America is ripe for another major Con-Con Con Job. BINGO! Mark Levin has bit again on Mark Meckler’s COS pitch.
By Rich Loudenback
Why is it that such impressive guys as Mark Levin just don’t see through the big con job that a constitutional convention (con-con) poses to our republic? I was told tonight from a friend that he just heard Levin tell his radio listeners that he had heard from his ol’ buddy Mark Meckler, who runs the Convention of the States (COS) ruse, which is really a slick pitch for a real Article V Convention, and that Meckler pointed out to him that this is perfect timing for their answer to our current problems, i.e. Congress is broken, so we should circumvent it with an effective patriotic citizens’ convention that is defined in Article V of our Constitution.
I just told this friend a couple weeks ago that I anticipated the con-con people coming out of the wood work in a hurry now since all patriotic Americans are absolutely fed up with our US Congress and its entire deep state machine finally.
As correct as all of Levin’s observations about what is wrong in his books ‘The Liberty Amendments’ and ‘Plunder and Deceit’ are, his fix is dangerously flawed.
Levin’s brief statements on his proposed ‘fix’ is on page 190 of ‘Plunder and Deceit,’ where he says, “It is impossible to propose a detailed list of tactical directions or plans pertinent to all settings and valid for all times.” Nonetheless, several important suggestions are offered in both, another book, ‘Liberty and Tyranny’ and ‘The Liberty Amendments,’ the latter of which is an entire dissertation on the subject of the Constitution’s Article V Convention of the States process, which advocates “…empowerment of the American people, through their state legislatures, to civilly and lawfully reform an oppressive federal government.”
Levin never mentioned how it is that we should expect new amendments magically all of sudden being followed finally nor the extremely dangerous ‘Ratifying Convention’ alternative mentioned in Article V in lieu of State Legislators’ ratifying a convention’s results.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution
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.
Nothing can take down our beloved country as we’ve known it literally overnight like the proposed Convention of the States which would actually be a constitutional convention (con-con) no matter what they want to call it.
The Most Important Point about a Con-Con
Why should anyone believe new amendments will be followed any more than current law? It’s illogical to think that adding or changing rules will compel chronic rule-breakers to follow new rules. What are they going to say, “We really mean it this time?”
There are many good reasons why for 234 years America hasn’t had a new national constitutional convention. Historically, Americans have understood that a con-con will set its own rules, its own agenda and can even change the ratification process just like they did in 1787. This is how we got our current Constitution.
Salivating, originating forces of the many different calls really just want the door to a con-con opened, understanding full well once they’ve convened they can change anything and everything. These are very devious people with clandestine designs for our future who are being followed by the naïve and over trusting (Levin?).
State Legislators Beware
Legislators should not fall for poker face promises & hyped un-researched proclamations. They need to do the research, the hard work themselves. They owe it to us, their constituents that hired them for the sake of all our grandchildren and America’s future freedoms. Aren’t you curious why there are so many different organizations all calling for single issue con-con’s? As Vince Lombardi would say, ‘What the Hell is going on here!’
State Legislators cannot control what will happen if an Article V constitutional convention is called. The Congressional Research Service says a likely scenario is that delegate apportionment would be based on the Electoral College model, which would give Idaho, for instance, FOUR delegates out of 535!
Black’s Law Dictionary
Black’s Law Dictionary is America’s most trusted law dictionary. Its definition of a constitutional convention: “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.” Renaming it a “Convention of States” doesn’t change what it is.
Beware of False Constitutionalist
The Federalist Papers are not government documents. Our Constitution reigns. They’re making many assertions about state legislators being in control of the process that are simply not supported by Article V and are disputed by the Congressional Research Service, numerous law professors, constitutional scholars and judges who have warned about the dangers of a modern convention and the damage it could do to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Our sage founders knew tyranny first hand and were realist of their day. They knew there was no way the 13 states would agree on ratifying our Constitution in their legislatures, so they created Article V allowing them to hold 9 ratifying conventions and that is how we were so blessed to get the wonderful document and capitalist system we got that produced the most successful nation in the history of earth. Can you identify members of Congress that you believe to be as wise and grounded in our Constitution today, without any special interest baggage? I rest my case. Probably next to none. Maybe the closest intensive comparisons by serious qualified people might come up with a handful or two contingent on some stated criteria.
In this beyond highly politicized world today, who in their right mind would believe convention delegates would send their convention results to state legislators for endless debate and legal challenges lasting months or maybe years for such ratification? They would select like-minded delegates for ‘safe’ special ratifying conventions with hand-picked members, all with special interest baggage, who will do the convention’s bidding. Legislatures won’t have a chance. Ratifying conventions are the stacked deck these slick designers are counting on and would be a rubber stamp. [Utah’s legislature would not have repealed Prohibition. The rules for Article 5 were used to pass it through a ratifying Convention.]
Quoting Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. of The New American magazine
“The various purportedly unrelated efforts by self-professed conservatives, socialists, and progressives to call for a new constitutional convention are moving forward. Many otherwise well-meaning state legislators are falling for their common line that such a convention is the only way to save the Republic.
“The self-professed conservatives, on one hand, insist that if a new convention isn’t held, the growth of the federal government will go on forever until all power is consolidated in Washington, D.C.
“Rhetoric and political leanings aside, the result of either scenario is a new Constitution. Of course, the Convention of States (COS), the Compact for America, and other Article V proponents on the right, argue up and down that they are not calling for a new constitutional convention. Then, as if that weren’t enough, they criticize those of us who oppose their movement for being “false constitutionalists,” and for believing that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a “runaway” convention.”
Revealing Facts on Applications and Rescissions
The simple reason there has been historically so many forthright rescissions to states’ calls for conventions is that the states eventually came to their senses and recognized the formidable dangers of a convention.
Since applications have been recorded and tracked, there have been over 400 various applications for an Article V convention. 49 of the 50 states have at one or more times filed for an Article V Convention. Idaho has been listed for calls 6 times all the way back to 1910 and a most recent rescission in 1999.
Since 1988, 17* states have rescinded all of their constitutional convention calls after awakening to how fatal a con-con could be and the real root interest ($) behind them. Rescinded con-con calls: AL 1988, LA 1990, OR 1999, ID 1999, UT 2001, ND 2001, AZ 2003, VA 2004, SC 2004, GA 2004, MT, 2007, OK 2009, WY 2009, NH 2010, SD 2010, and TN 2010. *Actually FL had rescinded its con-con calls in 1988, but passed a new BBA con-con call in 2010.
Given the numbers of applications it’s amazing that we’ve been blessed with forthright rescissions prevailing like they have due to awakenings of the fatal dangers a con-con would pose to our Constitution if one were called.
Justice Scalia’s Last Opinion on a Con-Con
In his early career before he became Justice of the Supreme Court, the late Anthony Scalia is often quoted as stating he supported a constitutional convention. However, later in his career with the wisdom from a lot more experience and considering the realities of the day he became opposed to it.
Quoting Christian Gomez’s article ‘Justice Scalia’s Warning of a Constitutional Convention’ in The New American.com: “During the question-and-answer session following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, he was asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation’s interest.
“‘A constitutional convention is a horrible idea,’ Scalia replied. ‘This is not a good century to write a constitution.’
“Although COS might have one believe that a constitutional convention is a ‘different creature entirely‘ from an Article V convention or ‘convention of the states,’ as they call it, this is simply not true.” – These were Justice Scalia’s most recent stated views.
A Runaway Convention Can Not Be Prevented!
Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Berger issued a stern warning: ‘Nobody tells a Con-Con what to do. Its powers to propose Amendments are unlimited. In light of this information, does America, do you, really want to risk a convention?
Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subject needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to seeing states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention.”
Similar views come from Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Arthur J. Goldberg who said: “A few people have asked, ‘Why not another Constitutional Convention?’ I would respond by saying that 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.”
Justice Goldberg is not the only imminent legal scholar to be concerned about a runaway convention. The late Rex E. Lee, former law school professor and later President of Brigham Young University has written: “In short, if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is no, but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is yes. In our history we have only one experience with a Constitutional Convention, and while the end result was good, the convention itself was a definite runaway.”
The Best Constitutional Experts
Beware of false Constitutionalist. The Federalist Papers are not government documents. Our Constitution reigns.
Read Article V. It’s very short, explicit and again does not connote a single issue ability. The Single Issue pitch cannot be guaranteed, the Con-Con can deal with whatever and as many issues as it wishes.
The topics to which a convention is to be limited are always designed to be appealing. America’s leading jurists and legal scholars however, agree that Legislatures have no authority to tell a convention what subjects it will address in a convention. See video: Change It or Obey It? — Why the Constitution is the Solution
Quoting the late Twin Falls, ID former assistant attorney general for the state of Idaho and practicing attorney, George Detweiler: “United States Supreme Court Justices and the nation’s leading legal scholars have written privately that these single subject limitations cannot be enforced, that if a convention is called it will be free to propose any kind and number of Amendments to the same effect as if the limitations in the applications did not exist. In other words, although the applications are effective, all such limitations must be ignored.”
Former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Berger also wrote: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.”
Of the same mind the late Charles Allen Wright, Professor of Law at the University of Texas at Austin wrote: “I feel quite certain that even opening the door to the possibility of a Constitutional Convention would be a tragedy for the country.”
In addressing the ineffectiveness of any legislature trying to limit a convention to a Balanced Budget Amendment Christopher Brown, retired Professor of Law at the University of Maryland wrote: “In my view the plurality of ‘Amendments’ opens the door to Constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a Balanced Federal Budget.”
Bluntly put, the late Professor Gunther, Professor of Law at Stanford University declared that State Legislators have applied to Congress for a Balanced Budget Convention without knowing what they are doing. “Having been misled and manipulated by special interest lobbyists, a small minority of legal scholars believe that a single issue convention can be called. To support their position Con-Con proponents point to these scholars and ignore the majority view. But the very existence of such substantial diversity of opinion among these scholars renders the dangers of a convention very real.
“I cannot support so irresponsible an invocation of constitutional processes.
“The abject silliness of this argument is instantaneously apparent. There are no reports of any scholar or university having lost any of their grants in the process of balancing the budget.”
The fear that a constitutional convention could become a ‘runaway’ convention and propose wholesale changes in our Constitution is by no means unfounded. Rather, this broad view of the authority of a convention reflects the consensus of most constitutional scholars who have commented on the issue.
An Awakening for Uninformed Good People
Quoting Joe D. Wolverton, II, JD again in his article ‘Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention,’ “There is another uncomfortable aspect of the Article V movement that is not being discussed, however, but needs to be, particularly in light of the good people who have associated themselves with it.
“Within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.
“Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Mark Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con.
“On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “Convention of the States” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:”
“To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.
“In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will: “Inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks.
“The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and I imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that has dubed itself the “world’s largest online news network.”
“As unfamiliar as they may be with the Young Turks, it seems certain conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills at this online purveyor of progressive ideology: George Soros (shown). Dan Gainor reports:
“In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization ‘is a network of the country’s leading, progressive, independent media outlets.’ The list is predictable — everything from AlterNet to the Young Turks.
“That’s right. George Soros — the financier of global fascism — is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen.
“What will those in Wolf-Pac do if they are able to get “their amendment” proposed and accepted by an Article V convention?
“Celebrate the fact that we had the courage and persistence [sic] to accomplish something truly amazing and historic together.
“Anything a group with this anti-constitutional agenda would do to our Constitution would certainly be historic — in the worst way.
“This should be enough to convince all true conservatives, constitutionalists, and friends of liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular and persuasive their generals may be.” – unquote Joe D. Wolverton, II, JD
Soros Umbrella of Hundreds of Alliances
“It will likely surprise these devoted, but deluded, Article V advocates that Wolf-Pac is just the tip of the iceberg. These good people would be wise to take a look at this heavily abbreviated roster of their radical fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered “founding member” of the “Move to Amend” coalition.
“Mind you, hundreds more groups “committed to social and economic building a vibrant democracy” are gathered under this umbrella.
“This hardly seems to be a corps that most Levin listeners would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with in the fight for a “convention of the states.” In fairness, these allies likely don’t share their conservative cohorts’ love and loyalty to the Constitution.
“It’s time these right-minded men and women know with whom they are associating.
“It’s doubtful that Mark Levin’s legion of listeners would be as eager to get behind his Article V con-con agenda if they knew whom they were fighting beside and how radically their new allies want to change our beloved Constitution.
“And that’s the problem. Regardless of the soothing words of Levin or others in the con-con camp, they cannot guarantee the outcome of such a convention. In fact, in light of the lists of leftist groups provided above, the results of the convention could be an outright scrapping of the Constitution written by the Founders in favor of one more in line with the progressive ideologies of Wolf-Pac, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, and others.
“Remember, according to the history of Article V-style conventions, regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring them to consider only one amendment (a balanced budget amendment, for example), the delegates elected to the convention would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter or revise their government.
“The mind boggles at the potential proposals that could come out of a convention composed of such radical representatives.
“Don’t forget, George Soros’s billions are funding these fringe groups and politicians aren’t known for their ability to resist hefty campaign contributions.
“Conservatives should shudder at the specter of a convention endowed with power of this magnitude, populated by activists who have a Soros credit card in their pocket and a commitment to ‘social justice’ as their purpose. All the good intentions of the conservatives in the Article V camp would not be enough to force all these devastating changes to the Constitution back inside the progressive Pandora’s Box.
“Readers are encouraged to click the links provided in this article and to investigate for themselves the agenda of the various Article V advocates and to determine if it’s worth the risk to our Constitution that would be posed by the presence of these groups in the ‘Convention of the States.’
“Finally, the startling information set out in this article is not meant as an attack on Mark Levin or anyone else working to call a “convention of the states.” Rather, it is intended to help the thousands of committed constitutionalists who find themselves believing in the Article V gospel he’s preaching to realize who’s sitting in the pews with them and whose money built the church.” – Unquote Joe D. Wolverton, II, JD
Our Only Fix!
We don’t have a constitution problem, we have an adherence problem. The ‘fix’ is following law, law enforcement and nullification. These are the real serious efforts that would surely work and needs being done, especially a lot of nullifying of unconstitutional laws & regulations such as former Idaho Governor Otter’s nullifying future federal gun laws in the state of Idaho. See the article ‘Praise Be to Governor Otter’ at Red Pill Patriots .com.
This fix is only attainable with citizen understanding and involvement, after all this is our country supposedly run by us, but it ain’t been for a very long time. Americans have been entirely too passive and literally asleep at the switch just like those seeking power over us want.
We must start paying attention, educating ourselves, informing others and doing it very quickly. The best way I know to accomplish this is to join The John Birch Society and learn how we must knowledgably learn to watch how our elected representatives vote and cull them at the primary voting box. Check out The John Birch Society at jbs.org and check out their incredible online magazine The New American at thenewamerican.com.
See following additional links for more information you can count on from The New American.com: