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?


With all that said, regardless of how valuable Levin's amendments might be, the real problem is with his idea of using article V (5) for the states to call for another Constitutional Convention to bring about more amendments. If successful, it will be the first time a con-con will be convened since the one in Philadelphia in the late 1700's. In Levin's book, as well as his appearance on the Sean Hanity TV show, he claims to have discovered a safe guard against a run-away convention that might drastically change our Constitution and remove many of the safe guards necessary for good government and thwarting of tyranny. His "newly found" safeguard is that any amendments proposed as a result of a con-con would require a 75% super majority of the states to ratify the changes.
First off, I am not buying his story of this newly found safeguard as the advocates of calling for a con-con have brought up that issue over and over again for decades in their efforts to call for a con-con. However, what really surprises me is that Levin has a reputation of being a thorough historian and researcher. But in this case, accurate history would tell us that his safeguard is worthless.
Following our war of Independence, the union of 13 sovereign states were governed by our first constitution known as the Articles of Confederation. There were some valid problems that existed and thus the convening of what we call today, our Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. All of the states with the exception of Rode Island sent delegates to the con-con with strict to very strict parameters as to what might be considered. At least they had a safeguard in place as the Articles required all 13 states to ratify any changes.
By day 2 of our Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the delegates put drapes over the windows and swore to an oath of secrecy not to reveal the proceedings to the public. The press wasn't allowed. It later became apparent from some of the delegates that others had no intention of following the restrictions placed upon them by their own states. Rather than correct the problems in the Articles, the threw that document out and created a whole new government. But remember, we had the safeguard of requiring all the states to ratify any changes. However, the new Constitution only required, pay close attention, 9 of the states to ratify any changes, so what happened to the safeguard? It disappeared, just like our current safeguard might also disappear.
Bottom line, our state lawmakers could call for a con-con, but they would have little control over how the delegates would be chosen and no control over the con-con itself once it was convened. Ask yourself this, if we in Oklahoma, arguably the reddest of all red states, got really really lucky and sent a good delegation to the con-con, what is the likely hood that our delegates would not be drowned out by the overwhelming numbers of progressive delegates for the vast majority of the other states?
Calling for a con-con, while constitutional, is a really bad idea with the current condition and make up of the citizens of today in the various states. Even Madison, the author of Article V, after seeing the difficulties in ratifying the Constitution out of Philadelphia, suggested we should never convene another, at least in times of great division. Hume, do we have any divisions among us today?
Charlie Meadows



Views: 779

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

NO Con-Con! If we do, it will be the biggest mistke WE have ever made in this country. If WE do, they can take the constitution and through it in the garbage heap of History. That is not what WE need here, but complete victory by not supporting them and keep our money here at home, by not buying their STUFF. Sacrifice for our future NOW and take what they need is what is left of our MONEY into their coffers. By only American and stop buying things you do not need to survive. Please people stop spending, get out of debt, and buy only things needed for sure. . . amen.

If we allow congress or any part of the government to open up a Constitutional Convention, whether state or federal, they will totally destroy it.  They are trying to do it now without a Con-Con, what makes any patriot think that they won't completely tear it apart if we allow them to proceed!  People will say that it has to be ratified by the states, it doesn't matter because nothing that has been done in the last couple decades has stopped them from doing things that are unconstitutional .  Giving them permission now to go in and add things to it ( aka rewriting it) , will give them the ability to destroy this country and the constitution it was built upon. 



Ray Zelker Jr

Ray Zelker is right!


We didn't lose the Constitution, we lost the vote with the introduction of vote secrecy in the 1880s, it was "then" that we lost the Constitution.


The only thing a citizen has to control his government is the vote, nothing else!


We lost that vote and then had nothing to prevent the "leeching" away of the basic tenants of freedom.


But, there is a solution! It is "Sperryism". The following is the preface from: http://sperryism.org/


Think of Sperryism as a toolbox of "Freedom" tools, all designed to "free" people and keep them "free". All tools are doable by ordinary people and don't require permission or license of government. They correct the overall process by which freedom has been diminished, turns things around and leaves in place something best called "Super-Freedom". 

Tool #4 of Sperryism will take back:  1rst;  the vote - Then 2nd; The Constitution - All in 14 hours flat. Guaranteed without a shot being fired or a life lost.



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts

How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live"...........it shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......


© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service