Legislation: Mark Levin's proposed "convention to amend the constitution"

[jllundqu]

Re: His new book, The Liberty Amendments

He is very cautious NOT to call it a Constitutional Convention.

He makes a compelling case for proposing amendments to 2/3rds of the state legislatures and sending them to 3/4ths of the state, bypassing the US Congress altogether.

We can argue about which amendments would benefit the most, and the Madison Coalition argues that there would not be a "runaway convention" oft discussed in political circles.

What say RPF? I think it's an idea with merit. I like the idea of changing everything ourselves, at the state level. If we could get 2/3rds to agree to a convention, it would rock the establishment so much that it would not matter what the 3/4ths did with the amendments.... it would shake up the whole system.

 

[Occam's Banana]

They ignore the Constitution as it already stands. Why should they be expected to respect any new amendments to it?

Monkeying around with a document that the Feds already ignore at will won't accomplish anything - except to divert attention and waste resources.

Efforts directed at the state level would be much better and more fruitfully spent on nullification and the like.

 

[willwash]

Only way well ever see a balanced budget amendment

 

[Neil Desmond]

Monkeying around....

Ha! Is that the meaning of Occam's Banana?

 

[fr33]

Re: His new book, The Liberty Amendments

He is very cautious NOT to call it a Constitutional Convention.

He makes a compelling case for proposing amendments to 2/3rds of the state legislatures and sending them to 3/4ths of the state, bypassing the US Congress altogether.

We can argue about which amendments would benefit the most, and the Madison Coalition argues that there would not be a "runaway convention" oft discussed in political circles.

What say RPF? I think it's an idea with merit. I like the idea of changing everything ourselves, at the state level. If we could get 2/3rds to agree to a convention, it would rock the establishment so much that it would not matter what the 3/4ths did with the amendments.... it would shake up the whole system.

I haven't read any of Levin's ideas but the way you phrase it sounds somewhat like nullification. Am I right?

 

[jllundqu]

I haven't read any of Levin's ideas but the way you phrase it sounds somewhat like nullification. Am I right?

Not exactly...

This is a focused plan with the end result being several new amendments ratified by the states changing the makeup of the federal/state governments. For example, one of the amendments proposed is to repeal the 17th amendment (Ron Paul supports this), term limits for congress (debatable), limit taxes, limit spending to a ratio of GDP, etc etc.

I think any change sought by the feds and the congress is a waste of time. The congress will never vote to reign in their own unchecked power. That's why the founders gave us Article V. It's never been used before!!! For this very moment in history, it is needed. The states and state governments can amend the constitution without the permission of the feds/congress.

I think it is a great idea that should at least be discussed by RPF.

 

[gnuschler]

I haven't read any of Levin's ideas but the way you phrase it sounds somewhat like nullification. Am I right?

The Constitution offers two paths for amendments, only one of which (those proposed by Congress) has ever been used. Levin suggests that a federal tyranny will never reform itself, and that we bypass Congress and utilize the second method to amend the Constitution ... which is propose a convention solely for the purpose of offering amendments. Such a convention will require approval from 2/3rds of state legislatures, and all proposed amendments will require ratification from 3/4ths of the states.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I support Levin's concept here as it would be far less expensive than focusing resources on federal level races. On one hand, it's a great game for the average listener/conservative to focus on who may or may not be active. On the other, it utilizes the restore the GOP movement on a local level by focusing on precinct delegates picking conservative non-establishment people to man their district and state cmtes as well as the chairs on down. In addition to campaigning in one's area for grassroots type candidates w/ all these extra people involved, having major influence on these cmtes allows for passing resolutions to keep their elected pols in check by pulling endorsements/funding if they go against their local cmte. If each state has most of their congressional district cmtes in sync, it then becomes possible for a better statewide effort to elect a solid governor. The sky is the limit. If these Amendments (that are populist in nature) don't pan out then nullification can be the immediate next option on other issues or in tandem.

 

[gnuschler]

I support Levin's concept here as it would be far less expensive than focusing resources on federal level races. On one hand, it's a great game for the average listener/conservative to focus on who may or may not be active. On the other, it utilizes the restore the GOP movement on a local level by focusing on precinct delegates picking conservative non-establishment people to man their district and state cmtes as well as the chairs on down. In addition to campaigning in one's area for grassroots type candidates w/ all these extra people involved, having major influence on these cmtes allows for passing resolutions to keep their elected pols in check by pulling endorsements/funding if they go against their local cmte. If each state has most of their congressional district cmtes in sync, it then becomes possible for a better statewide effort to elect a solid governor. The sky is the limit. If these Amendments (that are populist in nature) don't pan out then nullification can be the immediate next option on other issues or in tandem.

I agree with all of this. As I stated in another thread, I don't see much of a long-term political strategy among liberty folks who are genuinely interested in restoring the republic. If we are to move forward with something like this, the Tea Party will need to come together, organize, centralize fundraising (to some extent), and allocate resources to red and blue states alike ... IMHO.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not convinced that enough people are selfless enough to do this properly/rationally. I'm open to evidence, though.

 

[jllundqu]

All that is needed is for people to get comittments from state legislatures that they WANT to hold such a convention. Once we have 2/3 states on board, we could really start shaping the debate. This could be big if it caught traction. Right now it's Levin's idea... other than that, it's leaderless.

There's a lot of red on this map:

If we could get the states organized at the state level to hold this convention and propose certain amendments, the tone and debate in this country would shift... it would get a ton of attention.

 

[jllundqu]

We could shove it up washington DC's respective ass by completely going around them with article V used for the first time! It would be epic!

 

[gnuschler]

Right now it's Levin's idea... other than that, it's leaderless.

That may be true, but the book has been #1 on the NY Times best sellers list for the last two weeks ... it may be leaderless, but people are taking notice.

 

[jllundqu]

I would hope so.... Doesn't look like RPF or the Liberty movements care much though... which surprises me. This is a workable plan.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Been reading the book and fundementaly seems like a good concept

 

[jllundqu]

How cool would that be... to be on the forefront of a constitutional upheaval/revival... using Article V for the first time... screwing the congress...

 

[Occam's Banana]

We can argue about which amendments would benefit the most, and the Madison Coalition argues that there would not be a "runaway convention" oft discussed in political circles.

The original constitutional convention had been authorized only to consider & propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They ended up chucking the Articles in toto and replacing them with the Constitution - which centralized and concentrated power in a much more dominant (& domineering) "federal" government.

Fool me once ...

 

[Occam's Banana]

Ha! Is that the meaning of Occam's Banana?

Hi, there! My name is Occam. This is my banana ...

 

[MichaelDavis]

This is a fantastic idea. This is the only way congressional power will ever be limited, i.e. term limits. The founding fathers were very intelligent people. They knew that members of Congress would never vote to limit their own power, so they creater other paths to a constitutional amendment.

 

[Southron]

Mike Church started talking about this several years ago. I was convinced then. I guess it took someone with more name recognition to get people talking about it.