The Liberty Amendments

[eagle1462010]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what I THINK is the article he is referring to:
"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."

So basically it would have to be ratified by 3/4th's of the several states? Do you think that can really happen and on what particular issues?

I think it would have to still go through the Congress or at least the Senate because of that last line I put in bold type. Maybe I am wrong, but i really don't see it happening any time soon. Here's another thin i was reading:
"As a legislative branch of government, a legislature generally performs state duties for a state in the same way that the United States Congress performs national duties at the national level. Generally, the same system of checks and balances that exists at the Federal level also exists between the state legislature, the state executive officer (governor) and the state judiciary, though the degree to which this is so varies from one state to the next.

During a legislative session, the legislature considers matters introduced by its members or submitted by the governor. Businesses and other special interest organizations often lobby the legislature to obtain beneficial legislation, defeat unfavorably perceived measures, or influence other legislative action. A legislature also approves the state's operating and capital budgets, which may begin as a legislative proposal or a submission by the governor.

Under the terms of Article V of the U.S. Constitution, state lawmakers retain the power to ratify Constitutional amendments which have been proposed by the Congress and they also retain the ability to apply to the Congress for a national convention to directly propose Constitutional amendments to the states for ratification. Under Article II, state legislatures choose the manner of appointing the state's presidential electors. Formerly, state legislatures appointed the U.S. Senators from their respective states until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 required the direct election of Senators by county's voters."

The reason the founders put in the 3/4ths of the states to ratify clause is because it bypasses Congress and the POTUS. So you'd have to have 75% of the states to pass the Amendment. Which would be difficult as hell, but NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE.

I believe the way to test these waters to see if it is doable, would be to push through the Term Limits and give it a try. I believe a lot of people in the US are tired of career politicians.

 

[Geaux4it]

I want an Amendment that says everyone has to get along and do what is best for he people

Has as much a chance of success as Levins

And who/what decides what's best for the people?

-Geaux

 

[eagle1462010]

I want an Amendment that says everyone has to get along and do what is best for he people

Has as much a chance of success as Levins

And who/what decides what's best for the people?

-Geaux

The people do. Which is why the framers put this option into the constitution.

It's not impossible. Yet so many will say it can't be done. There is NO WAY our Congress will vote in Term Limits. They aren't going to fire themselves.

So WE THE PEOPLE can amend the Constitution and give them no choice.

 

[Geaux4it]

I want an Amendment that says everyone has to get along and do what is best for he people

Has as much a chance of success as Levins

And who/what decides what's best for the people?

-Geaux

The people do. Which is why the framers put this option into the constitution.

It's not impossible. Yet so many will say it can't be done. There is NO WAY our Congress will vote in Term Limits. They aren't going to fire themselves.

So WE THE PEOPLE can amend the Constitution and give them no choice.

Absolutely, I'm interested in RW's answer.

-Geaux

 

[regent]

The method of proposing Amendments that the author supports would probably mean a full scale Constitutional overhaul or complete revision of the Constitution. I doubt that would fare well with the people.

There is a reason that the method under discussion has never been used, and in all probability may never be used, is that it would create some chaos. Are we ready to rewrite the Constitution, because a few conservatives are upset? If people are so upset as you portray them to be why did they elect Obama the first time and then the second?

Not so. The method is strictly limited to amendments to the Constitution. In fact, it is formally called a Convention for Amending the Constitution. The Constitution itself, can't be rewritten.

Also, the method has been used before, the most recent attempt was with ERA, but failed to get the required 2/3rd of States on board. No one is saying this would be easy, it would be very difficult, but don't let the recent election results fool you. We elect presidents through the Electoral College, which means large states like California and New York (strong Obama states) get far more votes than others. With this situation, each state counts as one state. I think there are currently 27 states with Republican legislatures, so that would be just 6 states shy of the needed 2/3rd to call the convention. Now, a state can call for the convention with a simple majority vote, they don't need a supermajority. You're now talking about a few state legislators flipping, and that is very doable.

Don't write this off as impossible just yet. I know a LOT of people who voted for Obama and believed in the Democrats, who are very disappointed. I also know a LOT of people who simply didn't vote at all, because they are so disgusted with BOTH parties and the political power structure in Washington. This is a chance to change all that.

Are delegates to the convention restricted as to the number of amendments they might introduce? To date, over 4000 amendments have been introduced to the Congress.
The present Constitution is a result of a convention that met to revise the Articles and ended up with today's Constitution, and I doubt a new convention will have individuals as they had in 1787.
Today with more democracy and corporations, every vested interest will be involved in the writing of the amendments, and while it would be interesting to watch the convention take place, chances of its happening are indeed slim but it does sell books.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The method of proposing Amendments that the author supports would probably mean a full scale Constitutional overhaul or complete revision of the Constitution. I doubt that would fare well with the people.

There is a reason that the method under discussion has never been used, and in all probability may never be used, is that it would create some chaos. Are we ready to rewrite the Constitution, because a few conservatives are upset? If people are so upset as you portray them to be why did they elect Obama the first time and then the second?

Not so. The method is strictly limited to amendments to the Constitution. In fact, it is formally called a Convention for Amending the Constitution. The Constitution itself, can't be rewritten.

Also, the method has been used before, the most recent attempt was with ERA, but failed to get the required 2/3rd of States on board. No one is saying this would be easy, it would be very difficult, but don't let the recent election results fool you. We elect presidents through the Electoral College, which means large states like California and New York (strong Obama states) get far more votes than others. With this situation, each state counts as one state. I think there are currently 27 states with Republican legislatures, so that would be just 6 states shy of the needed 2/3rd to call the convention. Now, a state can call for the convention with a simple majority vote, they don't need a supermajority. You're now talking about a few state legislators flipping, and that is very doable.

Don't write this off as impossible just yet. I know a LOT of people who voted for Obama and believed in the Democrats, who are very disappointed. I also know a LOT of people who simply didn't vote at all, because they are so disgusted with BOTH parties and the political power structure in Washington. This is a chance to change all that.

I think you are going to turn into one of those posters who gets dumber every time you post.

The method results in something called a Constitutional Convention, and there are no restrictions on what the convention considers once it is formed. Even if all they churned out were amendments, that, by definition, is rewriting the Constitution. In fact, the proposals you listed are a pretty serious rewrite of the entire Constitution in and of themselves, and would change the very form of government you claim to want to preserve by creating one that never existed before.

It takes a really stupid person to call for rewriting something and then argue that wasn't their intention. If you want to argue you aren't stupid, feel free, but that would make you a sack of shit with a political agenda that makes it fine for you to lie to people in order to achieve your goals.

 

[Boss]

I think you are going to turn into one of those posters who gets dumber every time you post.

The method results in something called a Constitutional Convention, and there are no restrictions on what the convention considers once it is formed. Even if all they churned out were amendments, that, by definition, is rewriting the Constitution. In fact, the proposals you listed are a pretty serious rewrite of the entire Constitution in and of themselves, and would change the very form of government you claim to want to preserve by creating one that never existed before.

It takes a really stupid person to call for rewriting something and then argue that wasn't their intention. If you want to argue you aren't stupid, feel free, but that would make you a sack of shit with a political agenda that makes it fine for you to lie to people in order to achieve your goals.

And I think you are going to grow up to one day be an anal polyp.

Text of 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.

The convention is clearly LIMITED to amendments, that is what Article V specifically says.

 

[Boss]

The method of proposing Amendments that the author supports would probably mean a full scale Constitutional overhaul or complete revision of the Constitution. I doubt that would fare well with the people.

There is a reason that the method under discussion has never been used, and in all probability may never be used, is that it would create some chaos. Are we ready to rewrite the Constitution, because a few conservatives are upset? If people are so upset as you portray them to be why did they elect Obama the first time and then the second?

Not so. The method is strictly limited to amendments to the Constitution. In fact, it is formally called a Convention for Amending the Constitution. The Constitution itself, can't be rewritten.

Also, the method has been used before, the most recent attempt was with ERA, but failed to get the required 2/3rd of States on board. No one is saying this would be easy, it would be very difficult, but don't let the recent election results fool you. We elect presidents through the Electoral College, which means large states like California and New York (strong Obama states) get far more votes than others. With this situation, each state counts as one state. I think there are currently 27 states with Republican legislatures, so that would be just 6 states shy of the needed 2/3rd to call the convention. Now, a state can call for the convention with a simple majority vote, they don't need a supermajority. You're now talking about a few state legislators flipping, and that is very doable.

Don't write this off as impossible just yet. I know a LOT of people who voted for Obama and believed in the Democrats, who are very disappointed. I also know a LOT of people who simply didn't vote at all, because they are so disgusted with BOTH parties and the political power structure in Washington. This is a chance to change all that.

Are delegates to the convention restricted as to the number of amendments they might introduce? To date, over 4000 amendments have been introduced to the Congress.
The present Constitution is a result of a convention that met to revise the Articles and ended up with today's Constitution, and I doubt a new convention will have individuals as they had in 1787.
Today with more democracy and corporations, every vested interest will be involved in the writing of the amendments, and while it would be interesting to watch the convention take place, chances of its happening are indeed slim but it does sell books.

Here's the deal, and Levin has addressed this beautifully... Whatever is adopted by the convention, then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pretty much kills any outrageous proposals for special interest amendments and whatnot. Levin says he gets two general arguments against his proposal... 1) That it will be impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify... and 2) That we'll end up with all these crazy radical amendments. He contends that BOTH are unlikely to happen, so which one is it?

It's fascinating that the Liberal left is already gunning at this. QW, this exposes you for the liberal fraud you are, because any respectable libertarian would be all for these amendments. It returns power to the states and the people, and dramatically limits the scope and power of the Federal Leviathan libertarians claim to hate so much... but as you've illustrated, you're really a BIG GOVERNMENT kinda guy! You LIKE having a big intrusive Federal Government that can tell the rest of us what to do. You LIKE having an all-powerful Supreme Court who can rule with impunity and force Liberal views on society for generations to come.

You are a LIBERAL who doesn't like being called a liberal, plain and simple.

 

[regent]

Not so. The method is strictly limited to amendments to the Constitution. In fact, it is formally called a Convention for Amending the Constitution. The Constitution itself, can't be rewritten.

Also, the method has been used before, the most recent attempt was with ERA, but failed to get the required 2/3rd of States on board. No one is saying this would be easy, it would be very difficult, but don't let the recent election results fool you. We elect presidents through the Electoral College, which means large states like California and New York (strong Obama states) get far more votes than others. With this situation, each state counts as one state. I think there are currently 27 states with Republican legislatures, so that would be just 6 states shy of the needed 2/3rd to call the convention. Now, a state can call for the convention with a simple majority vote, they don't need a supermajority. You're now talking about a few state legislators flipping, and that is very doable.

Don't write this off as impossible just yet. I know a LOT of people who voted for Obama and believed in the Democrats, who are very disappointed. I also know a LOT of people who simply didn't vote at all, because they are so disgusted with BOTH parties and the political power structure in Washington. This is a chance to change all that.

Are delegates to the convention restricted as to the number of amendments they might introduce? To date, over 4000 amendments have been introduced to the Congress.
The present Constitution is a result of a convention that met to revise the Articles and ended up with today's Constitution, and I doubt a new convention will have individuals as they had in 1787.
Today with more democracy and corporations, every vested interest will be involved in the writing of the amendments, and while it would be interesting to watch the convention take place, chances of its happening are indeed slim but it does sell books.

Here's the deal, and Levin has addressed this beautifully... Whatever is adopted by the convention, then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pretty much kills any outrageous proposals for special interest amendments and whatnot. Levin says he gets two general arguments against his proposal... 1) That it will be impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify... and 2) That we'll end up with all these crazy radical amendments. He contends that BOTH are unlikely to happen, so which one is it?

It's fascinating that the Liberal left is already gunning at this. QW, this exposes you for the liberal fraud you are, because any respectable libertarian would be all for these amendments. It returns power to the states and the people, and dramatically limits the scope and power of the Federal Leviathan libertarians claim to hate so much... but as you've illustrated, you're really a BIG GOVERNMENT kinda guy! You LIKE having a big intrusive Federal Government that can tell the rest of us what to do. You LIKE having an all-powerful Supreme Court who can rule with impunity and force Liberal views on society for generations to come.

You are a LIBERAL who doesn't like being called a liberal, plain and simple.

I love being called a liberal. I have been a liberal all my life and have no intention of changing. I believe in using the government not only for the benefit of corporations and business, but also for the people.
The Supreme Court I'm not so wild about, I mean five conservatives and the Court's questionable takeover of interpreting and applying the Constitution, when that power was not in the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you are going to turn into one of those posters who gets dumber every time you post.

The method results in something called a Constitutional Convention, and there are no restrictions on what the convention considers once it is formed. Even if all they churned out were amendments, that, by definition, is rewriting the Constitution. In fact, the proposals you listed are a pretty serious rewrite of the entire Constitution in and of themselves, and would change the very form of government you claim to want to preserve by creating one that never existed before.

It takes a really stupid person to call for rewriting something and then argue that wasn't their intention. If you want to argue you aren't stupid, feel free, but that would make you a sack of shit with a political agenda that makes it fine for you to lie to people in order to achieve your goals.

And I think you are going to grow up to one day be an anal polyp.

Text of 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.

The convention is clearly LIMITED to amendments, that is what Article V specifically says.

OK, genius, let me spell it out for you.

I stated that the resulting convention would be called a Constitutional Convention, and that there is no restriction on what it considers once it is called. To counter this you claimed that the Constitution, which clearly does not limit what it considers, somehow limits it.

I then states that, even if all it did was churn out amendments that they, by definition, rewrite the Constitution.

To wit:

The 12th Amendment rewrote Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution, and was itself rewritten by the 20th Amendment.

The 13th Amendment rewrote Article 4 Section 2.
​

Get the fucking picture, asshole?

If we put in term limits for Congress and all federal judges, we would rewrite the Constitution, and the resulting government would be one with term limits, which we never had before. That makes me right, and you an idiot for trying to prove me wrong yet actually reinforcing my point.

By the way, the original Constitutional Convention was called to modify the Articles of Confederation, and ended up drafting a Constitution, which was illegal under the Articles of Confederation. Yet it was ratified, and we are using it today.

What, exactly would prevent this from happening if we called another Constitutional Convention? Magical Unicorns?

 

[Contumacious]

[

OK, genius, let me spell it out for you.

I stated that the resulting convention would be called a Constitutional Convention, and that there is no restriction on what it considers once it is called.

That is correct.

It would be extremely dangerous since the fascists and socialist predominate.

Likely they will adopt the Communist Manifesto .

By the way, the original Constitutional Convention was called to modify the Articles of Confederation, and ended up drafting a Constitution, which was illegal under the Articles of Confederation. Yet it was ratified, and we are using it today.

Incorrect.

Our rights have been reduced to privileges.

.

 

[The T]

No, you are incorrect. The word "OR" is very important in the sentence. Look, Mark Levin was studying the Constitution when you were still shitting yellow in your diapers, I don't think he has misinterpreted Article V.

That's a pretty faulty appeal to authority. Who cares how long Mark has been studying the Constitution. That doesn't necessarily make his interpretation correct.

Obama was teaching the Constitution and we know he doesn't know jack about it.

And he only taught ONE CLASS...to the Statist on these boards? That makes him an expert...er---uhmm....it just might because he is usurping it, wrecking it, end-around runs...and NO ONE in Congress has the balls to call him on it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not so. The method is strictly limited to amendments to the Constitution. In fact, it is formally called a Convention for Amending the Constitution. The Constitution itself, can't be rewritten.

Also, the method has been used before, the most recent attempt was with ERA, but failed to get the required 2/3rd of States on board. No one is saying this would be easy, it would be very difficult, but don't let the recent election results fool you. We elect presidents through the Electoral College, which means large states like California and New York (strong Obama states) get far more votes than others. With this situation, each state counts as one state. I think there are currently 27 states with Republican legislatures, so that would be just 6 states shy of the needed 2/3rd to call the convention. Now, a state can call for the convention with a simple majority vote, they don't need a supermajority. You're now talking about a few state legislators flipping, and that is very doable.

Don't write this off as impossible just yet. I know a LOT of people who voted for Obama and believed in the Democrats, who are very disappointed. I also know a LOT of people who simply didn't vote at all, because they are so disgusted with BOTH parties and the political power structure in Washington. This is a chance to change all that.

Are delegates to the convention restricted as to the number of amendments they might introduce? To date, over 4000 amendments have been introduced to the Congress.
The present Constitution is a result of a convention that met to revise the Articles and ended up with today's Constitution, and I doubt a new convention will have individuals as they had in 1787.
Today with more democracy and corporations, every vested interest will be involved in the writing of the amendments, and while it would be interesting to watch the convention take place, chances of its happening are indeed slim but it does sell books.

Here's the deal, and Levin has addressed this beautifully... Whatever is adopted by the convention, then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pretty much kills any outrageous proposals for special interest amendments and whatnot. Levin says he gets two general arguments against his proposal... 1) That it will be impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify... and 2) That we'll end up with all these crazy radical amendments. He contends that BOTH are unlikely to happen, so which one is it?

It's fascinating that the Liberal left is already gunning at this. QW, this exposes you for the liberal fraud you are, because any respectable libertarian would be all for these amendments. It returns power to the states and the people, and dramatically limits the scope and power of the Federal Leviathan libertarians claim to hate so much... but as you've illustrated, you're really a BIG GOVERNMENT kinda guy! You LIKE having a big intrusive Federal Government that can tell the rest of us what to do. You LIKE having an all-powerful Supreme Court who can rule with impunity and force Liberal views on society for generations to come.

You are a LIBERAL who doesn't like being called a liberal, plain and simple.

It exposes you as an idiot. If it makes you happy for me to be a liberal, feel free to call me one. The simple fact that you need to label me proves you are not the libertarian you claim you are.

For the people that actually want the truth, the opposition to a Constitutional Convention comes form conservatives as well as liberals.

Constitutional Convention Opposition Mounting in Texas

NO Constitutional Convention

The only reason anyone would have to misrepresent the opposition to a convention as liberal, or conservative, is if they have an agenda that gains from lying to people in order to obtain something else. Ask yourself, why would a person that thinks that government should have more power to deny people rights call anyone who opposes him a liberal?

 

[The T]

[

OK, genius, let me spell it out for you.

I stated that the resulting convention would be called a Constitutional Convention, and that there is no restriction on what it considers once it is called.

That is correct.

It would be extremely dangerous since the fascists and socialist predominate.

Likely they will adopt the Communist Manifesto .

By the way, the original Constitutional Convention was called to modify the Articles of Confederation, and ended up drafting a Constitution, which was illegal under the Articles of Confederation. Yet it was ratified, and we are using it today.

Incorrect.

Our rights have been reduced to privileges.

.

And privileges doled out by gubmint by their good graces...NOT what the Founders wanted but heartily warned us of.

 

[regent]

Not so. The method is strictly limited to amendments to the Constitution. In fact, it is formally called a Convention for Amending the Constitution. The Constitution itself, can't be rewritten.

Also, the method has been used before, the most recent attempt was with ERA, but failed to get the required 2/3rd of States on board. No one is saying this would be easy, it would be very difficult, but don't let the recent election results fool you. We elect presidents through the Electoral College, which means large states like California and New York (strong Obama states) get far more votes than others. With this situation, each state counts as one state. I think there are currently 27 states with Republican legislatures, so that would be just 6 states shy of the needed 2/3rd to call the convention. Now, a state can call for the convention with a simple majority vote, they don't need a supermajority. You're now talking about a few state legislators flipping, and that is very doable.

Don't write this off as impossible just yet. I know a LOT of people who voted for Obama and believed in the Democrats, who are very disappointed. I also know a LOT of people who simply didn't vote at all, because they are so disgusted with BOTH parties and the political power structure in Washington. This is a chance to change all that.

Are delegates to the convention restricted as to the number of amendments they might introduce? To date, over 4000 amendments have been introduced to the Congress.
The present Constitution is a result of a convention that met to revise the Articles and ended up with today's Constitution, and I doubt a new convention will have individuals as they had in 1787.
Today with more democracy and corporations, every vested interest will be involved in the writing of the amendments, and while it would be interesting to watch the convention take place, chances of its happening are indeed slim but it does sell books.

Here's the deal, and Levin has addressed this beautifully... Whatever is adopted by the convention, then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pretty much kills any outrageous proposals for special interest amendments and whatnot. Levin says he gets two general arguments against his proposal... 1) That it will be impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify... and 2) That we'll end up with all these crazy radical amendments. He contends that BOTH are unlikely to happen, so which one is it?

It's fascinating that the Liberal left is already gunning at this. QW, this exposes you for the liberal fraud you are, because any respectable libertarian would be all for these amendments. It returns power to the states and the people, and dramatically limits the scope and power of the Federal Leviathan libertarians claim to hate so much... but as you've illustrated, you're really a BIG GOVERNMENT kinda guy! You LIKE having a big intrusive Federal Government that can tell the rest of us what to do. You LIKE having an all-powerful Supreme Court who can rule with impunity and force Liberal views on society for generations to come.

You are a LIBERAL who doesn't like being called a liberal, plain and simple.

Suppose the states do not ratify but rather another convention, a ratifying convention? Could the conventions proposing the amendments be added to, and become the convention ratifying?

 

[Pheonixops]

Not so. The method is strictly limited to amendments to the Constitution. In fact, it is formally called a Convention for Amending the Constitution. The Constitution itself, can't be rewritten.

Also, the method has been used before, the most recent attempt was with ERA, but failed to get the required 2/3rd of States on board. No one is saying this would be easy, it would be very difficult, but don't let the recent election results fool you. We elect presidents through the Electoral College, which means large states like California and New York (strong Obama states) get far more votes than others. With this situation, each state counts as one state. I think there are currently 27 states with Republican legislatures, so that would be just 6 states shy of the needed 2/3rd to call the convention. Now, a state can call for the convention with a simple majority vote, they don't need a supermajority. You're now talking about a few state legislators flipping, and that is very doable.

Don't write this off as impossible just yet. I know a LOT of people who voted for Obama and believed in the Democrats, who are very disappointed. I also know a LOT of people who simply didn't vote at all, because they are so disgusted with BOTH parties and the political power structure in Washington. This is a chance to change all that.

Are delegates to the convention restricted as to the number of amendments they might introduce? To date, over 4000 amendments have been introduced to the Congress.
The present Constitution is a result of a convention that met to revise the Articles and ended up with today's Constitution, and I doubt a new convention will have individuals as they had in 1787.
Today with more democracy and corporations, every vested interest will be involved in the writing of the amendments, and while it would be interesting to watch the convention take place, chances of its happening are indeed slim but it does sell books.

Here's the deal, and Levin has addressed this beautifully... Whatever is adopted by the convention, then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pretty much kills any outrageous proposals for special interest amendments and whatnot. Levin says he gets two general arguments against his proposal... 1) That it will be impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify... and 2) That we'll end up with all these crazy radical amendments. He contends that BOTH are unlikely to happen, so which one is it?

It's fascinating that the Liberal left is already gunning at this. QW, this exposes you for the liberal fraud you are, because any respectable libertarian would be all for these amendments. It returns power to the states and the people, and dramatically limits the scope and power of the Federal Leviathan libertarians claim to hate so much... but as you've illustrated, you're really a BIG GOVERNMENT kinda guy! You LIKE having a big intrusive Federal Government that can tell the rest of us what to do. You LIKE having an all-powerful Supreme Court who can rule with impunity and force Liberal views on society for generations to come.

You are a LIBERAL who doesn't like being called a liberal, plain and simple.

Was levin a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul supporter, or did he throw his support behind Romney?

 

[boedicca]

I received the book today from Amazon.

 

[The T]

Are delegates to the convention restricted as to the number of amendments they might introduce? To date, over 4000 amendments have been introduced to the Congress.
The present Constitution is a result of a convention that met to revise the Articles and ended up with today's Constitution, and I doubt a new convention will have individuals as they had in 1787.
Today with more democracy and corporations, every vested interest will be involved in the writing of the amendments, and while it would be interesting to watch the convention take place, chances of its happening are indeed slim but it does sell books.

Here's the deal, and Levin has addressed this beautifully... Whatever is adopted by the convention, then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pretty much kills any outrageous proposals for special interest amendments and whatnot. Levin says he gets two general arguments against his proposal... 1) That it will be impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify... and 2) That we'll end up with all these crazy radical amendments. He contends that BOTH are unlikely to happen, so which one is it?

It's fascinating that the Liberal left is already gunning at this. QW, this exposes you for the liberal fraud you are, because any respectable libertarian would be all for these amendments. It returns power to the states and the people, and dramatically limits the scope and power of the Federal Leviathan libertarians claim to hate so much... but as you've illustrated, you're really a BIG GOVERNMENT kinda guy! You LIKE having a big intrusive Federal Government that can tell the rest of us what to do. You LIKE having an all-powerful Supreme Court who can rule with impunity and force Liberal views on society for generations to come.

You are a LIBERAL who doesn't like being called a liberal, plain and simple.

Was levin a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul supporter, or did he throw his support behind Romney?

Wasn't Ron Paul...he didn't have nice things to say about RON, or his supporters.

 

[The T]

I received the book today from Amazon.

Mine is on order. Expect it Monday.

 

[regent]

I received the book today from Amazon.

Mine is on order. Expect it Monday.

Well that was the whole idea sell books, but the idea ain't gonna happen.