Why Is Mark Levin Keeping Quiet About Vermont’s Article V Resolution?
Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 11 months ago to Politics
Doh! Deep article. I stopped listening to Mark Levin after he proposed a con-con and Nancy "snake eyes" Pelosi supported it too. Classic Hegelian Dialectic ploy and I'm not falling for it. NO CON-CON.
With the stupid idiots we allow to vote in this country (at least 43%), and with how completely ignorant they are about the Constitution, about history, and about individual liberty, all a con-con would do is give the progressives a chance to destroy the few safeguards within the Constitution that stand in the way of their agenda, while introducing new nonsense, based on popularity with the mindless proles, that would further destroy individual liberty and the republican nature of the U.S.
A con-con would get conditionals placed on the 1st Amendment for "hate speech".
A con-con would get the 2nd Amendment twisted to mean that only soldiers and cops can carry or possess weapons.
A con-con would place conditionals on the 4th and 5th amendments, based upon who was accused, and where in the organization chart of grievance groups the accused belonged.
Reiterating one of my favorite quotes of Cyrano's: No thank you. No, I thank you! And again, I thank you!
did NOT propose a con/con. And San-Fran-
Nan-Pelousy should just go away.....
"Under your desk you'll find a scalpel and a jar of alcohol. remove your appendix and turn it in." A con-con under today's circumstances would be akin to the above. Just like the surgeons, the end result will be the destruction of the intended recipient. Levin is often right in his assessments, but I doubt if he has thought this one through.
This process is why it is difficult to pass any constitutional amendments (a good thing) and why liberals chose to use judges and alphabet soup federal agencies to promote their agenda over the years...
Here is a link I found, talking about why a "runaway con-con" is not a big concern:
http://conventionofstates.com/why-it-wil...
In the 2nd Article V amendment creation process, the US Congress proposes the amendments by voting (not technically a convention). This 2nd process is the one by which, if I remember correctly, all existing ratified constitutional amendments were first proposed.
The "con-con" is the extremely rare alternative... As noted above, in either of the 2 processes, 3/4ths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50) have to ratify any proposed constitutional amendment before it becomes an official part of the US Constitution...
(1) 3/4ths of state legislatures ratify (usual mode)
(2) 3/4ths of "state constitutional conventions" ratify (never used before)
However, many violations of the US Constitution have occurred over the years because the public tacitly accepts it. I think that is the real reason some are concerned with amendments being proposed at a Constitutional Convention. They don't trust that the process won't somehow be hijacked by leftists and then submissively accepted by the public... Two things help avoid such an outcome:
(1) Every competing interest group will try to influence the process and outcome, making it highly unlikely that any consensus would be reached or that any non-legal ratification would succeed.
(2) We, and others, who cherish the US Constitution would be involved.
A great explanation of the particular effort for a Constitutional Convention as Mark Levin has explained many times. The states can in fact limit what type of amendments are proposed and voted on. by the way, does the English language,not my first by the way, always need to be denigrated by what many seem to consider "cute" little words like Con-Con? Can't we all speak and write English like grown ups?
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
That said, electronic devices tend to drive shortcuts. I lament occasionally about the spell check here (and elsewhere) which changes words from one to another without my knowledge.
Fred
Fred
If socialist Vermont joins conservative states Georgia, Alaska and Florida in calling for a constitutional amendment convention, we are another state closer to making it happen.
Vermont's voice at the convention will be of little consequence.
Think back on when the Ovomit care bill came out: barely 45 days after he takes office and voila! A 2600 page bill ready to go! That's a BS flag.
They (the communists) had that bill fully written & ready to go, LONG before ovomit got elected. I'm will to bet $$ that they already have a "constitution", uh, a UN-approved one at that, fully written & ready for the voting calls. Ok, perhaps they may have 2 or 3 other alternate ones, but the overall arching goals for the complete dismantlement of what you, I and the rest of the world has known as the United States is contained in all versions. As I said before: NO CON-CONS!
That said, it would need to be crafted very narrowly and specifically so as not to open it up to a total re-write. The progressives have stacked the courts and alphabet soup agencies with like minds and have undertaken a wholly unconstitutional attack on our liberties. Now, with an occupier of the oval office who has no problem with naked aggression against the constitution, and a political party that sees no problem with his doing so, we are losing liberty faster than ever. We need to do something or all will be lost by Jan 20, 2017.
And don't count the military itself outside that realm either. Those Sr. military members that aren't outright progressive have been culled from the ranks. Those that remain are big gov't supporters. The question is, are they liberty supporters? I used to think that they had to be, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Regards,
O.A.