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

[gnuschler]

For anyone who wants to learn more or get involved: http://conventionofstates.com/

 

[donnay]

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

A workable plan for whom? Currently the hijacked government disregards the first ten amendments to the Bill of Rights--how would adding new amendments make any difference?

 

[gnuschler]

Currently the hijacked government disregards the first ten amendments to the Bill of Rights--how would adding new amendments make any difference?

The federal government has assumed as much power as it has because the states have rolled over and allowed it ... the states do have recourse!

I'm amazed at the contempt for this plan among liberty folks ... what would you suggest we do instead? All we need to do is elect Rand Paul ... will that solve everything?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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 ...

The centralizers and nationalizers would have worked ceaselessly to warp the Articles of Confederation into Articles of Consolidation, even if the Constitution had not been created out of the Convention. trying to criticize the Constitution for what the monkey wrenchers planned to do to the American Experiment in any case is an exercise in armchair folly.

As it stands, every single time a law is created, regulation approved, or a court ruling made establihing a precedent that contradicts, guts or neutralizes the Constitution and its original intent, a defacto Constitutional Convention has been held. The creation of case law or statutory law that weasels out of confirming the Constitutional provisions, and replaces them with a pro-Total State framework has the effect of re-writing it every day. Only a Constitutional Convention that we have (at least) the possibility of controlling can reverse the total trend.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The centralizers and nationalizers would have worked ceaselessly to warp the Articles of Confederation into Articles of Consolidation, even if the Constitution had not been created out of the Convention. trying to criticize the Constitution for what the monkey wrenchers planned to do to the American Experiment in any case is an exercise in armchair folly.

As it stands, every single time a law is created, regulation approved, or a court ruling made establihing a precedent that contradicts, guts or neutralizes the Constitution and its original intent, a defacto Constitutional Convention has been held. The creation of case law or statutory law that weasels out of confirming the Constitutional provisions, and replaces them with a pro-Total State framework has the effect of re-writing it every day. Only a Constitutional Convention that we have (at least) the possibility of controlling can reverse the total trend.

If what you said in your first paragraph is correct, then how is your closing sentence not "an exercise in armchair folly" ... ?

IOW: What makes you imagine that you'll have a chance in hell of "controlling" any putative Consitutional Convention - much less the subesequent interpretation, implementation and enforcement of anything it produces? What makes you think that the Feds won't just "weasel out of" and "re-write" whatever is done in order to make it fit ther "pro-Total State framework" (which you concede is what they have done with the Constitution as it already stands)?

Until enough states and people are ready and willing to outright repudiate (not reform) the federal government (in the form of nullifcation or even secession), merely adding or subtracting words to or from a document that is already ignored with impunity will do no good. It may be a useful step in eventually getting to the point where people are ready & willing to repudiate the Feds (just as the various secession movements that "ask for permission" to secede may be necessary before they finally get around to "just doing it"), but in and of itself, a Constitutional Convention will NOT accomplish anything that won't be perverted (and very probably perverted a LOT more quickly than the orignal Constitution was - as in, "almost immediately").

 

[osan]

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.

Impossibly dangerous idea, which probably why we should do it. Consider the course upon which we now sail - how does anyone think that is going to end? No well for most of us, that much is almost certain.

At this point, I see no reason not to try - what's the worst that will happen, we are turned into slaves?

 

[osan]

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

A fair gloopy question, me droog - but then there is this:

Monkeying around with a document that the Feds already ignore at will won't accomplish anything

Au contraire, mon ami - this was my initial gut impulse as well, but I got to thinking about it for a second or two and realized that it is not the case.

Once again we must turn to the power of language and the framework it provides from which we each hang out realities. Imagine if you will that the states receive the proposed amendments and by some impossible miracle (thanks God) they accept them as offered or with no fundamental alterations. Further assume the amendments are good - like MY kind of good - no fucking around, no weasel-wording, and so close to zero room for interpretation that even the lowest intellects among us would be able to understand them properly.

Now imagine they are ratified by the 3/4 majority. Where does that place the feds? Squarely on the spot - in the middle of the hot seat with a hooded man standing ready at the switch. Theye would be faced with a very immediate choice: accept the Amendments as adopted or not. If the former, game as it has existed is over - perhaps a new game even worse would emerge, but let us not dwell on the negative and recall that for the purpose of this conversation, the Amendments are good and nearly impossible to pervert. A new future for America would begin literally over night.

But what if Theye reject the Amendments? On what basis would Theye do so? This would place Themme so very directly in the position in which they NEVER want to find themselves where the light of day opens them up to very close and public scrutiny - and that is precisely what would happen because the "people" will have "spoken" and Theire refusal would open them to questioning by even the lowest bum living on a sheet on a sidewalk on the Bowery. Theye currently hide behind a thick and high wall of tacit assumptions that block people at the psychological level because of the "credibility" of all that unspoken bullshit about government solidity and implacable authority. All of a sudden that has all been stripped away and in the minds of the people these jokers are nothing but little wannabe kings standing there, buck naked for all the world to see. Such a move by the states would be the psychological equivalent of that small boy blurting out that the king is naked. The whole house of cards, built almost entirely on the shaky psychological instruments that rely 100% on the non-questioning of the mob has suddenly been swept away in a light breeze and the klowns are left standing there with inadequate little weenies blowing in the wind - except for Hillary Clinton, whose penis is so large even I would find myself weeping in disbelieving envy.

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

In the real world, you may be right - but do not dismiss the notion entirely.

 

[Czolgosz]

Paperwork will not set you free.

 

[osan]

Paperwork will not set you free.

Agreed, but words matter and they can change the psychological landscape drastically and at times in the most unexpected ways.

 

[osan]

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.

By this method we would have to have 38 states giving an upward thumb - are there 13 states that would retain the fedgov kneepads? Let us look.

NY
NJ
CT
RI
MA
MD
IL
CA
OR*
FL
WA*
MI*
WV

It would be close, to say the least. You know the first 8 are guaranteed to continue faithful sucking of the fedgov's missile. FL is likely as well. WV is the queer man out because they were never properly constituted as a state and it is today the largest welfare state in the nation and is probably the most dependent on fedgov money, so the missile gets serviced here, I am ashamed to admit. WA, OR, and MI are likely in my view because they are all run my progressives who want the missile where only a progressive could want it.

I say what the hell - lets give it a whirl - if it backfires on us, we always have guns. Just be sure to leave the last bullets for yourselves.

PS: Forgot HI - definite lover of the missile.

 

[outspoken]

Wasn't Mark Levin a hardcore neocon and proponent of Bush with all his unconstitutional actions just a few years ago? I am all for repentance but this sounds more like politics as usual just because a progressive is in office rather than a neocon. A big issue IMO is that senators used to be elected by state legislators rather than general elections, is this discussed in the book at all?

 

[gnuschler]

Wasn't Mark Levin a hardcore neocon and proponent of Bush with all his unconstitutional actions just a few years ago? I am all for repentance but this sounds more like politics as usual just because a progressive is in office rather than a neocon. A big issue IMO is that senators used to be elected by state legislators rather than general elections, is this discussed in the book at all?

Repeal of the 17th Amendment is one of the proposed amendments. As a Ron Paul supporter, I have lots of reasons for not liking Mark Levin ... however, this isn't about Mark Levin.

And to those suggesting that Progressives can use a convention to centralize even more power in the Federal government ... if we cannot find 13 red states willing to stand up to such a power grab, then there really is no hope for the republic, so what do we have to lose?

And I'll continue to ask those opposed to Levin's idea ... what do you propose instead?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

So Levin is acting like he's all for nullification, and then goes and pulls this:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...n-sounds-lot-like-rachel-maddow/#.Uj_iFxBUBco

Mark Levin is an idiot and not worth paying attention to.

 

[darkstar725]

Anything to do with Mark Levin is...well, probably on the wrong side of the issue.

Mark Levin -
"Dumb and dumber: Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman? Jeffrey Lord schools them, again"
Neo-Con Historians Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman?
hxxp://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/12/neo-con-historians-tom-woods-a

 

[Woods]

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

But they don't ignore "it." They ignore parts of it.

They follow the parts that have numbers. Senators run every 6 years, House every 2. Harry Reid has yet to argue 49 is greater than 51. And no one has argued what 3/5 means. It's probably no coincidence that in trying to restore checks and balances, Levin came quantitative ideas: balanced budget, 3/5 state override of Congress and the Supreme Court, percentage caps on taxes and spending/GDP. Everything there pegged to a number, not to the interpretation of a definition.

Most damage has been caused through violation of the interstate commerce clause, redefining both interstate and commerce. Levin proposes an amendment to repeal Wickerd v Filburn, which would restore the interstate commerce clause to its original meaning. That would be a huge blow for liberty.

 

[Woods]

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

To some, nullification is strictly the idea of states individually refusing to recognize federal law. Levin proposes 3/5 state override of federal laws and Supreme Court rulings. That would make them "null," but neither Levin nor purists really want it called "nullification."

 

[Snew]

lol because the Constitution did such a great job the first time...

 

[Peace&Freedom]

To some, nullification is strictly the idea of states individually refusing to recognize federal law. Levin proposes 3/5 state override of federal laws and Supreme Court rulings. That would make them "null," but neither Levin nor purists really want it called "nullification."

True nullification involves the premise that each state unilaterally has the right and sovereign authority to repudiate a federal law or court decision. To tag the power to a 3/5 of states override would make it about the same as an Amendment process, effectively canceling the states power to individually nullify. While it's reasonable to have a difficult process for amending the Constitution, there should be no such process to nullify mere statutes and rulings. The Levin concept is a trap to kill nullification, while promoting it as a means of making a bad law null.

What a new amendment or convention is needed for is to reaffirm that it is lawful and constitutional for an individual state to nullify, period, regardless of what other states do or think. That would stop the opponents from crying 'treason' in response to states exercising their constitutional power to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and rulings.