About a month ago radio talk show host and author Mark Levin brought out his latest book proposing for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to adopt what he is calling his liberty amendments. At least one of his amendments, the repeal of the 17th amendment, would be valuable with the rest of them having some appeal but not likely to solve the problems we face today. Remember, our problems today are not because of flaws in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but rather our people don't demand their elected officials govern according to our founding documents. In addition, almost all amendments beyond our original documents have created problems toward good government rather than improved things. Why would we think these new amendments would improve things or even be obeyed if the original documents aren't followed?
That is the best idea I see on this page. Get rid of the welfare voter.
Hey William, this is a great idea....but unfortunately somebody in government will make sure they stay on the rolls because guess who runs the voter offices for most states, the DEMORATS, for the most part.
I am sorry, I don't trust any of our representatives from the states on up. NONE of them can be trusted, maybe a very few select individuals, but that would be it. Mark Levin might be an outstanding researcher and a constitutionalist, but this is the very WRONG ROUTE to go.
Charlie Meadows' excellent letter on con con represents a lot of research. Thanks for that, but I suggest yo (Charlie) send it to Levin and try to setup a discussion with him. He is very smart about this stuff and I just heard him today reiterating that the planned meeting is different. Charlie may be right or Levin might be right and I sure don't know the answer. I hope that those willing to really work on this can determine what is really at risk, if anything.
"ok, that's one way to die for sure."
A very well researched treatise on an Article V Constitutional Convention can be found at the url below. It is a link under "Topics".
As to Levins "newly found safeguard" of a "supermajority", it is either a big mistake or a play on words as 75% of the states ratifying an amendment "proposed" by a convention, is what the Constitution "requires" for passage.
Under "Topics" there is also a verification of "jury nullification" you may find interesting. See: http://verifiedtruth.org/
A Con-Con at this time is NOT a good idea simply because we cannot trust the very people we voted for. I don't pretend to have the answer, but I do know our modern-day politicians are the problem. Until we find a way to break the chains that the two party system holds on the average citizen, we will continue to swirl down the Toilet.
>>I don't pretend to have the answer, but I do know our modern-day politicians are the problem
Actually Mr. Swanson, while they may be 'part' of the problem, the "core" of the problem is that the vote cannot now be "verified" ever since (circa 1875) when the vote was changed from a completely "open" to a completely "secret" vote.
With that change was lost the ability to verify the vote. Of which, there is virtually zero recorded history. Without verification (equal to a 2-sided"count") there is no way to be certain that any at all, of the vote since 1875 was "of certainty". Anyone stating that all votes since then have been fraudulent, stands on firmer ground "logically" then all the "certifications" of all Registrar of Voters that have existed since then.
The solution to the problem is in part 3 of the essay at the following url. The solution "creates" that verification using a citizen initiated & operated vote audit system. It is called Vva, the "Voter verified audit". See: http://howtorescueamerica.org/trilogy.html
Gaybinator and Robert Macinness are correct: this is NOT a con-con and it goes AROUND the idiots in DC--all of it would occur at the state level.... read the book! But hey, we'll probably be bloody before then!!!
As has been pointed out by several, Levin is not calling for a Con-Con. He specifically avoids that over used term. The Artice V Convention is specifically to amend the constitution. Levin calls our attention to the systemic problems with government today. To fix it we must change the system; specifically, rein-in the out of control political brotherhood; get our country back to the "limited government" called for in the Constitution. Whether the Article V approach is the way to do it, I don't know. It certainly seems better than what we're doing now - nothing. Electing new people hasn't solved it. They soon become part of that self-protecting brotherhood.
Regarding the "runaway convention" fear, there is another group that has addressed that in length. They have developed "The Madison Amendment" which would first have to be passed by the convention before any other issues (amendments) could be addressed. The Madison Amendment stops any runaway tendencies in their tracks by immediately halting the Article V Convention. You can Google it and get the details.
Many here have said we must control our elected officials, we must have accountability from them, we must get the people to wake up and vote for the right people, etc. etc. My question back is HOW? We have two generations of dumbed-down citizens who don't even know what the constitution is; never read it. We have about half who like the free stuff being paid for by the other half. You think they're going to vote the way you want them to? How do you re-educate 150 million Americans? And our poiltical brotherhood knows that and plays to it. If I tried to convince you we didn't need the Second Amendment, or the First, or that the President should have the authority to do whatever he pleases without regards to the Constitution, would I be able to do that with you? No! So what makes you think we can change the minds / opinions of all those who do? It's a systemic problem. Levin has an answer which, in my opinion, is better than anyone else's answer - just more rhetoric.
Controlling our politicians is impossible as long as we have a two party system. In fact, our founding fathers were totally against political parties and I'm convinced they were 100% correct. It would be nice to vote for a person that ran on their own platform instead of having to stick to a party's platform. There are quite a few advantages for 'we the people' for going to a "no party" position. The one group of people that would fight tooth and nail against such an idea is of course THE POLITICIANS. If politicians hate the idea, then we know we are on to something worth looking into.
So my contribution to this discussion is "Abolish ALL political parties in the USA".
That's a very good point. How do we do that? I have a close friend who also thinks it's a good idea to repeal the 17th amendment putting senators back under control of the state legislatures and subject to recall, then, have the states pay the salary of the senators and the individual congressional district pay the salaries of the House Representatives. The idea being these elected officials are loyal to whomever pays their salary. Currently it's the federal government thus they show little loyalty to those who elected them. Both ideas sound good to me.