by Smitty
Mark Levin, radio talking head:
On Thursday, December 4, the Convention of States Project sponsored the breakfast session at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting in Washington, D.C. Convention of States Project legal board member, nationally syndicated radio talk show host, and Constitutional expert, Mark Levin, spoke on behalf of Article V and the project.
I was just watching The Daily Ledger on One America News Network and was intrigued by a guest who seemed to think that, with 3 states having applied for a Convention, and the results of the November mid-terms being what they were, the remaining 31 States needed for the magic 34 might be obtainable in 2015.
This is deeply interesting. As an opinion, I’m about 60% in favor of an Article V convention. The Vichy GOP are useless, and that’s the good news about the status quo. But I 40% think the Article V skeptics are quite correct: the enterprise is fraught with peril. I do happen to think that Farris and the Convention of States folks are putting in the time and playing it straight.
This is going to be a topic to follow up on at CPAC 2015, indeed.
What makes you so confident a constitutional convention, if it happened, would improve things?
One of two outcomes seems likely to me: either we (a) restore federalism, or (b) admit that this country is just the one honkin’ big uber-state.
Nowhere to go but up, sistah. (Not that I put much stock in a convention).
Both outcomes are unlikely unless there is some sort of strange and game-changing 1989 in Dresden like moment. The convention may report an amendment, but amendments which can garner the necessary supermajorities are generally petty matters.
I’m am cautiously optimistic about an Article Five convention, if it comes about.
I don’t think many of today’s politicians know much about America’s Constitution. They know even less about history, Locke, Aristotle, Plato, etc.
Rather than rewrite the Constitution that our well-educated and very wise Founding Fathers drafted, we need to insist on the passage of a Constitutional Amendment that SEVERELY LIMITS the President’s ability to use Executive Orders and Memos, to exercise prosecutorial discretion, and/or to act unilaterally overseas (e.g., in Libya, Iraq #3, Syria, and Cuba). Concurrently, Congress also needs to pass a law removing the regulatory agencies’ ability to issue regulations. Congress’ allowing the agencies to write “administrative law” is the primary reason we have so many costly regulations. The latest EPA regulation is going to cost businesses $270 billion every year according to an article I read today.
I’m surprised you haven’t considered the third possibility.
As I understand it. If the convention proposes an amendment it goes directly to the states.
Rather than rewrite the Constitution that our well-educated and very wise Founding Fathers drafted
I suppose reading Sallust in the original is impressive in its way, but it cannot substitute knowledge of actual architectural defects derived from experience with working political institutions.
Who may be free of the Capitol Hill consensus, but not of all the other conflicts from which the country suffers. See California.
Until we convince enough to recognize the wisdom of (a) I would assume (b) is the more likely outcome.
Only if there are men like you there…
I would never doubt there is a vast corruptocracy working behind the scenes, to take advantage of such an opportunity.
Thanks! But, I’m a Californian. Don’t look for my state’s delegation to lead the way on Constitutional fidelity.
I make it 50/50 between b) and c).
http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/6136/2/
Explain.
CPAC, indeed! Mark Levin has taken a rare opportunity (for him to accept) a speaking role there this year! Smitty = prescience (money in the bank!)
Why civil war of course, and not the heroic battlefield kind from the 1860s. Think Northern Ireland….if were lucky.
It’s not so much that the COS itself is perilous. Difficult and challenging? Most definitely.
The states would have to really work against their own interests to come up with any amendment that would damage the union. Even then, anything produced by the COS must be ratified.
In the universe of perils we face, NOT having a convention is among the worst. Otherwise, we’re another Britain (and that’s if we’re lucky). A great legacy, a bleak future, and of little use in stopping the creep of one-world government.
The notion of small changes–such as a possible election of a conservative President–to “try to avoid going over the cliff” is not going to make any difference in our situation. People have to face the fact that we most definitely went over the famous cliff people like to warn us about. It’s in our rear-view mirror, and we’re stuck in a valley of rapidly-diminishing rights. The way out is either conflict (on regional or national scale), or orderly revision of the Constitution to try and restore some sanity to the superstructure of the union.
The Convention is going to happen.
A) The COS is not about “rewriting” anything. It’s for Proposing Amendments.
B) The radical mis-interpretation of the Constitution by the federal branches today is a de facto, and continuous, revision of the Constitution.
C) Congress is incapable of reforming itself.
We have a chance to USE the Constitution to RESTORE the Constitution. Without applying the convention clause in Article V, we’re left with the worst possible path to regain liberty.
It is not a “Constitutional convention.”
Under the Constitution, such a thing cannot be held.
That follows from b.
Depends on the times.
The Bill of Rights was nothing petty. The Seventeenth Amendment was a major change to the entire way federalism worked. The 13th, 14th, and 15th required a Civil War. The 16th resulted in the creation of the IRS.
Most amendments are nowhere close to petty.
Conversely, the ERA was framed as a petty amendment and failed. It might have passed if it were framed to be more specific. Fortunately it is now a dead solution in search of a problem.
Most of Levin’s proposed amendments (and the COS is free to ignore them) are things that a state legislature would see as good for the states. So they shouldn’t be a hard sell.
The politicking will be intense, however. And corruption will try to derail the more important items. Especially term limits.
It’s the only non violent remedy left to us to attempt to right the sinking ship of state. The corruption is systemic so even electing a Constitutional conservative to the oval O will not begin to fix the problems and there’s little faith now that GOP majorities in both houses of Congress mean that the will to serve the people is somehow going to magically appear. Maybe there would not even be enough consensus among the several states for a convention of states to succeed. But it needs to happen so that the states are reminded of their Constitutional rights and remedies, so our children learn how it’s supposed to work……and if it makes the elitist powers piss their Nikes that would be a bonus too. Start with one big thing everyone agrees on……say, no law can be passed which exempts Congress or the Executive or Judicial branches of government. No government employee may be a member of a union.
Unfortunately, it’s already almost one big honkin’ uber-continent looking at a future goal of being folded into merely the western part of the uber-global government if we don’t throw an anchor in there somewhere.
It’s terrifying how few Americans or State governors know that one house of Congress was created to represent the states and the other to represent the people. If nothing else comes of a Convention of the States, that unconstitutional usurpation of the states powers must be acknowledged and reinstated.
Followup from points in the video:
1) Q&A begins at about 20 minutes. I was hoping for better questions from the audience. He only took two or three, but he used the time to make good points.
2) Levin recognized this as a mostly conservative gathering, but this would have been a more solid case had he addressed them as a mixture of center-left through conservative-right state representatives. This effort requires convincing a few non-conservative state legislators that the amendments are necessary to restore the power meant by the framers to be vested in the states. Democrats must be made to see the necessity of this effort.
3) Levin got a bit combative in the Q&A. Only a bit, but it was noticeable. Nothing unusual when you consider his radio program, but a bit off-putting in this particular situation. (I’m sure most attendees didn’t mind, but this video is what everyone gets to see)
4) Levin mentions Barnett and Natelson. He means Randy E. Barnett (his Amazon page) and Rob Natelson (one book at Amazon). Both of them have many places on the web where they write. Barnett writes articles/columns at Volokh Conspiracy (now at WaPo), and Rob Natelson has an excellent series of articles at The Independence Institute’s website. These men have done a lot of heavy lifting on the Article V issue, and you should definitely peruse their articles and books if you are looking for a more in-depth study of the various facets of Conventions of States. (For example, most of us had no idea that such conventions were common in the past, and may be held without consulting congress. None were Article V conventions, but the process and procedures involved will apply to the Article V convention, specifically.) Well worth your time.
You’re right about that. I’m always wincing when I hear the stronger proponents of the Article V convention at the state levels. Even those folks fighting for it seem to have missed a LOT of what the founders had to say on the matter. So they end up mischaracterizing some of the key points about the process.
We have a lot of work to do.
I have a hard time grasping how a civil war is sustainable. They didn’t think The Recent Unpleasantness was going to last more than a few weeks, either.
But pre-industrial America was far, far less integrated (and foppish) than the current pack of metrosexuals.
Take their internet, and these little effete beta males actually march to war? Imma doubt it.
Except that this fumbling uber-global government is crumbling before us.
No, we look to your delegation to bring some killer dope. I denounce myself.
He can be heard discussing the Article V convention with Mark (in this excerpt from Mark’s radio program) where he correctly calls it an Amendments Convention
I’m wondering if there isn’t some nuance developing where a proper Amendment Convention could be seen as a Bridge Too Far, and thus the CoS may be selling the idea of an Amendment drafting exercise.
That’s a bit less threatening to the Runaway Convention crowd, but leaves open the possibility of the good work of a CoS just returning to the Beltway to die.
No matter what, though, it’s about awakening We The People to the need to be a forcing function on our Congress.
It is indeed fraught with peril however so is the status quo!
Your denunciation is of insufficient energy.
The people pushing for it would screw up a one car funeral procession.
What is commonly called “The Civil War” was no such thing. It was a traditional war between two powers, one to maintain its independence, the other to conquer the first. While many think the label “War of Northern Aggression” is clownish, it has the virtue of being an accurate description of what actually happened.
No, the 17th Amendment merely altered the social type who entered the Senate. You can repeal it and very little will change.
The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments were the consequential ones. The 14th was poorly written and has caused no end of trouble in the last 60 years, the 15th was a dead letter for 70-odd years, and the 16th was insufficiently restrictive in its wording and needs a considerable overhaul.
Components of the Bill of Rights were also poorly written, the 8th and 9th Amendments in particular. The 9th and 10th Amendments have proved a dead letter, the 8th is largely subjective, and the 3d addressed a topical question.
And these are not the times to be letting TWANLOC help fix our constitution.
The 16th needs to be more concise such as ”We do hereby do repeal the 16th amendment”. I suppose making bringing up the subject after repeal, a capital offense, would be a bit much so i’m willing to listen to alternatives.
As for the 1st through 10th, 14th and several of the clauses require a single clarifying amendment, stating in language even a dog could understand, exactly what the amendments and clauses do, and more importantly, do not mean.
Perhaps there could be some accompanying legislation helping to educate the public. For instance ”It is hereby lawful and indeed patriotic that whenever the phrase ”reasonable gun control” is heard or written any and all persons within earshot shall approach the speaker or author and smack said person across the nose with a rolled up newspaper.
Let’s agree to disagree. One of the reasons I oppose applying Article V is that the original Convention was held to amend the Articles of Confederation. Admittedly, the new Constitution that resulted from it was so much better because of our Founding Fathers. However, I do not believe in any way that today’s politicians at the State or Federal level are of the same quality as our Founding Fathers–few people today have the morals, values, breadth of education, wisdom and prescience of our Founding Fathers.
Do not underestimate the left, not all of them are effete intellectuals. As to how effective they may be in a truly frank exchange of views, there’s only one way to find out.
More likely the Article V finally convenes after some nitwits relent on keeping the left out. This inexorably leads to your option b) result. Option b) not only clarifies ” that this country is just the one honkin’ big uber-state.” but constitutionalizes it. When that happens alot of good people come off the porch.
I think the Runaway Convention risk is a real one, but not an excuse for inaction.
The convention held in Philadelphia was expressly called to propose changes in the “federal constitution.” It was not called to simply amend the Articles.
Further, under basic contract law, you cannot propose an amendment that abrogates the majority of all other clauses. So no, nothing about the Article V process involves or allows a “re-writing” of the Constitution.
Article V allows amendments only. The Articles of Confederation had no such restrictions placed on the states.
Whatever that is, these most definitely are the times when we either use the Constitution to restore the Constitution, or we continue this slide toward totalitarianism, armed conflict, and the unchecked rise of one-world government.
The 17th altered the fundamental balance in our federal system. It’s the most damaging Amendment of the lot. It removed the states’ representation in our federal system.
But simply repealing it probably won’t float. It’s hard to sell an end to popular election of a Senator. However, it can be changed to allow state legislators the right to recall sitting Senators, and call for a new election.
[…] Convention Of States: ’15 Surprise Story? […]
(b) was the goal of Lincoln’s handlers.
The articles were the constitution at the time. The current constitution was proposed as an amendment to the articles. The old articles sound nice, and some idiots like Lew Rockwell think they were just peachy, but they were too weak and the country was being torn apart because of it.
I’ve had similar thoughts. Congress may well try to forestall the convention by floating an amendment or two. Mitch McConnell, being a master of procedure, will think of that, for sure.
I hope the convention happens anyway. Even if only one amendment happens (something simple, like the balanced budget one), it will have established the process.