Exclusive Content > News
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 Levinâ€, 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 Masonâ€, it would more than likely be people like “Nancy Pelosiâ€, which is another way of telling Mark Levin the same thing Madison told George Lee Tuberville regarding a convention being called under Article V:
â€â€¦ 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.â€
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, an American 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
Sanguine:
No, Mr. Williams is uncharacteristically dead wrong. "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." The left is not honoring the Constitution now (nor are many supposedly on the right). And, anything that would be proposed would have to be passed by 3/4 vote.
INVAR:
They don't follow the limits on government as defined in the Constitution now as it exists. Why would anyone be stupid enough to assume that passing MORE amendments is going to get a lawless government to abide what it currently circumvents and ignores wholesale by the rulings of select justices who have the final say on what is and what is not lawful?
The aforementioned Blacked Robed gods, deny enumerated Rights written therein and have decreed that they can 'reasonably regulate' them into abolishment, and craft Rights out of thin air via being able read penumbras and emanations in the ether around the words in the Constitution.
So NO. Having an Article V Convention does not reign in a lawless corrupt government oligarchy. You cannot get the lawless to abide old or new restraints via civil means.
johnwk:
--- Quote from: Sanguine on February 27, 2018, 05:12:39 am ---No, Mr. Williams is uncharacteristically dead wrong. "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." The left is not honoring the Constitution now (nor are many supposedly on the right). And, anything that would be proposed would have to be passed by 3/4 vote.
--- End quote ---
The ¾ vote you mention is no defense against organized tyranny!
And tell me, how many of our States now now receive one third or more of their budget from the federal government, almost all of which is for functions not authorized to be financed by the federal government? The fact is, we now have approximately $125 TRILLION in federal debt liabilities, and Republican leaders are just as guilty as Democrat leaders in creating this suicidal debt. And this debt does not even take into account State pension funds which are a ticking time bomb in both Republican and Democrat controlled States. And why is this important? It is important because during the convention of 1787 a deal was struck to have the federal government assume all state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War if the new Constitution were to be adopted.
How many existing State Legislatures and Governors would not submit to blackmail and agree to give the federal government more powers over the people and the States and nullify the Ninth and Tenth Amendments if the federal government would assume existing state debt under a new constitution?
What you seem to be missing is ___ the fault is not in our existing Constitution. Rather, the fault is found in a failure to enforce its existing defined and limited powers. Why call for a convention to re-write our existing constitution if our sufferings spring from a failure to enforce its existing provisions? Logic tells me it may very well be to make constitutional the tyranny we now suffer under, and that includes the plundering of our federal treasury engaged in by the leadership of both political parties.
JWK
80% of green energy money, which amounted to $ BILLIONS and taxed away from the wages of hard working American Citizens WENT TO our Washington sewer rat donors!
endicom:
I'm with Williams on this.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version