficult. This is difficult, it's not complicated. You want to give up, you don't want to fight the fight, you think it's dumb and dangerous, so did 2/3 of America during the Revolution. You DO NOT MATTER!

 

[johnwk]

The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which you indicate establishes how many delegates each state would have, and it would be an equal number, is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process!

And thus, neither can the state legislatures be deprived of equal suffrage in a state-called convention.

That is your opinion and to the best of my knowledge is not supported by anything stated in our Constitution, nor expressed during the framing and ratification debates which gave life to our Constitution. In fact, our Constitution is silent as to whether each state would get an equal number of delegates if an Article V convention were called by Congress, or that the number would be determined by the rule of apportionment. Keep in mind that our Constitution declares, in crystal clear language that ”Representatives and Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . “. The following formula could very well determine each states number of representatives at an Article V convention:

State’s population
_________________ X House membership (435) = State’s number of delegates to convention
Total U.S. population


And so, as you can now see, the case can very easily be made that representation at an Article V convention must be determined by the rule of apportionment. And who would decide this question of representation? None other than our tyrannical Supreme Court.

JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[thanatos144]

isn't it funny that the largest opposition do this comes from the so-called libertarians?

 

[johnwk]

The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which you indicate establishes how many delegates each state would have, and it would be an equal number, is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process!

Levin, today on his show, addressed this very topic of the "runaway convention" and he points out, in 1787, of the states sent to Philadelphia to the convention, ten of the twelve states authorized the delegates to propose an entirely new constitution.

I am hoping you may have misinterpreted what Mark was saying because the documents under which the States called for a convention never authorized “an entirely new constitution” but rather, the general consensus was to revise the Articles of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union. As a matter of fact three of the States [New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York] specifically expressed limiting the convention for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

I cannot believe Mark Levin would suggest what you state above. I know Mark occasionally embellishes things to make a point to his audience, but never have I found him to misrepresent historical fact to the degree you mention above, and especially not when it involves the founding of our nation!

JWK

The truth cannot be changed to what it is not.

 

[johnwk]

isn't it funny that the largest opposition do this comes from the so-called libertarians?

I didn’t know that the following groups are libertarians, each of which has REJECTED calling an Article V convention:

"Resolved, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in San Antonio, Texas, August 25, 26, 27, 1987, That it states its opposition to efforts to convene a Constitutional Convention for any purpose and specifically opposes the rewriting of the United States Constitution."

"Resolved, by the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, that we oppose any attempt to call a Constitutional Convention, as this would give our enemies from within and without the opportunity to destroy our Nation." Resolution No. 449, Adopted by the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States held in Chicago, Illinois, August 17-24, 1984.

"Resolved, That members of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution oppose efforts to rewrite the Constitution by Constitutional Convention." Adopted by the DAR Continental Congress, April 1986, Washington, D.C.

"Resolved, By the eligible voting members at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the National Rifle Association of America held in Salt Lake City on the 25th of April, 1992, that we oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional Convention for any purpose whatsoever because it cannot be limited to a single issue and that our right to keep and bear arms can be seriously eroded."

BTW, did you see Eagle Forum’s article Con Con Is a Terrible Idea from May, 2009?
The article begins:

Americans are fortunate to have a written Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we certainly don't need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians do not obey it and liberal judges pretend it is a "living" document that they can re-interpret according to their own social and economic preferences.
Many liberals and globalists don't like our Constitution because it contains built-in stumbling blocks against their goals of big government and even global government. Even some conservative types express irritation with our Constitution when they cannot get Congress to pass the legislation they desire. So, different factions, seeking different goals, have turned to an attempt to use the never-used provision in the Constitution's Article V, which requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention if two-thirds (34) of the states pass resolutions calling for it. This is colloquially called a Con Con.

JWK

 

[thanatos144]

isn't it funny that the largest opposition do this comes from the so-called libertarians?

I didn’t know that the following groups are libertarians, each of which has REJECTED calling an Article V convention:

"Resolved, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in San Antonio, Texas, August 25, 26, 27, 1987, That it states its opposition to efforts to convene a Constitutional Convention for any purpose and specifically opposes the rewriting of the United States Constitution."

"Resolved, by the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, that we oppose any attempt to call a Constitutional Convention, as this would give our enemies from within and without the opportunity to destroy our Nation." Resolution No. 449, Adopted by the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States held in Chicago, Illinois, August 17-24, 1984.

"Resolved, That members of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution oppose efforts to rewrite the Constitution by Constitutional Convention." Adopted by the DAR Continental Congress, April 1986, Washington, D.C.

"Resolved, By the eligible voting members at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the National Rifle Association of America held in Salt Lake City on the 25th of April, 1992, that we oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional Convention for any purpose whatsoever because it cannot be limited to a single issue and that our right to keep and bear arms can be seriously eroded."

BTW, did you see Eagle Forum’s article Con Con Is a Terrible Idea from May, 2009?
The article begins:

Americans are fortunate to have a written Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we certainly don't need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians do not obey it and liberal judges pretend it is a "living" document that they can re-interpret according to their own social and economic preferences.
Many liberals and globalists don't like our Constitution because it contains built-in stumbling blocks against their goals of big government and even global government. Even some conservative types express irritation with our Constitution when they cannot get Congress to pass the legislation they desire. So, different factions, seeking different goals, have turned to an attempt to use the never-used provision in the Constitution's Article V, which requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention if two-thirds (34) of the states pass resolutions calling for it. This is colloquially called a Con Con.

JWK

A wall of text to say nothing. It shows that people like you don't want the country to survive ...

 

[Boss]

The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which you indicate establishes how many delegates each state would have, and it would be an equal number, is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process!

And thus, neither can the state legislatures be deprived of equal suffrage in a state-called convention.

That is your opinion and to the best of my knowledge is not supported by anything stated in our Constitution, nor expressed during the framing and ratification debates which gave life to our Constitution. In fact, our Constitution is silent as to whether each state would get an equal number of delegates if an Article V convention were called by Congress, or that the number would be determined by the rule of apportionment. Keep in mind that our Constitution declares, in crystal clear language that ”Representatives and Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . “. The following formula could very well determine each states number of representatives at an Article V convention:

State’s population
_________________ X House membership (435) = State’s number of delegates to convention
Total U.S. population


And so, as you can now see, the case can very easily be made that representation at an Article V convention must be determined by the rule of apportionment. And who would decide this question of representation? None other than our tyrannical Supreme Court.

JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Again, it's not MY opinion, it's these people who study law at some place called Harvard. I've heard they are pretty decent at this. Your formula is not valid because you are factoring in population, as if this convention is representing the people. The people aren't calling the convention, the people have no authority in the Constitution to call for a convention. If Article V granted the people the right to call for a convention, then your formula might well be how delegates were selected. It doesn't, so this is not how they would be selected. Article V is specific, the STATES can do this. States also must be afforded equal suffrage, which means, each state would have the same number of delegates, as is represented in the Senate. It's also important to remember, the convention does not have to represent all the states, only those who file application, as approved by state legislature, calling for the convention. 34 states have to do this, so that leaves 16 states who will have no representation at the convention, since they didn't call for one.

Your final paragraph is ironic, since that is exactly what Levin is proposing, that we use the Article V provision given to us by the founders, in order to restore a Constitutional republic. No one has mysteriously interpreted Article V into existence, it is there, part of the Constitution. It was argued for by several founding fathers, most notably, George Mason. We can look to what Mason had to say, which is, he feared that our government may one day become oppressive and incalcitrant. This provision was added in case of just such an event, so that the states could have a means to restore the Constitutional republic, by bypassing Congress. 200-something years later, what Mason feared has become reality.

Now, when are you going to address my questions? Or are you going to keep ignoring them?

 

[Boss]

The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which you indicate establishes how many delegates each state would have, and it would be an equal number, is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process!

Levin, today on his show, addressed this very topic of the "runaway convention" and he points out, in 1787, of the states sent to Philadelphia to the convention, ten of the twelve states authorized the delegates to propose an entirely new constitution.

I am hoping you may have misinterpreted what Mark was saying because the documents under which the States called for a convention never authorized “an entirely new constitution” but rather, the general consensus was to revise the Articles of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union. As a matter of fact three of the States [New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York] specifically expressed limiting the convention for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

I cannot believe Mark Levin would suggest what you state above. I know Mark occasionally embellishes things to make a point to his audience, but never have I found him to misrepresent historical fact to the degree you mention above, and especially not when it involves the founding of our nation!

JWK

The truth cannot be changed to what it is not.

Sorry, but you can't believe a lot of things, it seems. Levin did say this, and rest assured, if he said it, he can back it up. Yes, the general consensus was to revise the AoC, but the authority was given to the delegates by the state legislatures, to adopt an entirely new constitution if it came to that. Otherwise, the states would have rejected the proposal, as it wasn't what they sent the delegates to do. They certainly didn't obtain this authority on their own, delegates don't have unilateral authority at a convention, they are bound by the authority of the state they represent.

No one is trying to change the truth to what it is not, we are trying to educate you, and you are proving very difficult to educate. It's almost as if you have some ulterior motive here, some reason that you wish to cling to the arguments being tossed out by the establishment beltway ruling class. Are you a lobbyist? A staffer? Do you make your living off of ever-encroaching federal governmental power? Are you really a liberal who thinks he is being clever by pretending to be liberty-minded and conservative? Or are you just plain stupid, and being duped by political agents who don't want to give up power? Only you can answer these questions, I can only keep asking.

 

[Boss]

FYI: My source material

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf

 

[Boss]

Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

I am still steamed over this comment. Our Constitution is not being abided by or adhered to NOW! The anchor, rudder, motor, rigging, and ballasts are all at the bottom of the ocean NOW! The Congress and SCOTUS are already brazenly "interpreting" whatever the hell they please into the Constitution NOW! The President is acting as if he were our King and we are his subjects NOW! Currently! The only thing "runaway" at the present, is our Congress and government, who have run away from the original intent of the Constitution. Every amendment Levin proposes, returns our country to the Constitutional republic it was intended to be, to which the Constitution was intended to apply.

My previous analogy still applies.... You are standing on the ever-tilting deck of the Titanic, the ship is obviously sinking, and you are proclaiming how great and mighty this ship is, and how it is unsinkable, and how we are all fools to believe a mere iceberg would sink such a great ship as this! You cite the references of the greatest and smartest engineers, who have proclaimed this mighty ship impervious to disaster! No need to man the lifeboats, there aren't enough of them anyway, because this ship can't be sunk! It will all be sorted, no need to panic, let's just continue to enjoy our dinner as the band plays...

 

[johnwk]

isn't it funny that the largest opposition do this comes from the so-called libertarians?

I didn’t know that the following groups are libertarians, each of which has REJECTED calling an Article V convention:

"Resolved, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in San Antonio, Texas, August 25, 26, 27, 1987, That it states its opposition to efforts to convene a Constitutional Convention for any purpose and specifically opposes the rewriting of the United States Constitution."

"Resolved, by the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, that we oppose any attempt to call a Constitutional Convention, as this would give our enemies from within and without the opportunity to destroy our Nation." Resolution No. 449, Adopted by the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States held in Chicago, Illinois, August 17-24, 1984.

"Resolved, That members of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution oppose efforts to rewrite the Constitution by Constitutional Convention." Adopted by the DAR Continental Congress, April 1986, Washington, D.C.

"Resolved, By the eligible voting members at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the National Rifle Association of America held in Salt Lake City on the 25th of April, 1992, that we oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional Convention for any purpose whatsoever because it cannot be limited to a single issue and that our right to keep and bear arms can be seriously eroded."

BTW, did you see Eagle Forum’s article Con Con Is a Terrible Idea from May, 2009?
The article begins:

Americans are fortunate to have a written Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we certainly don't need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians do not obey it and liberal judges pretend it is a "living" document that they can re-interpret according to their own social and economic preferences.
Many liberals and globalists don't like our Constitution because it contains built-in stumbling blocks against their goals of big government and even global government. Even some conservative types express irritation with our Constitution when they cannot get Congress to pass the legislation they desire. So, different factions, seeking different goals, have turned to an attempt to use the never-used provision in the Constitution's Article V, which requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention if two-thirds (34) of the states pass resolutions calling for it. This is colloquially called a Con Con.

JWK

A wall of text to say nothing. It shows that people like you don't want the country to survive ...

Your insulting remark is not only unsubstantiated, but uncalled for.

You posted a comment I did not agree with. I took the time to express my disagreement and offered documentation as to why I disagreed with you. It is disappointing to see you would suggest the groups I mentioned "don't want the country to survive", You should be ashamed of yourself.

It would be nice for Mark Levin to have Phyllis Schlafly on his show for an hour to sort out the dangers of calling an Article V convention so you could see she, like myself and others, do in fact have the general welfare of our nation in mind!




JWK

 

[johnwk]

And thus, neither can the state legislatures be deprived of equal suffrage in a state-called convention.

That is your opinion and to the best of my knowledge is not supported by anything stated in our Constitution, nor expressed during the framing and ratification debates which gave life to our Constitution. In fact, our Constitution is silent as to whether each state would get an equal number of delegates if an Article V convention were called by Congress, or that the number would be determined by the rule of apportionment. Keep in mind that our Constitution declares, in crystal clear language that ”Representatives and Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . “. The following formula could very well determine each states number of representatives at an Article V convention:

State’s population
_________________ X House membership (435) = State’s number of delegates to convention
Total U.S. population


And so, as you can now see, the case can very easily be made that representation at an Article V convention must be determined by the rule of apportionment. And who would decide this question of representation? None other than our tyrannical Supreme Court.

JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Again, it's not MY opinion, it's these people who study law at some place called Harvard. I've heard they are pretty decent at this. Your formula is not valid because you are factoring in population, as if this convention is representing the people. The people aren't calling the convention, the people have no authority in the Constitution to call for a convention. If Article V granted the people the right to call for a convention, then your formula might well be how delegates were selected.

Well, I take it as your opinion. When you post definitive statements and do not provide a specific quote from another source to support your statements, how can it be anything else but your opinion? Did you quote anything specific from the “Harvard” study? Additionally, what I am most surprised at is, you would hang your hat on a study produced a the-hot bed of socialism. As I recall, Obama did not only attend Harvard, but was elected president of the Harvard Law Review in the early 90s. In my opinion, and many others, Harvard has been an institution of indoctrination for many, many years __ not education! See, e.g., KEYNES AT HARVARD-Economic Deception as a Political Credo

No matter what phase of left-wing infiltration we study, be it in government, in information media, in foundations, in labor unions, or whether we deal with Keynesian socialism, neo-Marxian socialism or with Bolshevik communism, the tracks lead inevitably to Harvard University.

You now say my formula, which in fact is the Founder’s formula written into our Constitution, is not valid because I am “factoring in population, as if this convention is representing the people.” Once again I appreciate your opinion, but last time I heard Mark promoting an Article V convention, his primary selling point is that it offers a way for the “people” to take back their government. Unfortunately, the truth is, corrupted state politicians as well as our tyrannical federal government, will be in charge of the entire Article V convention. And who do you think will attend the convention should one be called? For that answer see my post Number 392

Another thing to consider, which Mark Levin is well versed on, is unfunded state liabilities, which includes state pension funds. At present state pension funds are a ticking time bomb and have an unfunded liability of about $3.5 trillion! Would state delegates chosen to an Article V convention not be tempted to grant extraordinary new powers to our federal government in return for the federal government assuming various State unfunded pension debt liabilities? Have we not already witnessed bribery in the adoption of Obamacare?

And when such a proposal is brought back to the States for our federal government to assume state pension fund liabilities, are we to believe the “progressive” leadership of bankrupted states like California would not embrace enlarging the iron fist of the federal government in return for their state debt being wiped clean? SEE: California on the Brink: Pension Crisis About to Get Worse

And let us not forget that part of the deal which created our present government and various powers ceded by the states to the new government was predicated upon the new federal government assuming state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War! Has Mark Levin discussed the very real threat that delegates sent to a convention from pinko states like California would bring up their unfunded debt liabilities and look to wipe their state debts clean in return for giving our federal government more powers over business, industries and the people?

JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

 

[Boss]

That is your opinion and to the best of my knowledge is not supported by anything stated in our Constitution, nor expressed during the framing and ratification debates which gave life to our Constitution. In fact, our Constitution is silent as to whether each state would get an equal number of delegates if an Article V convention were called by Congress, or that the number would be determined by the rule of apportionment. Keep in mind that our Constitution declares, in crystal clear language that ”Representatives and Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . “. The following formula could very well determine each states number of representatives at an Article V convention:

State’s population
_________________ X House membership (435) = State’s number of delegates to convention
Total U.S. population


And so, as you can now see, the case can very easily be made that representation at an Article V convention must be determined by the rule of apportionment. And who would decide this question of representation? None other than our tyrannical Supreme Court.

JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Again, it's not MY opinion, it's these people who study law at some place called Harvard. I've heard they are pretty decent at this. Your formula is not valid because you are factoring in population, as if this convention is representing the people. The people aren't calling the convention, the people have no authority in the Constitution to call for a convention. If Article V granted the people the right to call for a convention, then your formula might well be how delegates were selected.

Well, I take it as your opinion. When you post definitive statements and do not provide a specific quote from another source to support your statements, how can it be anything else but your opinion? Did you quote anything specific from the “Harvard” study? Additionally, what I am most surprised at is, you would hang your hat on a study produced a the-hot bed of socialism. As I recall, Obama did not only attend Harvard, but was elected president of the Harvard Law Review in the early 90s. In my opinion, and many others, Harvard has been an institution of indoctrination for many, many years __ not education! See, e.g., KEYNES AT HARVARD-Economic Deception as a Political Credo

No matter what phase of left-wing infiltration we study, be it in government, in information media, in foundations, in labor unions, or whether we deal with Keynesian socialism, neo-Marxian socialism or with Bolshevik communism, the tracks lead inevitably to Harvard University.

You now say my formula, which in fact is the Founder’s formula written into our Constitution, is not valid because I am “factoring in population, as if this convention is representing the people.” Once again I appreciate your opinion, but last time I heard Mark promoting an Article V convention, his primary selling point is that it offers a way for the “people” to take back their government. Unfortunately, the truth is, corrupted state politicians as well as our tyrannical federal government, will be in charge of the entire Article V convention. And who do you think will attend the convention should one be called? For that answer see my post Number 392

Another thing to consider, which Mark Levin is well versed on, is unfunded state liabilities, which includes state pension funds. At present state pension funds are a ticking time bomb and have an unfunded liability of about $3.5 trillion! Would state delegates chosen to an Article V convention not be tempted to grant extraordinary new powers to our federal government in return for the federal government assuming various State unfunded pension debt liabilities? Have we not already witnessed bribery in the adoption of Obamacare?

And when such a proposal is brought back to the States for our federal government to assume state pension fund liabilities, are we to believe the “progressive” leadership of bankrupted states like California would not embrace enlarging the iron fist of the federal government in return for their state debt being wiped clean? SEE: California on the Brink: Pension Crisis About to Get Worse

And let us not forget that part of the deal which created our present government and various powers ceded by the states to the new government was predicated upon the new federal government assuming state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War! Has Mark Levin discussed the very real threat that delegates sent to a convention from pinko states like California would bring up their unfunded debt liabilities and look to wipe their state debts clean in return for giving our federal government more powers over business, industries and the people?

JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

First of all, for you to now decide to attack Harvard School of Law as a source, is sounding quite desperate to me. This is a tactic common among liberals who don't like to face the music when they've been bested in debates. Again, you are showing classic signs of being a liberal PUNK. I don't know this, I don't have any history with you other than this topic, but you continue to use the same tactics and debate strategy, and you seem strongly opposed to a conservative idea which utilizes the Constitution to save the republic.

Your formula is what the founders used to determine the House of Representatives, which is a body of government directly representing the people, not the state. The Senate is the body who represents the states in the Constitution, and the Senate has no such apportionment criteria. In fact, the Senate must honor equal suffrage to the states, pursuant to the Constitution. Again, if the convention were being called by "the people" and not by "the states" then you may have a valid point, but that is not what the Constitution allows in Article V. This means, you have no point, and no basis for such an argument.

Unfortunately, the truth is, most state politicians are not corrupt. If you know of any who are, contact the state attorney generals with your evidence of corruption, so we can remedy this problem immediately. Our states do not normally function with corrupt politicians, it is not conducive with the type of government we have established in the United States. What you are trying to do here, is yet another liberal tactic, portray a perception that all state political bodies are filled with corruption, and thus, untrustable to conduct the convention as outlined in the Constitution. I have found... if it talks like a liberal and lies like a liberal, it's probably a liberal.

Yes, Levin (and I) have addressed "pinko" states like California. They would not be among the 34 states required to call for a convention, so they would have no delegates there. Only the 2/3 who called for the convention would be eligible to convene delegates, the states opposing the convention would not be present. Levin points out, that even IF by some wild ass chance, some rogue delegates infiltrated the convention and proposed some radical amendment, this is only the first step, the amendment proposal would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That's not going to happen. Fears that the Federal government would bribe States, etc. ...also unwarranted, as the Feds only have ministerial duties here. It is completely out of their hands what the states and their delegates do at the convention. Also, the states cannot impose liability onto the Federal government, unless 2/3 of all states agreed this was the purpose of the convention... again, that isn't going to happen.

Now why are you still continuing to avoid the questions I asked you about your motives? I'm not going to stop pointing out that you've not answered them, and the questions remain on the table in this discussion. So why don't you start answering some of those while I still maintain patience with you?

 

[johnwk]

Again, it's not MY opinion, it's these people who study law at some place called Harvard. I've heard they are pretty decent at this. Your formula is not valid because you are factoring in population, as if this convention is representing the people. The people aren't calling the convention, the people have no authority in the Constitution to call for a convention. If Article V granted the people the right to call for a convention, then your formula might well be how delegates were selected.

Well, I take it as your opinion. When you post definitive statements and do not provide a specific quote from another source to support your statements, how can it be anything else but your opinion? Did you quote anything specific from the “Harvard” study? Additionally, what I am most surprised at is, you would hang your hat on a study produced a the-hot bed of socialism. As I recall, Obama did not only attend Harvard, but was elected president of the Harvard Law Review in the early 90s. In my opinion, and many others, Harvard has been an institution of indoctrination for many, many years __ not education! See, e.g., KEYNES AT HARVARD-Economic Deception as a Political Credo

No matter what phase of left-wing infiltration we study, be it in government, in information media, in foundations, in labor unions, or whether we deal with Keynesian socialism, neo-Marxian socialism or with Bolshevik communism, the tracks lead inevitably to Harvard University.

You now say my formula, which in fact is the Founder’s formula written into our Constitution, is not valid because I am “factoring in population, as if this convention is representing the people.” Once again I appreciate your opinion, but last time I heard Mark promoting an Article V convention, his primary selling point is that it offers a way for the “people” to take back their government. Unfortunately, the truth is, corrupted state politicians as well as our tyrannical federal government, will be in charge of the entire Article V convention. And who do you think will attend the convention should one be called? For that answer see my post Number 392

Another thing to consider, which Mark Levin is well versed on, is unfunded state liabilities, which includes state pension funds. At present state pension funds are a ticking time bomb and have an unfunded liability of about $3.5 trillion! Would state delegates chosen to an Article V convention not be tempted to grant extraordinary new powers to our federal government in return for the federal government assuming various State unfunded pension debt liabilities? Have we not already witnessed bribery in the adoption of Obamacare?

And when such a proposal is brought back to the States for our federal government to assume state pension fund liabilities, are we to believe the “progressive” leadership of bankrupted states like California would not embrace enlarging the iron fist of the federal government in return for their state debt being wiped clean? SEE: California on the Brink: Pension Crisis About to Get Worse

And let us not forget that part of the deal which created our present government and various powers ceded by the states to the new government was predicated upon the new federal government assuming state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War! Has Mark Levin discussed the very real threat that delegates sent to a convention from pinko states like California would bring up their unfunded debt liabilities and look to wipe their state debts clean in return for giving our federal government more powers over business, industries and the people?

JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

First of all, for you to now decide to attack Harvard School of Law as a source, is sounding quite desperate to me.

Are you suggesting Harvard is not the hot bed of academia socialist thought? I didn’t know stating a truth was attacking someone. Is this your way to shut down critical thinking and debate?





I noticed Mark stated today that 10 of the states sent delegates to the convention with authority to write a new constitution. But the truth is, of the 12 states which sent delegates, three states, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York sent delegates with the specific understanding they were to meet in “Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…” That leaves nine States.
Let the documentation speak for itself!

CREDENTIALS OF MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT


STATE OF NEW YORK

When Mark suggests ten of the states were sent with the authority to write a new constitution, that certainly conflicts with the above documentation. And a complete review of the remaining CREDENTIALS OF MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION establishes the object was to revise the Articles of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union, which is far different than writing a new constitution, creating a new federal government, vesting powers in that new government which were then exercised by the individual States, and authorizing the new government to assume debts incurred by the states during the Revolutionary War. I am disappointed that Mark has chosen to exaggerate the intended authority of the delegates in promoting his desire to have another convention.

I also noticed Mark is promoting the very essentials of the fraudulent balanced budget amendment of the past which, if enacted, would not only make it constitutional for Congress to not balanced the annual budget, but it would superseded our founder’s intended method to extinguish annual deficits, should they occur, and do so with an apportioned tax among the states which, when practiced, made every state’s congressional delegation immediately accountable to their state’s governor and legislature should a deficit occur which then required them to return home with a bill in hand for their state to pay into the treasury of the United States.


Finally, I never thought I would hear Mark Levin promoting the Marxist income tax as he did tonight, promoting it over our founding fathers original tax plan which, when followed, led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world.

JWK

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ ___Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

 

[Boss]

Are you suggesting Harvard is not the hot bed of academia socialist thought? I didn’t know stating a truth was attacking someone. Is this your way to shut down critical thinking and debate?

That can be said of almost any institution of higher learning, except for maybe Hillsdale. So by using this single liberal debate tactic, you have eliminated the use of any university law study, in evaluating Constitutional law questions. Subsequently, you have eliminated opinions from any persons who attended any university. Way to go! If you aren't a flaming liberal, you would make an excellent one!

Let's be clear, of the academia most well-versed in Constitutional law, are Harvard, Yale and Cornell. The fact that a pinko commie socialist hotbed such as Harvard, has completely dismantled your superfluous arguments against a state-called convention under Article V, should be an indication that you are done and this debate is over.

I noticed Mark stated today that 10 of the states sent delegates to the convention with authority to write a new constitution. But the truth is, of the 12 states which sent delegates, three states, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York sent delegates with the specific understanding they were to meet in “Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…” That leaves nine States.
Let the documentation speak for itself!

CREDENTIALS OF MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT


STATE OF NEW YORK

When Mark suggests ten of the states were sent with the authority to write a new constitution, that certainly conflicts with the above documentation. And a complete review of the remaining CREDENTIALS OF MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION establishes the object was to revise the Articles of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union, which is far different than writing a new constitution, creating a new federal government, vesting powers in that new government which were then exercised by the individual States, and authorizing the new government to assume debts incurred by the states during the Revolutionary War. I am disappointed that Mark has chosen to exaggerate the intended authority of the delegates in promoting his desire to have another convention.

You are confusing context here, another liberal tactic. Because they were given authority to go to point C, doesn't mean they were not given authority to go to point A or point B. This is what you are erroneously trying to infer. If I tell you to "go secure the border" and you ask, "how far should I go in doing this" and I tell you, "shoot them if you have to" I have not given you orders to execute people.

I'm disappointed that someone who talks like he wants to change the out-of-control government, doesn't seem to want to try a Constitutional approach, and has no further ideas of how to go about that. I am disappointed that person wants to continue obfuscating and upholding the status quo, while obstructing those who want to proactively take action under the Constitution. Mostly, I am disappointed you don't apparently have the courage and backbone to stand with us on this, because with you or without you, it's going to happen. You and Karl Rove can sit there with your little whiteboards, bashing conservatives and downplaying everything they do, and we'll go ahead and convene a convention to propose amendments to the constitution.

I also noticed Mark is promoting the very essentials of the fraudulent balanced budget amendment of the past which, if enacted, would not only make it constitutional for Congress to not balanced the annual budget, but it would superseded our founder’s intended method to extinguish annual deficits, should they occur, and do so with an apportioned tax among the states which, when practiced, made every state’s congressional delegation immediately accountable to their state’s governor and legislature should a deficit occur which then required them to return home with a bill in hand for their state to pay into the treasury of the United States.

Well why don't you call Levin's show and tell him all this? I am sure, because I listen every day, that he would put you in front of the line to speak on the air about this and raise your points. Then he would make a complete and total fool out of you, and tell you to get the hell off his phone! Which explains why your chicken shit ass can't do anything but run his mouth here on a message board, where you don't have to answer the questions posed to you.

Finally, I never thought I would hear Mark Levin promoting the Marxist income tax as he did tonight, promoting it over our founding fathers original tax plan which, when followed, led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world.

I have not listened to the show today, I am about to go do so now. I have no idea what you are yammering about, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with a convention to amend the constitution, or what we are currently debating here. Yet another liberal tactic, change subject in midstream to derail the conversation.

 

[Clementine]

Funny, that's what the last bunch of immigrants said about the last batch of immigrants.

We have twenty-five-hundred years of democracy in our history.

This new bunch doesn't have twenty-five seconds of democracy in theirs.

They don't get it.

And obviously, neither do you.

Legal immigrants have always come for the opportunities, freedom and liberty because they knew they could build a life with hard work.

Illegal immigrants come making demands and are more interested in what our government has to offer them. They don't care about our history, our customs or the people here. More and more claim that we shouldn't even be here and our flag gets burned constantly during their anti-American protests. They only want to wave their own flag.

They aren't after the American dream, they are after a subsidized life. They are part of the population that is killing the American Dream. Many plan to make lots of money here and then go back to their country to retire. There is no assimilating. They want us to speak their language and cater to them. I see so little effort on their part to even meet us halfway. They steal our identities with no regard to how many people are hurt.

We need hard working, honest people to come. We need more tax payers, not takers. My friend has been working on becoming a legal citizen for years. His mother was German and his father is an American and he was born abroad. Despite living here legally since a young age, he hasn't yet managed to get through the immigration process. He's spent a lot of money and jumped through many hoops, yet hasn't quite made it yet. There are many like him who have done it the right way, who love this country and will be proud when they can call themselves Americans. Meanwhile, they watch as people sneak through the border, use fake identities or stolen one, receive benefits, get huge tax refunds for children that probably don't exist, get in-state tuition (something not afforded to citizens and those going through the legal immigration process) and, of course, they wait to hear about getting amnesty.

How difficult that must be to wait so long and do everything you're supposed to only to see cheaters getting there first.

And these people who could care less about American, past or present, are nothing but useful idiots to those who use them to further their agenda.

We need to get back to the constitution. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing. They sought to prevent the things that have been happening here for years. They knew that human nature doesn't change and that the liberals would work to chip away at our foundation. They anticipated the future threats because they knew history would repeat itself.

Income taxes, social security and most other government programs weren't in the plan. Obamacare definitely wasn't in the plan. The first, and biggest mistake, was the creation of the Federal Reserve by the liberal president Wilson.

We've been veering away from the constitution for decades, slowly but surely. In recent years, that veering has gone into overdrive. With so many people in the apathy stage and too many willing to cede their freedom and liberty in exchange for free stuff, we are in deep trouble and turning it around isn't going to be easy, but must be done.

The ones who simply want communism or socialism will say and do anything to destroy America. I see that every day on these boards. Anyone happy with the way things are going are either a communist or a useful idiot who thinks being taken care of is what life is all about.

 

[Boss]

Okay, John... I have listened to Levin's program from today (8/27) and I didn't hear anything about defending the Marxist income tax system, but it seemed like Levin is reading this very thread, becasue he did respond to the delegates question today, and here is what he had to say:

The number of delegates would be determined by the state legislatures. They can send as many or as few as they wish, it's entirely up to them. However, each state gets one vote. The state also has the power to recall delegates from the convention, should they become 'rogue' and attempt to undertake something not authorized by the state legislature. He again reiterated his previous point about the original constitutional convention, that ten of the twelve states present, were given instructions they could adopt an entirely new constitution. He maintains that the states would not have ratified the constitution if this had not been the case. The states are simply not obliged to accept whatever the convention spits out. The convention is simply a meeting of minds, to discuss an idea or proposal and formalize it as such. The states then have to ratify it, and if 3/4 of them don't, it can't become part of the Constitution. The 'checks and balances' to ensure against a runaway convention are there, and it wouldn't be a runaway convention. The first convention wasn't a runaway convention, no matter how much you want to revise history and try to make it one. The states who called for the convention, ratified what came out of the convention, so how was it "runaway" in any context?

 

[johnwk]

Are you suggesting Harvard is not the hot bed of academia socialist thought? I didn’t know stating a truth was attacking someone. Is this your way to shut down critical thinking and debate?

That can be said of almost any institution of higher learning, except for maybe Hillsdale. So by using this single liberal debate tactic, you have eliminated the use of any university law study, in evaluating Constitutional law questions. Subsequently, you have eliminated opinions from any persons who attended any university. Way to go! If you aren't a flaming liberal, you would make an excellent one!

So now, instead of quoting from the Harvard study to make a specific point under debate, you revert to more name calling and insulting remarks. I merely stated that I was amazed you would rely upon something concocted at the hot-bed of socialist thought. Now, getting back to what was under debate I wrote: “The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which you indicate establishes how many delegates each state would have, and it would be an equal number, is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process!” You responded with: “And thus, neither can the state legislatures be deprived of equal suffrage in a state-called convention.” I then responded with:

That is your opinion and to the best of my knowledge is not supported by anything stated in our Constitution, nor expressed during the framing and ratification debates which gave life to our Constitution. In fact, our Constitution is silent as to whether each state would get an equal number of delegates if an Article V convention were called by Congress, or that the number would be determined by the rule of apportionment. Keep in mind that our Constitution declares, in crystal clear language that ”Representatives and Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . “. The following formula could very well determine each states number of representatives at an Article V convention:

State’s population
_________________ X House membership (435) = State’s number of delegates to convention
Total U.S. population


And so, as you can now see, the case can very easily be made that representation at an Article V convention must be determined by the rule of apportionment. And who would decide this question of representation? None other than our tyrannical Supreme Court.

At this point in time, instead of offering a rebuttal with supportive documentation, you told me how great Harvard was, went on with more of your opinions, and offered nothing of substance to support your notions. The fact is, just like I previously stated, our Constitution is silent as to whether each state would get an equal number of delegates if an Article V convention were called by Congress, or that the number would be determined by the rule of apportionment.

Let's be clear, of the academia most well-versed in Constitutional law, are Harvard, Yale and Cornell. The fact that a pinko commie socialist hotbed such as Harvard, has completely dismantled your superfluous arguments against a state-called convention under Article V, should be an indication that you are done and this debate is over.

Yes! Let’s be clear. Post from the Harvard study where our Constitution contains a rule which determines each state’s number of delegates if an Article V convention is called.

I noticed Mark stated today that 10 of the states sent delegates to the convention with authority to write a new constitution. But the truth is, of the 12 states which sent delegates, three states, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York sent delegates with the specific understanding they were to meet in “Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…” That leaves nine States.
Let the documentation speak for itself!

CREDENTIALS OF MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT


STATE OF NEW YORK

When Mark suggests ten of the states were sent with the authority to write a new constitution, that certainly conflicts with the above documentation. And a complete review of the remaining CREDENTIALS OF MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION establishes the object was to revise the Articles of Confederation to make them adequate to the exigencies of the Union, which is far different than writing a new constitution, creating a new federal government, vesting powers in that new government which were then exercised by the individual States, and authorizing the new government to assume debts incurred by the states during the Revolutionary War. I am disappointed that Mark has chosen to exaggerate the intended authority of the delegates in promoting his desire to have another convention.

You are confusing context here, another liberal tactic. Because they were given authority to go to point C, doesn't mean they were not given authority to go to point A or point B. This is what you are erroneously trying to infer. If I tell you to "go secure the border" and you ask, "how far should I go in doing this" and I tell you, "shoot them if you have to" I have not given you orders to execute people.

The truth is, you are ignoring the historical documents of three states expressing their understanding that the delegates were to meet in “Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…” You are also ignoring Mark’s math which does not add up.

I'm disappointed that someone who talks like he wants to change the out-of-control government, doesn't seem to want to try a Constitutional approach, and has no further ideas of how to go about that. I am disappointed that person wants to continue obfuscating and upholding the status quo, while obstructing those who want to proactively take action under the Constitution. Mostly, I am disappointed you don't apparently have the courage and backbone to stand with us on this, because with you or without you, it's going to happen. You and Karl Rove can sit there with your little whiteboards, bashing conservatives and downplaying everything they do, and we'll go ahead and convene a convention to propose amendments to the constitution.

Well, I see you have again decided to revert to personalizing the thread as opposed to sorting out the various dangers of calling an Article V convention. And this is in addition to your posting more insulting remarks and unsubstantiated assertions about me.
JWK

America we have a problem! We have a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to gain political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the disarming of the American Citizen; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government which is now replaced with a 12 member committee clothed with power to make law; the weakening and destruction of our manufacturing capabilities by tyrannical regulation; the transferring of America’s weapons of defense and military technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the infringement upon the American People’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care and medical needs; the intentional sabotaging of our nation’s health care delivery system, the taking of private property for purposes other than a “public use” as limited by our federal Constitution; the use of federal taxing powers in a manner unauthorized by legislative intent of our Constitution, and particularly violating the rule of apportioning “direct“ taxes; the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and an unconstitutional federally mandated retirement fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency by Federal Reserve Notes, a worthless script, having been despotically made a legal tender for all debts public and private, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

 

[johnwk]

Okay, John... I have listened to Levin's program from today (8/27) and I didn't hear anything about defending the Marxist income tax system,

Well, I guess you missed it because he also mentioned the alleged "fairtax". In regard to Congress' current method to raise a federal revenue, Mark is just fine with keeping the Marxist tax which is calculated from "incomes" rather then defending our Constitution's original tax plan. Apparently Mark has not yet figured out that our Constitution still requires direct taxes to be apportioned among the states, and was agreed to by our founders to insure that if Congress ever decided to tax the people directly, each State's share of a total sum being raised would be in proportion to its allotted number of representatives which boils down to representation with a proportional financial obligation ___ an idea which socialists and Marxists fear and hate with a passion. They just love the one man one vote thing, but reject the one vote on dollar required under the rule of apportionment which was part of the great compromise of the convention of 1787.

JWK



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