Walter Williams questions Mark Levin’s desire for an Article V Convention

[johnwk]

On Mark Levin’s first show on Fox News Channel, 2/25/18, “Life, Liberty and Levin”, Mr. Levin suggests to Walter Williams that we should convene a convention under Article V to deal with our present government which is moving toward a totalitarian system as noted by Mr. Williams __ LINK


In defending his desire for calling a convention, Mr. Levin notes that James Madison was in favor of the Convention of 1787, but he curiously neglects to acknowledge that James Madison later expressed his apprehensions of calling a convention under Article V which he did in a letter to George Tuberville dated November 2, 1788, months after New York and Virginia had ratified our existing Constitution and wanted a convention called under Article V in order to adopt a Bill of Rights.


In any event, in response to Mr. Levin’s desire to call a Convention under Article V, Mr. Williams, as did James Madison, expressed a fear that the people who would likely attend the convention will not be people line “Benjamin Franklin or George Mason”, it would more than likely be people like “Nancy Pelosi”, which is another way of telling Mark Levin the same thing Madison told George Lee Tuberville regarding a convention being called under Article V:


”… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788



In answer to Mr. Williams’s belief that such a convention would draw people like Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Levin responded by saying the Nancy Pelosi types won't be in "Kansas".


So, how do we know the type of people who would be selected as delegates if a convention were called under Article V? To answer that question one only needs to recall what happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to revise its State Constitution. During this time a suit was filed in U.S. District Court, claiming the makeup of delegates violated the separation of powers doctrine of the of the United States Constitution. Of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very type of people who are now causing our misery!


As reported in the Union Leader, the suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a public office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”


The bottom line is, Mark Levin’s assertion that Nancy Pelosi types won't be in "Kansas", is wishful thinking at best! At worst, you can bet your bottom dollar every snake on earth will be trying find, or buy their way into such a convention if one were to be called in order to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional and the very cause of our existing sufferings . The fault is not in our existing Constitution. Rather, the fault is found in a failure to enforce its defined and limited powers.


Walter Williams, as usual, is once again spot on, just as Phyllis Schlafly, America’s conservative icon was, who likewise spoke out against the call for a convention under Article V, and for some of the same reasons as James Madison.



JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

[fedupinmo]

I agree with Mr. Williams whole-heartedly. We can't trust the politician of today with an opened up Constitution.

[johnwk]

I agree with Mr. Williams whole-heartedly. We can't trust the politician of today with an opened up Constitution.

One thing I noticed during Mr. Levin’s interview with Mr. Williams, LINK, Mark’s body language indicated he was furious when Mr. Williams expressed he was not too enthusiastic about calling a convention.


Mark’s body language, and use of the phrase “fear mongering”, also indicated great frustration when Mr. Williams correctly pointed out if such a convention were called, it would more than likely be controlled by the very type of people [Nancy Pelosi] who have, and are now causing our sufferings, and that includes Republicans and Democrats who now hold political power.

I think Mr. Levin ought to carefully consider Madison’s expressed fears if a convention were called under Article V. He should also take note of the reasons why Phyllis Schlafly battled against the calling of a convention up till the day of her death.


JWK

Chief Justice, Warren Burger, stated in 1988, “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 the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “

[johnwk]

.

.

In reviewing the following quote from a Hannity transcript, keep in mind Mr. Levin is one of the primary leaders advocating the call for a convention under Article V.


HANNITY:


’’Let me ask you, and follow up on that. Because lawmakers exempt themselves from ObamaCare. And the American people, if it is good for them, why isn't it good for them and their staffs?’’


LEVIN:


’’Because we have these governing masterminds, this professional ruling class. And when you look at the framers (audio gap), there was never supposed to be a professional ruling class. There was this thing called rotation in and out of office. That's why the senator served six years. Congressmen, two years. But they didn't have term limits back then because it never even occurred to them that you would have senators serving 36, 42 years, or members of the House, 20, 30, 40 years. It didn't even occur to them. They felt strongly in a citizen legislature.


And it is interesting. Thomas Jefferson who was not at the constitutional convention, one of the complaints he had about the Constitution, and he ended up supporting it, was this issue of rotation. He thought members of the House shouldn't serve more than one year. And interestingly just on that one subject, in most of the 1800s, members of the House served two years and that was it. Fifty percent of them there was turnover.’’



Note how Mr. Levin refers to those who now hold political power as “governing masterminds”, and a “professional ruling class.” Levin goes on to mention Thomas Jefferson’s support for a “rotation” of them [our “governing masterminds”, and a “professional ruling class.”]. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter, also referred to the delegates of the convention of 1787 as “demigods”. Why is all this important with regard to Levin promoting a convention?


To answer that question we need to be fully aware as to who would attend a convention under Article V if one were called? Who would be in charge of appointing a State’s Delegates? Would it not be the very “governing masterminds”, and a “professional ruling class” who Levin expresses a scorn for?


Considering our existing dangerous politically charged atmosphere, which in many cases has already erupted in numerous demonstrations resulting in property damage and mayhem, Madison’s fear of a convention under Article V is even more applicable to today’s circumstances than it was when he first expressed them:


”… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788


JWK




Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

[johnwk]

.
Kansas wisely rejects Levin’s call for an Article V See: Kansas Senate Rejects Convention on Revising US Constitution

”TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators shot down a resolution in the Senate that would have had the state join a dozen others in calling for a convention to propose changes to U.S. Constitution.”

It appears when Mr. Levin’s call for a “convention of states” is actually discussed and the various dangers of opening this door would unwittingly invite, sound minds are prevailing, especially among those who take note of Madison’s warning against an Article V Convention.

Aside from this good news, it would be a blessing if Mr. Levin would take the time on his show to actually address the cause and remedy of so many of our sufferings such as judges and Justices ignoring and subverting both the text and documented “legislative intent” of our Constitution which gives context to its text, and how to force the punishment of these scoundrels.

Surely Mr. Levin is in agreement that the cause our sufferings are not found in defects in our Constitution, but in a willingness or failure to enforce its provisions as they were intended to operate, and impeach and punish those who hold an office of public trust who blatantly violate the oath of office they took.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, Commentaries on American Law

[Anti Federalist]

To give the current crop of authoritarians free range at a convention, would end up with result worse than the 1787 CONstitution.

[shakey1]

Leave it be.