Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

[johnwk]

SEE: Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/rare-option-forcing-congress-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum/)

”In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.”

If Duncan Hunter wants to balance the annual budget, then why does he not “push” for and demand the apportioned direct tax be used to extinguish annual deficits as our Founding Fathers intended?

The liars are at it again, pretending their objectives are noble, but their ultimate aim is to convene a convention so those who now hold power at the federal and state level may rewrite our Constitution and make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional.

How is the budget to be balanced? The answer is found in a number of our State Ratification documents which gave birth to our Constitution, for example see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s share is determined.

Did you ever hear Mark Levin inform his listening audience that our founders put the emergency apportioned direct taxing power in the Constitution to be used when imposts, duties, and excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures? I haven’t. But Mark Levin wants a convention so he can promote his socialist flat tax which he now does with one of his “liberty amendments”.

A flat tax calculated from incomes, even if “flat”, does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners.

Hey Mark, does your flat tax end our despotic federal government from arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not taxable income? No! Does your socialist tax on profits gains and other “incomes” end our Washington Establishment’s use of taxation to intentionally seek out America’s productive hard working citizens and transfer the bread they have earned to a dependent voting block who prostitutes their vote for free government cheese? No! Tell us Mark Levin, how about the devastating and slavish manipulations carried out under this socialist tax calculated from incomes? Does your flat tax end that and class warfare carried out under taxation? No! Or, would your flat tax end taxation being used as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government? Heck No! So tell us Mark Levin, why are you comfortable with a flat tax which is a component part of a despotic federal government? I think I know why….you are part of the Washington Establishment which constantly works to defeat the miracle our founding fathers created.

If you were really sincere about supporting our founding fathers Mark, you would be promoting a return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.us/?p=1360) as our founders intended it to operate with the following H.J.RESOLUTION:

House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.

JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=98&itemLink)

[cajuncocoa]

What a really bad idea....we can't even follow the one we have. The idea of making a new Constitution would be a Progressive dream. If Mark Levin is truly a conservative (LOL) he should understand how that would play out, and that it would be better to leave well enough alone.

[enhanced_deficit]

Guess John kerry will not get the invite.




Mark Levin: "John Kerry Is An Anti-Semite" (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fvideo %2F2014%2F04%2F28%2Fmark_levin_john_kerry_is_an_an ti-semite.html&ei=y11xU8zIGsnLsQT7toL4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGvP5ru2b_1FyT-CTBpPUC7V6redQ&bvm=bv.66330100,d.cWc)
RealClearPolitics-Apr 29, 2014

[johnwk]

What a really bad idea....we can't even follow the one we have. The idea of making a new Constitution would be a Progressive dream. If Mark Levin is truly a conservative (LOL) he should understand how that would play out, and that it would be better to leave well enough alone.

See: Why Is Mark Levin Keeping Quiet About Vermont’s Article V Resolution? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18227-why-is-mark-levin-keeping-quiet-about-vermont-s-article-v-resolution)

The snakes are already lining up to be appointed by their state governments to attend the convention and undo the miracle our founders created.


JWK

[DamianTV]

Constitution Convention is the legalized end of the Constitution, not that they pay any attention to it anyway.

[eduardo89]

I hope a Constitutional Convention is called.

[cajuncocoa]

I hope a Constitutional Convention is called.
Why? Serious question. I can't see what good would come from that.

[francisco]

What a really bad idea....we can't even follow the one we have. The idea of making a new Constitution would be a Progressive dream. If Mark Levin is truly a conservative (LOL) he should understand how that would play out, and that it would be better to leave well enough alone.

Cue up Plan B, moving to a wilderness sanctuary

[jclay2]

What a really bad idea....we can't even follow the one we have. The idea of making a new Constitution would be a Progressive dream. If Mark Levin is truly a conservative (LOL) he should understand how that would play out, and that it would be better to leave well enough alone.

This!!!! Just imagine the bs that they would want to explicitly stated as "rights"? Right to a living wage, right to healthcare, right to a living retirement, right to transportation, right internet access, right to college education, etc etc. This would be beyond a nightmare. Like you said, if they spit on the current one, how can any good come out of this?

[Tywysog Cymru]

I hope a Constitutional Convention is called.

I can't wait for the Constitution 2.0, now with the right to free healthcare, right to free contraception, and a guarantee that the US will defend Israel.

[DamianTV]

I can't wait for the Constitution 2.0, now with the right to free healthcare, right to free contraception, and a guarantee that the US will defend Israel.

Dont forget that other important documents like the Bill of Rights will also be considered to be completely and wholey defunct. Any Rights (read: permissions) people get will all be written in Legalese as well.

[William Tell]

I hope a Constitutional Convention is called.

Whats wrong with the Constitution?

[ClydeCoulter]

NO!

[Anti Federalist]

Where is Christopher Brown?

[eduardo89]

Whats wrong with the Constitution?

A lot.

[cajuncocoa]

A lot.
Can you expand on that?

[Anti Federalist]

A lot.

A con-con with this current crop of AmeriKans would produce something much worse.

[tod evans]

Where is Christopher Brown?

His NSA grant money ran out...

[eduardo89]

Can you expand on that?

16th and 17th Amendments. Commerce clause is a giant loophole. No balanced budget, no term limits.

[William Tell]

16th and 17th Amendments. Commerce clause is a giant loophole. No balanced budget, no term limits.

Amendments should be repealed one by one. Calling a Con-Con is the dumbest idea ever.

[2young2vote]

A balanced budget amendment isn't going to do jack. Michigan has a balanced budget amendment and has over 140 billion in debt.

[eduardo89]

A balanced budget amendment isn't going to do jack. Michigan has a balanced budget amendment and has over 140 billion in debt.

The problem with Michigan is their balanced budget amendment says "Proposed expenditures from any fund shall not exceed the estimated revenue thereof."

[Occam's Banana]

His NSA grant money ran out...

Impossible! He's a SiNcErE AmErIcAn. I suspect foul play.
One of you NWO coginfils must have gotten to him ...

[2young2vote]

The problem with Michigan is their balanced budget amendment says "Proposed expenditures from any fund shall not exceed the estimated revenue thereof."

Thats how it works with every government. They create the budget at the beginning of the fiscal year and dole out cash to their departments based on what they think they will receive from the taxpayers later in the year. This is why governments often get screwed over in bad economies - people have less money to pay for the promises that governments have already made, and so those governments go into debt.

[Tywysog Cymru]

16th and 17th Amendments. Commerce clause is a giant loophole. No balanced budget, no term limits.

Without the 17th Amendment Rand Paul would have never come close to the Senate, just sayin'.

[eduardo89]

Without the 17th Amendment Rand Paul would have never come close to the Senate, just sayin'.

Without the 17th Amendment there would be no need for Rand Paul at the federal level.

[cajuncocoa]

16th and 17th Amendments. Commerce clause is a giant loophole. No balanced budget, no term limits.


Amendments should be repealed one by one. Calling a Con-Con is the dumbest idea ever.

William is right. We already have a process in place to repeal and/or add Amendments. Re-doing the whole Constitution would be a nightmare under the current culture in this country. eduardo, I know you wouldn't like a lot of things we would end up getting in that bag full of tricks. Think about it.

[eduardo89]

William is right. We already have a process in place to repeal and/or add Amendments. Re-doing the whole Constitution would be a nightmare under the current culture in this country. eduardo, I know you wouldn't like a lot of things we would end up getting in that bag full of tricks. Think about it.

Why would a constitutional convention redo the entire constitution?

[Cissy]

Impossible! He's a SiNcErE AmErIcAn. I suspect foul play.
One of you NWO coginfils must have gotten to him ...

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140316140211/degrassi/images/1/13/Minion_whaaat.gif

[William Tell]

Why would a constitutional convention redo the entire constitution?

Because it can, there are NO limits on what can be changed once it is called. It is basically how we lost the articles of confederation. They said lets fix 'em, they threw them all out instead. Soros and Rove types will rule it, not us.

[LibertyEagle]

16th and 17th Amendments. Commerce clause is a giant loophole. No balanced budget, no term limits.

And you think they would be fixed??? Hardly. But, what would likely happen is that we could kiss the few liberties we have left, goodbye.

[DamianTV]

I dont think people fully grasp the consequences of a "Con-Con" (con-con = constitutional convention). End of the USA as we know it.

[enoch150]

The arguments against a CC don't seem to have much merit. You guys are afraid that the constitution will be changed into something horrible while at the same time admitting that it is completely ineffectual in its current state. You're really trying to preserve something that doesn't work?

There is no downside to a CC unless you believe that the current constitution actually limits the government in any way. I don't.

A CC would at least be such a novel event that it would draw people who are currently on the sidelines into the debate, and a lot of them would come our way. Our side can't get smaller from a CC, but it can potentially get a hell of a lot bigger and at no cost, given that the constitution is presently ignored.

[cajuncocoa]

The arguments against a CC don't seem to have much merit. You guys are afraid that the constitution will be changed into something horrible while at the same time admitting that it is completely ineffectual in its current state. You're really trying to preserve something that doesn't work?

There is no downside to a CC unless you believe that the current constitution actually limits the government in any way. I don't.

A CC would at least be such a novel event that it would draw people who are currently on the sidelines into the debate, and a lot of them would come our way. Our side can't get smaller from a CC, but it can potentially get a hell of a lot bigger and at no cost, given that the constitution is presently ignored.
Not trying to preserve something that doesn't work. Trying to preserve something that is ignored but should be followed.

[NewRightLibertarian]

The arguments against a CC don't seem to have much merit. You guys are afraid that the constitution will be changed into something horrible while at the same time admitting that it is completely ineffectual in its current state. You're really trying to preserve something that doesn't work?

There is no downside to a CC unless you believe that the current constitution actually limits the government in any way. I don't.

A CC would at least be such a novel event that it would draw people who are currently on the sidelines into the debate, and a lot of them would come our way. Our side can't get smaller from a CC, but it can potentially get a hell of a lot bigger and at no cost, given that the constitution is presently ignored.

The Con Con would drive people into a movement to alter or abolish the Constitution rather than actually enforcing it. It'd be the worst possible thing for liberty. A big dead end with potentially horrible consequences

[William Tell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLADEFhJstU

[Occam's Banana]

The arguments against a CC don't seem to have much merit. You guys are afraid that the constitution will be changed into something horrible while at the same time admitting that it is completely ineffectual in its current state. You're really trying to preserve something that doesn't work?

There is no downside to a CC unless you believe that the current constitution actually limits the government in any way. I don't.

A CC would at least be such a novel event that it would draw people who are currently on the sidelines into the debate, and a lot of them would come our way. Our side can't get smaller from a CC, but it can potentially get a hell of a lot bigger and at no cost, given that the constitution is presently ignored.

Tell it to Patrick Henry ...

[Spikender]

If a Constitutional Convention was ever called, I think the worst part of the whole ordeal would be that half country wouldn't even know one was called.

#informedpopulaceswag

[Bman]

The Second Amendment will read


A well regulated people, being necessary to the security of a tyrannical state, the right of the state to develop a contraption that permanently keeps a gun pointed at the individuals head, shall not be infringed.

[unknown]

The way Mark Levin incessantly attacked Ron Paul during the primaries is enough proof to know that hes no friend of liberty.

More of an establishment gate keeper.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Without the 17th Amendment there would be no need for Rand Paul at the federal level.

How?:confused:

[eduardo89]

Amendments should be repealed one by one.

Yeah, because Congress has a great track record of relinquishing the power it's voted unto itself, right?

[eduardo89]

How?:confused:

Because the states would still be in charge and would not have given over all their power to the federal government.

[johnwk]

Because it can, there are NO limits on what can be changed once it is called. It is basically how we lost the articles of confederation. They said lets fix 'em, they threw them all out instead. Soros and Rove types will rule it, not us.

If the people want to take back their government, then they must rise to the occasion. But to think those who now hold political power at the federal and state level will work in the people's best interest if a convention were called, is to believe the fox can be trusted to care for America’s chickens.


JWK



" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=98&itemLink)

[johnwk]

Because the states would still be in charge and would not have given over all their power to the federal government.

Hmmmm. Perhaps you should rethink that. State politicians will be in charge, not the people!

SEE:Article V Group Ignores States' Complicity in Federal Power Grab (http://connect.freedomworks.org/news/view/429317?destination=news)

”Of all the misrepresentations often repeated by the pro-Article V constitutional convention proponents, one of the most important is the “states as victims” mantra.”

The fact is, a major portion of each state’s budget is paid for by our federal government. Those who hold political power at the state level have willingly and knowingly submitted the people of their state to a financial dependency upon the federal government and a federal financial tyranny which now controls each state’s political will.


JWK

If the people want to take back their government, then they must rise to the occasion. But to think those who now hold political power at the federal and state level will work in the people's best interest if a convention were called, is to believe the fox can be trusted to care for America’s chickens.

[William Tell]

Because the states would still be in charge and would not have given over all their power to the federal government.

Sorry eduardo, we would STILL need a Constitutionalist president. We had lots of federal overreach before the 17th amendment. Including Lincoln's war.

[William Tell]

Yeah, because Congress has a great track record of relinquishing the power it's voted unto itself, right?

The Constitution is worlds better now, than it will be after George Soros and Mark Levin both get there wish. You do know Soros supports a Con-Con too, right?

[William Tell]

Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention



Recently, The New American has reported (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17360-correcting-mark-levin-s-repeated-misrepresentation-of-james-madison)on the efforts (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16381-levin-limbaugh-hannity-calling-for-con-con) by radio talk show host Mark Levin and others (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17317-allen-west-wrong-on-nullification-and-supremacy-clause)to push for a constitutional convention (a convention of the states, in the parlance of the proponents).

In his new book, Levin argues that such a convention is the last hope “to reform the federal government from its degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its (smaller) republican roots.”
Unfortunately, many otherwise well-educated and well-meaning conservatives have succumbed to Levin’s siren song and they have gone so far as to deny the constitutionality of nullification and to insist that an Article V convention is the only way to restore the balance of federalism in our Republic.


Fighting for the Constitution as given to us by our Founders is a noble goal and the anxiety of the conservative con-con collaborators is understandable. We at The New American and The John Birch Society welcome the help of all those courageous enough to enlist in the battle to defeat the forces of federal absolutism. We part company with those pushing for an Article V convention, however, and we believe that a constitutional convention is not the right way to stop the federal assault on our Constitution and the freedoms it protects.
The New American and many other liberty-minded organizations promote nullification as the “rightful remedy (http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm)” for curing the constant federal overreaching. We believe that as the agent of the states, the federal government has exceeded its contractual authority and the states as principals have the right to refuse to ratify any such usurpation.
Since the publication of Levin’s admittedly popular book, the battle between those promoting nullification and those advocating for an Article V constitutional convention is a topic getting plenty of coverage in the alternative media.
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 (http://www.wolf-pac.com) is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many 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: (http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan)"
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 (http://www.tytnetwork.com)? 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 dubs 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 (http://www.mrc.org/commentary/soros-funded-lefty-media-reach-more-300-million-every-month):
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 persistance [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.
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 (https://movetoamend.org/organizations).
Alliance for Democracy
Center for Media and Democracy
Code Pink
Independent Progressive Politics Network
Progressive Democrats of America
Sierra Club
Vermont for Single Payer
Mind you, hundreds more groups “committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and 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.
Its 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.

Photo of George Soros: AP Images
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, the Second Amendment, and the surveillance state. He is the co-founder of Liberty Rising, an educational endeavor aimed at promoting and preserving the Constitution. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17402-socialists-and-soros-fight-for-article-v-convention

[JK/SEA]

I dont think people fully grasp the consequences of a "Con-Con" (con-con = constitutional convention). End of the USA as we know it.

on the outside looking in it would appear to be a bad idea, but when you say..'the end as we know it'...i look around and see complete bullshit in this country, and wonder if it really would be a bad thing....

in other news, Cabelas is having a sale in their gun dept.

[William Tell]

on the outside looking in it would appear to be a bad idea, but when you say..'the end as we know it'...i look around and see complete bullshit in this country, and wonder if it really would be a bad thing....

Well, now we have the moral high ground, WE are the oath keepers. WE have God Given rights protected by the Constitution. I am really not looking forward to the 2nd amendment being changed and hearing cops say "Well I was just following my oath when I took those guns, I'm an oath keeper"


in other news, Cabelas is having a sale in their gun dept
Cool, but I don't like background checks :p

[Tywysog Cymru]

Because the states would still be in charge and would not have given over all their power to the federal government.

How did the 17th Amendment have the states give up their rights? The people of the states elect the Senators, so I don't see how they represent the states any less?

[eduardo89]

How did the 17th Amendment have the states give up their rights? The people of the states elect the Senators, so I don't see how they represent the states any less?

The Senate was never meant to be the House of the People, that is what the House of Representatives is. The Senate was always meant to represent the States and act another check on federal power.

[Tywysog Cymru]

The Senate was never meant to be the House of the People, that is what the House of Representatives is. The Senate was always meant to represent the States and act another check on federal power.

I understand, but how would the legislatures be any more likely to nominate good candidates than the people of the states?

[eduardo89]

I understand, but how would the legislatures be any more likely to nominate good candidates than the people of the states?

There's no guarantee of that, but states will send people who will protect their interests instead of expanding federal power. Just look at the size of government before and after the 17th amendment.

[ClydeCoulter]

The Senate was never meant to be the House of the People, that is what the House of Representatives is. The Senate was always meant to represent the States and act another check on federal power.

Yep ^^^

[William Tell]

There's no guarantee of that, but states will send people who will protect their interests instead of expanding federal power. Just look at the size of government before and after the 17th amendment.

eduardo is right about the intent of the founders, I just don't think a Con-Con is the right remedy. All bets would be off, they could in theory throw out the entire Constitution. It ain't worth the risk.

[cajuncocoa]

Here's the thing: until and unless the majority of citizens of this country are educated enough to know and have a basic understanding of what's going on, not only is Con-Con a very bad idea, but what makes anyone think that Constitution will work out any better than the one we have? Most people don't know what's in the current Constitution, they have no idea that their representatives violate it in one way or the other every day. The only thing they care about with regard to their representatives is whether they have a D or an R next to their name, and they will always defend the one from their own party while vilifying the ones from the other party (for doing the exact same thing in many cases).

[cajuncocoa]

eduardo is right about the intent of the founders, I just don't think a Con-Con is the right remedy. All bets would be off, they could in theory throw out the entire Constitution. It ain't worth the risk.
I'll acknowledge that eduardo is right about the intent of the founders, but we're too far removed now from where we were then to expect that this new constitution would be anything other than a nightmare for liberty.

[DamianTV]

If Congress doesnt follow the old Constitution, what makes anyone think they will follow the New one?

[tod evans]

If Congress doesnt follow the old Constitution, what makes anyone think they will follow the New one?

Until the people pick up their ropes-n-pitchforks they're going to do as they damn well please in DC....

[William Tell]

I'll acknowledge that eduardo is right about the intent of the founders, but we're too far removed now from where we were then to expect that this new constitution would be anything other than a nightmare for liberty.

Yeah, it's just another quick fix silver bullet scam. We need to wake up, get involved and fix things. Restore the Constitution, one step at a time.

[William Tell]

If Congress doesnt follow the old Constitution, what makes anyone think they will follow the New one?

It is a head scratcher, that's for sure.

[Tywysog Cymru]

There's no guarantee of that, but states will send people who will protect their interests instead of expanding federal power. Just look at the size of government before and after the 17th amendment.

The government was already on the wrong track before 1913 when the 17th was ratified. Income Tax, for instance, was Amendment 16, which means it was passed by state'legislature approved Senators.

Think of all that the Senate gets away with now, then think of what they would get away with if they weren't held accountable to voters.

[nobody's_hero]

Without the 17th Amendment there would be no need for Rand Paul at the federal level.

True this.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

True this.

Maybe not, but Rand may be a governor or congressman instead ... Governors at one time, had way more political power than DC has today.

17th amendment is a bad bad bad amendment, along with the 16th and 22nd ...

[Zippyjuan]

IF Congress really wants a Balanced Budget amendment, they can pass one at any time and then let the states ratify it. They are also free to submit a balanced budget every year yet are unable to do so. Thing is that nobody in Washington really wants one. A balanced budget or an amendment to force one. Calling for one is only political theater.

Any amendments proposed by a Con Con must still be approved by two thirds of states before they become effective.

[DamianTV]

There will NEVER be a real balanced budget as long as the Federal Reserve Bank exists.

[enoch150]

Here's the thing: until and unless the majority of citizens of this country are educated enough to know and have a basic understanding of what's going on, not only is Con-Con a very bad idea, but what makes anyone think that Constitution will work out any better than the one we have? Most people don't know what's in the current Constitution, they have no idea that their representatives violate it in one way or the other every day.

I don't think a CC will draft a better constitution than the one we have. In fact, I think it will be much worse, and I welcome the change, keeping in mind that it will only be a nominal change because the present constitution doesn't limit government even a little. I think a CC will motivate many, many more people, currently oblivious to events, to our side because the other guys are going to put in print some horrible things and it will be such a novel event that the entire country will be focused on it.

I put no faith in a piece of paper, the current one or a new one. I'm not sure why anyone would. It is entirely useless. I'm not sure why you or anyone else feels so compelled to preserve it.

There is literally nothing we have to lose from this unless you can seriously claim the present constitution is actively imposing a limit on government. If it isn't imposing a limit on government, then a new one can't do any worse.

What limits government is people with pitchforks. What keeps pitchforks out of people's hands is faith in some mythological social contract which takes the form of government. The constitution is an article of government. People don't pick up pitchforks until they lose faith in the institution of government. Anything that undermines that faith will grow the number of people with pitchforks. My goal is to limit government. That can be done by letting the wolf take off the sheep's clothing.

[johnwk]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, Mark Levin promotes keeping the socialist tax on incomes alive with one of his “liberty amendments”? He also promotes keeping the Federal Reserve swindling operation alive with another one of his “liberty amendments.” And, let us not forget that he also promotes a fraudulent balanced budget amendment which would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the federal budget.

JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[Zippyjuan]

There will NEVER be a real balanced budget as long as the Federal Reserve Bank exists.

Congress controls spending.