Walter Williams questions Mark Levin’s desire for an Article V Convention

[johnwk]

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

Stating a fact is naive? 

Considering the extreme political partisanship which has recently taken root in our country, and that includes a wave of violent protests, some of which have inflicted massive property damage and injuries, it may very well be naïve to think calling a convention is a rational approach to confronting the various problems which folks in government have created, folks who I might add would be in charge of the convention you dream of. 

A constitutional convention could very well inspire rioting in the streets not to mention an actual civil war! Sometimes I believe there are those who wish for rioting and a civil war, thinking such events could actually lead to Marshall Law and an end to self governance and the establishment of an iron fisted, dictatorial type of government with current agitators at the helm.

Be careful of what you wish for, the consequences may not be what you desire.

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.

[johnwk]

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 agree!

To me, it [the calling of a constitutional convention] is a rope-a-dope gimmick to prolong our misery.  Sadly, we were warned long ago about submitting to unconstitutional acts, and those acts include government cheese programs intentionally designed to create a captive and dependent voting bloc which our existing socialist/communist/progressive politicians need to keep themselves in power.   

"When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin."___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787


JWK



If we can make the majority of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, [food stamps, public housing, social security, Medicaid, etc.,] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our  Marxists game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which America’s labor, businesses, and investors have worked to produced.

[INVAR]

"When a people is corrupted, the press may be made an engine to compleat their ruin: and it is now notorious, that the ministry, are daily employing it to encrease and establish corruption, and to pluck up virtue by the roots.

Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence, than the body can live and move without a soul. When these are gone, and the popular branch of the constitution is become dependent on the minister, as it is in England, or cut off, as it is in America, all other forms of the constitution may remain; but if you look for liberty, you will grope in vain, and the freedom of the press, instead of promoting the cause of liberty, will but hasten its destruction, as the best cordials, taken by patients, in some distempers, become the most rancid and corrosive poisons.

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

I'd say this warning has arrived upon us in full.

And we this people, remain oblivious.

[the_doc]

Stating a fact is naive?

Sounds strange, doesn't it?  But see my post #19.  Then re-read my #11.

A constitutional convention could very well inspire rioting in the streets not to mention an actual civil war! Sometimes I believe there are those who wish for rioting and a civil war, thinking such events could actually lead to Marshall (sic) Law and an end to self governance and the establishment of an iron fisted, dictatorial type of government with current agitators at the helm.

Be careful of what you wish for, the consequences may not be what you desire.

Please don't go off on a tangent about inciting riots.  President Trump is already prepared for an outbreak of civil unrest, possibly with that unrest being bad enough to call it a civil war, but it will not be triggered by a COS.  If triggered at all, and I hope not (as does the POTUS), a civil war would likely be triggered by Constitutional enforcement actions against sanctuary cities or by a banking collapse or by a devastating attack by terrorists. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

We have laws against things like shooting people.  When people get shot anyway, we mock those who propose that the answer is more laws.

We have laws against illegal immigration.  When people break them, we mock those who propose that the answer is more laws.

We have a Constitution which is supposed to limit the size and scope of our federal government.  When those limitations are ignored, we... propose more laws???

One of these things is not like the others...

[the_doc]

We have laws against things like shooting people.  When people get shot anyway, we mock those who propose that the answer is more laws.

We have laws against illegal immigration.  When people break them, we mock those who propose that the answer is more laws.

We have a Constitution which is supposed to limit the size and scope of our federal government.  When those limitations are ignored, we... propose more laws???

One of these things is not like the others...

I don't believe that a COS would simplistically "propose more laws."

[INVAR]

I don't believe that a COS would simplistically "propose more laws."

How do you get a lawless Oligarchy to comply with any new restraints placed upon it when it ignores and circumvents current and existing restraints as an institutional practice?

If even new restraints make it to a ratification process unmolested or struck down by Judicial Activists as 'unConstitutional' because they assert penumbras and emanations in the ether of the parchment is determined to prohibit any such new restraints be put upon it to do the people's will?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I don't believe that a COS would simplistically "propose more laws."

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have referred to them as "laws".  Suggestions would be more accurate.

[the_doc]

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have referred to them as "laws".  Suggestions would be more accurate.

I am especially interested in pushing through term limits for Senators and Congressmen, and also interested in clarifying jurisdictional issues for lower courts created by the SCOTUS.   

[Bigun]

I am especially interested in pushing through term limits for Senators and Congressmen, and also interested in clarifying jurisdictional issues for lower courts created by the SCOTUS.   

SCOTUS does not create courts.  And they can't create laws either.  At least not legally.

[johnwk]

I don't believe that a COS would simplistically "propose more laws."

Perhaps you didn’t know it but, our Global Governance Crowd who have given us such things as the Sixteenth Amendment, Federal Reserve System, WTO, World Bank, the NAFTA, CAFTA, and other such institutions designed to sap the sovereignty and independence  of the United States has also been pushing a Constitutional Convention for decades.

And if by chance they get their way their changes to our system of government are found in The Constitution of the New States of America


JWK


"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel  Webster.

[johnwk]

SCOTUS does not create courts.  And they can't create laws either.  At least not legally.

You are absolutely correct.  The Supreme Court of the United States does not create courts.  That power is exclusively vested in Congress.  It's a sad shame that so many do not even know the basic fundamentals of our constitutionally limited system of government.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;



JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [the apportionment of direct taxes] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.  POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
   

[Bigun]

You are absolutely correct.  The Supreme Court of the United States does not create courts.  That power is exclusively vested in Congress.  It's a sad shame that so many do not even know the basic fundamentals of our constitutionally limited system of government.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;



JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [the apportionment of direct taxes] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.  POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Yes!  And the Congress has been VERY remiss in carrying out it's duties with regard to courts for a LONG time now!  Which is one of the MAJOR reasons we find ourselves where we do currently!

[the_doc]

SCOTUS does not create courts.  And they can't create laws either.  At least not legally.
@ Bigun

Ah, you are obviously correct, thanks. 

What irks me is the fact that once Congress created the Court system, starting at the top (SCOTUS) and later fleshing out the larger court system skeleton (as you pointed out), the miscellaneous District and Appellate Courts essentially remained under the oversight of the SCOTUS only--and this despite the fact that Congress is authorized to limit jurisdictions by law for all of the lower courts.

Levin has intimated that (ever since Marbury v. Madison?) Congress has essentially deferred to the SCOTUS for oversight in jurisdictional issues involving all of the lower courts.  Congress, he has said, has simply failed to act to clean up the mess, which includes federal judge shopping and horrendous judicial activism.

[Bigun]

Ah, you are obviously correct, thanks. 

What irks me is the fact that once Congress created the Court system, starting at the top (SCOTUS) and later fleshing out the larger court system skeleton (as you pointed out), the miscellaneous District and Appellate Courts essentially remained under the oversight of the SCOTUS only--and this despite the fact that Congress is authorized to limit jurisdictions by law for all of the lower courts.

Levin has intimated that (ever since Marbury v. Madison?) Congress has essentially deferred to the SCOTUS for oversight in jurisdictional issues involving all of the lower courts.  Congress, he has said, has simply failed to act to clean up the mess, which includes federal judge shopping and horrendous judicial activism.

SCOTUS was created by the Constitution itself.  ALL of the lower courts were created and can be regulated by Congress alone. 

SCOTUS only has appellate JUDICAL powers and none other.

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[Bigun]

Levin has intimated that (ever since Marbury v. Madison?) Congress has essentially deferred to the SCOTUS for oversight in jurisdictional issues involving all of the lower courts.  Congress, he has said, has simply failed to act to clean up the mess, which includes federal judge shopping and horrendous judicial activism.

Levin is essentially correct. Marbury vs Madison was the first in a long chain of Judicial usurpations that have failed to be properly addressed.  The thing most people overlook with regard to that case is that ALL the members of the founding generation fully understood the role of the court and although Mr. Marbury won his case he NEVER received the commission that "victory" afforded him.  That fact was not lost on the court and they stayed pretty much inside their boundaries for a very long time afterward.  All that changed after 1865 and went into high gear under Woodrow Wilson.

[the_doc]

SCOTUS was created by the Constitution itself.  ALL of the lower courts were created and can be regulated by Congress alone. 

SCOTUS only has appellate JUDICAL powers and none other.

No disagreement here. 

[johnwk]

Getting back to Mark Levin, one thing I noticed during his interview with Mr. Williams, LINK, Mark’s body language indicated he was furious when Mr. Williams expressed he was not too enthusiastic about calling a convention.


Mark’s body language, and use of the phrase “fear mongering”, also indicated great frustration when Mr. Williams correctly pointed out if such a convention were called, it would more than likely be controlled by the very type of people [Nancy Pelosi] who have, and are now causing our sufferings, and that includes many Republicans and Democrats who now hold political power.

I think Mr. Levin ought to carefully consider Madison’s expressed fears if a convention were called under Article V.  He should also take note of the reasons why Phyllis Schlafly battled against the calling of a convention up till the day of her death.


JWK

Chief Justice, Warren Burger, stated in 1988, “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “

[johnwk]

.

In reviewing the following quote from a Hannity transcript, keep in mind Mr. Levin is one of the primary leaders advocating the call for a convention under Article V.


HANNITY:

 
’’Let me ask you, and follow up on that. Because lawmakers exempt themselves from ObamaCare. And the American people, if it is good for them, why isn't it good for them and their staffs?’’


LEVIN:


’’Because we have these governing masterminds, this professional ruling class. And when you look at the framers (audio gap), there was never supposed to be a professional ruling class. There was this thing called rotation in and out of office. That's why the senator served six years. Congressmen, two years. But they didn't have term limits back then because it never even occurred to them that you would have senators serving 36, 42 years, or members of the House, 20, 30, 40 years. It didn't even occur to them. They felt strongly in a citizen legislature.


And it is interesting. Thomas Jefferson who was not at the constitutional convention, one of the complaints he had about the Constitution, and he ended up supporting it, was this issue of rotation. He thought members of the House shouldn't serve more than one year. And interestingly just on that one subject, in most of the 1800s, members of the House served two years and that was it. Fifty percent of them there was turnover.’’



Note how Mr. Levin refers to those who now hold political power as “governing masterminds”, and a “professional ruling class.”  Levin goes on to mention Thomas Jefferson’s support for a “rotation” of them [our “governing masterminds”, and a “professional ruling class.”].  Thomas Jefferson, in a letter, also referred to the delegates of the convention of 1787 as “demigods”.  Why is all this important with regard to Levin promoting a convention?

 
To answer that question we need to be fully aware as to who would attend a convention under Article V if one were called? Who would be in charge of appointing a State’s Delegates?  Would it not be the very “governing masterminds”, and a “professional ruling class” who Levin expresses a scorn for? 


Considering our existing dangerous politically charged atmosphere, which in many cases has already erupted in numerous demonstrations resulting in property damage and mayhem,  Madison’s fear of a convention under Article V is even more applicable to today’s circumstances than it was when he first expressed them:


”… 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


JWK




Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary