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, 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]

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.

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.

[Sanguine]

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!
   

I'm distilling your comment down to "why do a COS at all"?  And, the answer is - because there is a chance it could make things better and is the last legal option available to us.

[johnwk]

I'm distilling your comment down to "why do a COS at all"?  And, the answer is - because there is a chance it could make things better and is the last legal option available to us.

Last legal option available?  We have a legal option every two freaken years to elect honorable people to Congress who will obey our existing Constitution. I dare say, your premise is without foundation.


JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

[Sanguine]

Last legal option available?  We have a legal option every two freaken years to elect honorable people to Congress who will obey our existing Constitution. I dare say, your premise is without foundation.


JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

Really?  Then why haven't we?

[Bigun]

I'm with Williams on this.

I am as well!  Our current problems are not related to the Constitution as it exists but rather what we have allowed ourselves to become.

[Sanguine]

I am as well!  Our current problems are not related to the Constitution as it exists but rather what we have allowed ourselves to become.

And, that, of course, begs the question: "what do we do from here"?  I notice Johnwk disappeared on this question.

[Bigun]

And, that, of course, begs the question: "what do we do from here"?  I notice Johnwk disappeared on this question.

We work toward taking our country back one step at a time.  We vote for solid conservatives instead of the guy with the most money in our primaries for starters.

[the_doc]

@Sanguine

Last legal option available?  We have a legal option every two freaken years to elect honorable people to Congress who will obey our existing Constitution. I dare say, your premise is without foundation.


JWK

I think Dr. Williams and you are both terribly naïve.  Saying the fault is not in our Constitution is completely beside the point.

[INVAR]

I'm distilling your comment down to "why do a COS at all"?  And, the answer is - because there is a chance it could make things better and is the last legal option available to us.

If you are going to attempt it for the sole purpose of illustrating that we tried every avenue of rectifying a lawless and burgeoning government tyranny before we do what must be done, then I can support the effort so long as it is understood that the Beast at Mordor on the Potomac is not going to allow itself to be limited by any law or amendment.  They will either find a federal judge who will strike such amendments down from being implemented as a force of law, or they will do as they do now, and just ignore them.

We are a post-constitutional Socialist mobocracy in deed and practice.

The sooner we wake up to that reality, the sooner we can begin working on true and effective ways to put government back in the cage designed for it.

[Bigun]

@Sanguine
I think Dr. Williams and you are both terribly naïve.  Saying the fault is not in our Constitution is completely beside the point.

I think that assuming a further amended Constitution will be any more effective than what we currently have in the currently existing environment is extremely naïve.

[Sanguine]

We work toward taking our country back one step at a time.  We vote for solid conservatives instead of the guy with the most money in our primaries for starters.

Like the last presidental election?  Or, all the other ones before that?

Two problems with that: conservatism is not well understood or liked, and conservatives, by their nature, frequently make lousy candidates in the social/cultural environment that we now have.

[Sanguine]

If you are going to attempt it for the sole purpose of illustrating that we tried every avenue of rectifying a lawless and burgeoning government tyranny before we do what must be done, then I can support the effort so long as it is understood that the Beast at Mordor on the Potomac is not going to allow itself to be limited by any law or amendment.  They will either find a federal judge who will strike such amendments down from being implemented as a force of law, or they will do as they do now, and just ignore them.

We are a post-constitutional Socialist mobocracy in deed and practice.

The sooner we wake up to that reality, the sooner we can begin working on true and effective ways to put government back in the cage designed for it.

Agreed, I see this as the first step in dealing with it.

[Sanguine]

I think that assuming a further amended Constitution will be any more effective than what we currently have in the currently existing environment is extremely naïve.

If we really are post-Constitutional, then electing conservatives will not solve the problem.

[INVAR]

Agreed, I see this as the first step in dealing with it.

As long as everyone knows and understands that the effort is not going to fix or solve the problem of an out-of-control federal Beast.

It is merely an exercise to establish a marker to justify what will be required in the future.

[johnwk]

If we really are post-Constitutional, then electing conservatives will not solve the problem.

Levin's repetitive statement that we are living in a "post constitutional" period suggests our existing constitution is no longer in effect. That kind of comment takes the spotlight off our federal government, especially Congress and particular members on our Supreme Court, who are acting in rebellion to our Constitution and pretending it means whatever they declare it means. 


From where I stand, our Constitution is still there, eagerly waiting for the people to rise up and punish those in political power who impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness or justice as the supreme law of the land, even when those views are not in harmony with text of the Constitution, or its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.


JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[the_doc]

@Sanguine
@INVAR
@Smokin Joe

I think that assuming a further amended Constitution will be any more effective than what we currently have in the currently existing environment is extremely naïve.

I understand where you're coming from, my good friend @Bigun, but I respectfully submit that my comment on this thread trumps your pessimistic concerns--i.e., I submit that we need to try to use a COS to start addressing our national corruption. 

Saying we that we (merely?) need to enforce our existing Constitution is naïve in that it is banal. 

I assume, based on your pessimism, that you would agree with that claim on my part, because you have surely recognized that our national problem lies with spiritual/social nitwits who vote for dishonorable people.

In that regard, I will dare to claim that you are ultimately siding with me against Dr. Williams and our TBR friend jwk and Phyllis Schlafly and the Birchers. 

Given, then, that we can't fix stupid, I hope specifically to persuade you that we ought to use the Constitution to improve our Constitution.  More to the point, we ought to allow our Constitution to strengthen itself against the spiritual numbskulls who keep putting spiritual monsters into office.  (Alas, they stay in office so long, under deep cover and wielding enormous, Constitution-sabotaging power, that we can't ordinarily get them out of office.) 

Nota Bene:  A COS is a Constitutional approach for addressing problems that would surface after our Framers finished their work. Given that we now have terrible problems enforcing our Constitution, the failure even to try to use a Constitutional COS to facilitate enforcement of the Constitution (i.e. by blocking some of the awful consequences of stupid mobocracy and political corruption associated therewith) would be yet another dereliction of enforcement duty, would it not?

In short, the people who oppose the COS are part of the problem that they say they want corrected.

JWK says we just need to start voting better people into office.  After all, we get a chance to do this every two years [ah, but that's not true for Senators or federal judges, of course].  But I would say to JWK, how's that plan been working out for you over the past hundred years or so?  Not too well, IMHO. 

Depending on the hoi polloi to fix the problem directly is PRECISELY THE PROBLEM THAT THE ANTI-COS FOLKS REFUSE TO ADDRESS.

Puh-leez wake up to that.  A COS might not work, because we might be very well under an irrevocable judgment of God for our national wickedness.  But if Trump can buy us some time by finally draining the swamp, we can strengthen our Constitution's protections of Itself against the corruptions inherent in the hoi polloi.

Yeah, I'm accusing the anti-COS crowd of having a paucity of insight, of having a deficit of real patriotic courage.  I think that even Dr. Williams has gotten badly confused/frightened--so much so that he does not trust the Constitution to be showing us an important remedy for a terrible, pressing problem of federal overreach and monumental corruption. 

[truth_seeker]

Like the last presidental election?  Or, all the other ones before that?

Two problems with that: conservatism is not well understood or liked, and conservatives, by their nature, frequently make lousy candidates in the social/cultural environment that we now have.

Changing the Constitution gets nowhere unless Conservatives themselves change their views on politics. They need to:

1. Sharpen their Persuasion skills
2. Accept the changes will not be sudden 100% across the board wins
3. Use some strategic mutually beneficial alliances
4. Learn to assign priorities

[INVAR]

Levin's repetitive statement that we are living in a "post constitutional" period suggests our existing constitution is no longer in effect. That kind of comment takes the spotlight off our federal government, especially Congress and particular members on our Supreme Court, who are acting in rebellion to our Constitution and pretending it means whatever they declare it means. 


From where I stand, our Constitution is still there, eagerly waiting for the people to rise up and punish those in political power who impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness or justice as the supreme law of the land, even when those views are not in harmony with text of the Constitution, or its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

While I agree with your sentiments, and I agree with Levin's statement that we now reside in a Post-Constitutional Mobocracy/Oligarchy - while we little people can regard the Constitution as Supreme, the government itself does not.

Punishment of those in political power is not going to happen or come via civil means.  Period.

History and human nature bear that truth out.

We either willingly succumb to our fundamental transformation into this new order, or we defy it.   Resolved that when it comes to impose its will, we water the tree of liberty.

[the_doc]

Changing the Constitution gets nowhere unless Conservatives themselves change their views on politics. They need to:

1. Sharpen their Persuasion skills
2. Accept the changes will not be sudden 100% across the board wins
3. Use some strategic mutually beneficial alliances
4. Learn to assign priorities

You left out the first step.  We need some military tribunals and hangings for treason--probably including a few so-called conservatives.  If we do that, we jerk the slack out of our politically insane society as a whole.

(If you think my "first step" proposal is too harsh, just wait to see what your beloved POTUS has in mind along these same lines.)

[INVAR]

A COS might not work, because we might be very well under an irrevocable judgment of God for our national wickedness.

^^^^THIS!

Without repentance, this nation will go into the depraved wickedness and corruption that this people want.  Recall that God ALWAYS destroys His people by giving them what they demand, and handing them over to a reprobate and debased mindset that ensures their own destruction.

This happens because the fundamental foundation of our liberty was rooted in HIM and HIS Commandments that this people have largely rejected, demanding government replace Providence as Provider and Fairness Maker.

But if Trump can buy us some time by finally draining the swamp, we can strengthen our Constitution's protections of Itself against the corruptions inherent in the hoi polloi.

There is no evidence of that actually happening beyond hopeful blog essays extrapolating news as being a smoking gun towards imputing justice.

The same was said and done over Hillary's Benghazi and E-mail scandal; the IRS scandal and all the other various 'Investigations" Issa's Committee was looking into.  Corruption my friend, has been institutionalized and protected by the very party and people who were supposed to be the vanguards of the Republic.

Like Ancient Israel before us, we have rejected our Provider as the people demanded a king.

And granted it The Lord has, along with all the consequences both The Lord and the Founders warned us of.

Yeah, I'm accusing the anti-COS crowd of having a paucity of insight, of having a deficit of real patriotic courage.  I think that even Dr. Williams has gotten badly confused/frightened--so much so that he does not trust the Constitution to be showing us an important remedy for a terrible, pressing problem of federal overreach and monumental corruption.

I do not oppose a COS.  I simply think it is a waste of time if it is assumed a COS will restore the Constitution and our eroded Rights and put the Beast back in the cage it was intended to remain.  You have to recognize that HALF the population if not moreso oppose the limits the Constitution places on Government to act, and nearly ALL the creatures in Government power already refuse to acquiesce or abide by the existing Constitution.  They will no more abide new constraints on it's authority and power than it already does.  That is an historical fact of human nature and the course of history that plagued all forms of government not bound to a monarchy.

We do a COS to demonstrate that all avenues to rectify a corrupt and tyrannical government have failed and that the current Form of Government is destructive to liberty.  Corruption now entrenched and institutional to the point that all the methods and vehicles intended to arrest it, have been compromised.  Therefore we are of need to exercise our Right to alter and abolish the existing cabal of corruption, and to institute Government as intended, restoring its foundation upon the principles that once effected our Safety and Happiness to great measure. 

We just have to understand and recognize that none of that is going to happen via civil means. 

And God is not going to grant us victory over that until and after we go through II Chronicles 7:13 and end up DOING verse 14.

That is my position.

[Bigun]

If we really are post-Constitutional, then electing conservatives will not solve the problem.

I said "for starters" didn't I!  There is MUCH that needs doing, like retaking our education system, that will only be done IF we have people in office willing to do what's necessary.

I'm not yet to the point @INVAR finds himself but I'm getting real close!