Is a Constitutional Convention just around the corner? South Carolina & Virginia call for a Convention of States

In September, Glenn interviewed Mark Levin about the options afforded to the states under Article V of the Constitution as outlined in his book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public. On radio this morning, Glenn shared the news that South Carolina and Virginia have formally called for an Article V Convention of State (COS), and Florida is expected to lend its support to the cause later this week.

“I have been talking to several people that I trust – and are not radicals at all – that know the Constitution. And I have been asking them all, ‘Have you read Mark Levin’s book? What do you think of a Constitutional Convention,’” Glenn explained. “Constitutional Convention scares the crap out of me because it opens everything else up, however, that’s only if the states are out-of-control. And there are a lot of people now fighting it on the conservative side… I believe this is the only way back. There’s a massive reset coming, and the Constitutional Convention is the way [the founders imagined] it.”

For those unfamiliar with Article V of the Constitution, it is a mechanism put in place by the founders to enforce a checks-and-balances system for the federal and state governments. While amendments to the Constitution can be proposed and passed in Congress, Article V also allows for the states themselves to propose amendments. If two-thirds of the states submit an application to Congress, Congress must then call a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution.

The South Carolina COS Project and state legislator Bill Taylor (R-Aiken) are leading the charge. Rep. Taylor explained the American people are simply not happy with the Washington D.C.

“Fortunately, our founders knew the federal government might one day become too large and too powerful and they specifically inserted a mechanism that gives states a lawful and orderly mechanism to restrain a runaway federal government; it’s Article V of the Constitution,” he said.

Constitutional law professor and state director of the South Carolina COS Project Bob Menges is also calling for a convention: “When the framers agreed on Sept. 15, 1787, to add a provision in Article V for the states to amend the Constitution, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2013, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution.”

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

While the concept of getting 37 states to agree to such an idea may seem far-fetched and overwhelming, Glenn explained why he really believes now is the time.

“Now, I wrote to Mark Levin last night because I’ve been doing my homework on the Convention of States and [have been] asking people that I really trust, ‘Show me the downsides in this,’” Glenn said. “We’re all really kind of coming to the conclusion that this is the time.”

“When George Washington said, ‘Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair, the event is in the hand of God,’ I really believe he was talking about us,” he continued. “I don’t think they knew it was going to be this long – but they knew, at some point, you would need to pull an escape pod and you would have to start all over.”

That “start all over” tool Glenn refers to is found in Article V.

“Now, the biggest tool in the box is this Article V. And it says: When you have trouble, the states can get together – you need 37 of them – and they can amend the Constitution,” Glenn explained. “I realize that this is a scary thing for many people, and people will try to scare you on it. [But] It’s what the founders intended. The founders said, ‘Trust the people!’”

Trust, however, could prove to be a very big issue. Recent polling data shows Americans trust for one another is at all-time lows. As Glenn explains, however, trust will be essential to the success of a COS movement.

“Now, you have to decide: Do you trust people or not. If we don’t trust we can open up this Constitution and do it right at the state level – not Washington level… If you don’t even trust the people in your own state, well, there’s nothing left anyway,” Glenn concluded. “Ask yourself: Do you think people are going to get better or worse from here? Like it or not, we are the generation Washington foresaw. It’s time to be wise and honest and do the right thing. Convention of States. Look it up.”

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg Sam Fisher

    Well Obama Dems and Rhinos left us no other choice but to fight our king like this. It is time to take the fight the the enemies in power in D.C. and this is the only peaceful action we can take.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t trust the people! There are too many brain dead morons in powerful places.We are truly between a rock and a hard place.

  • Anonymous

    I would hope this is done for the Good of America, and not making it a chance for Liberal Communists to change the 2nd Amendment, to Prohibit Guns, or decrease Free Speech, or Loosen the 4th Amendment.. He who sacrifices Liberty for Safety, or welfare, gets and Deserves Neither.. I hope we Have a George Washington in the crowd during this.. The Media sure won’t be any help..

  • Anonymous

    This Convention procedure is (like Obama) an actual first. Given the current officeholder’s respect for law, It will be interesting how the inbred Congress will want to tweek the conditions for ‘calling’ a Constitutional Convention. After Obama’s term ends (no timelline defined)? And of course the SCOTUS will want to have a piece of the authoritative turf too.

  • Anonymous

    I’m all for a Con Con, it may be the only thing other than a shooting revolution that can save our nation.

  • Stephen Erwin

    The states ask for a convention but Pursuant to the Constitution the Congress calls it. That means that they can decide when where and how. They can dictate how delegates are chosen and how many each states get. They can even write the rules for the convention and all become the “Supreme Law of the Land”

    And don’t forget that liberal states will propose Amendments back by a liberal press in the name of democracy, fairness, and social justice.

  • ManOfTheLog

    Trust… I’m not too big on trust with people. This is creepy. The alternative, however (such as open, armed conflict – i.e. civil war II) is far more creepy. Something has to happen soon or we are officially doomed.

  • ManOfTheLog

    Even with a con con, we cannot rule out massive bloodshed.

  • ManOfTheLog

    And that is precisely what scares me. What an opportunity to remove amendment II, for the greater good. I’d rather shoot it out.

  • Anonymous

    Whatever is decided at the Convention, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the States, just like a regular constitutional amendment. So, we may be able to get term limits on members of Congress through, but not a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, Glenn, I don’t trust the people. These are the same people who voted for Obama not once, but twice (and Clinton and Bush, I might add). These are the same people who are willing to run over you and your children to save a few bucks on Black Friday. These are the same people who gleefully hold out their hands for free food, free lodging, free college educations, free cell phones, free abortions, free medical care, etc. As bad as things are right now (and we all know almost NO ONE in Congress abides by their oaths to the Constitution), to open up this option appears to me to be the opening up of Pandora’s Box. Crooked politicians pushed through bogus “commerce clause” insurance. They have shown up time and again that their personal agendas trump our constitutional rights. They have persuaded many Americans (foolish, uninformed ones) that you can parade practically naked through city streets with your same-sex lover, but you absolutely cannot acknowledge God unless you are hiding under the bed in the privacy of your own home. No, Glenn, as much as I would love to see an open, honest attempt to rectify the damage done in DC, I don’t trust the people to do any differently than their crooked, corrupt, pandering leaders. Sorry to sound negative, but the reality of it all is that most Americans cannot be bothered to get the facts, stop listening to the MSM, exercise a little character at the polls and do the right thing. I don’t want them messing with my Constitution. It is fine as it stands (with, of course, the addition of the Parental Rights Amendment). The problem is not with the existing document. The problem is that evil men ignore it, trash it and dishonor it. Getting a new one won’t change that.

  • Anonymous

    But what is it that Virginia and South Carolina want to accomplish with this move? What is their purpose?

  • Anonymous

    Is it possible Levin might be off? http://www.foavc.org/reference/file52.pdf

    Friends of the Article 5 convention shows that there have been plenty of calls: http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments

  • Anonymous

    I’m sorry, Tasha, perhaps I misunderstood you, but why would we want to repeal the Second Amendment?

  • Tommyzax

    You are correct. I’ve been watching this for some time, and the delays have been many. HOWEVER, the States do not HAVE to wait on Congress because Article 5 says that Congress SHALL call the convention. It’s a formality. It can be bypassed both legally and morally. And it will likely have to be bypassed to get to an Article 5 Convention.

  • Tommyzax

    It doesn’t matter. Article 5 is meant to elucidate the right of States to exert hegemony over the Feds. Washington DC is NOT primary!!

  • Tommyzax

    You kind of don’t have a choice. If DC goes down as Sodom, the States have every right to a Convention, or to secede. There is no other way this is going to go down.

  • Tommyzax

    Sure, you can be a Torah nation, and follow God’s Law. But since people seem to enjoy their hedonism, even under religion, we must trust men. Otherwise, anarchy. So, it’s Article 5 or war. Choose.

  • Tommyzax

    Wrong! The States choose the delegates, the States make the rules. You have read into it fear.

    The Amendments must first be proposed, and if not agreed upon, States can withdraw immediately. There is NO danger.

  • Tommyzax

    You have it.

  • Tommyzax

    Again, wrong! The Supreme Court has NO say whether or not an Amendment is ratified. If the feds get in the way, the States will secede. I’m not for that, but I’m not against it. Change your comfort zone. It’s coming.

  • Tommyzax

    Correct. Congress CANNOT ratify Amendments, only pass on suggestions to the States. Congress CANNOT change the Constitution at all. The Constitution is like a corporation. The shareholders, the people, have the final say, through the States. The Board of Directors are the State Legislatures. The Officers are those delegates sent to the Convention.

    They can be withdrawn. And nothing is settled until ratified by 3/4 of the States.

  • Tommyzax

    If the Convention is called and Congress doesn’t do their duty, the States will meet anyway. If this is not recognized, the States may secede. Perhaps it’s time the country folk showed the city folk who feeds who!

  • http://www.absoluteintensity.com dennis reilly

    Obama will not like this for it diminishes his power grab

  • Anonymous

    We wouldn’t want the 2nd Amendment repealed, but there are those who would. I was pointing out that even if the Lefties proposed its repeal, the chances of them succeeding are fairly slim, considering the fact that 3/4 of the States must agree to the repeal. In a CoS, fewer than 3/4 can float a proposed change, but the full 3/4 of the States must agree and States with large populations, like California and New York, only get one vote each and can have their votes negated by States with tiny populations, like Montana and Alaska.

  • Anonymous

    I have no idea how the workings of a CC might be managed but this country is split ideologically about 50/50, left and right, I am not real sure this is a real good idea but Reed diminished the minority representation, the left has decimated civil rights, liberties and code of conduct, the Constitution may as well be tossed and rule of law is coming from the bench because our congress is like a C- in obligation and loyalty.
    I think we best be really careful what we ask for, we just might get it……I am for squaring away the free elections and stopping the corruption of the vote….

  • Anonymous

    Let’s get this straight.

    Our Constitution guarantees Our individual sovereignty and forbids the government from intrusion upon Our liberties (the so-called Bill of Rights constrains the government). And Our Constitution lists the few tasks mandated to government.

    That is why Our Constitution is the supreme law (of the land), and further disallows non-conforming treaties, laws, regulations, decisions and Amendments.

    But we have a government polluted with CRIMINALS from the Executive who acts as though he is allowed to capriciously apply the law, to the infamous Supreme Court who act as though they can rewrite laws to uphold them, to miscreants in the Senate, House of Reps. and various Agencies and States who engage themselves in patently unConstitutional activities non-stop.

    So we propose a Convention of the States (NOT a Constitutional Convention), while these criminals are ignoring Our Constitution already, and we are ignoring their criminal activity (we should prosecute). And many of the principals don’t even know the difference between a CoS and CC.

    This is like arguing over what kind of amnesty to grant criminal illegal aliens instead of securing the borders and prosecuting them – INSANE.

    Our Constitution was written by our spiritual and academic superiors. We do not have the grace or acumen to rewrite Our Constitution, nor the temerity to do so while infiltrated by criminal TRAITORS engaged in TREASON.

    Demand and enforce Constitutional government.

  • Herbert Shallcross

    I dread this. The progressive foxes would be delighted to have access to that particular henhouse.

  • Anonymous

    I want to know WHAT those amendments specifically are or say before I lend support. Do I think it’s time to stop this madness? Absolutely. Especially Obama’s power grab for which he should be prosecuted for since, what he is doing is illegal and against the Constitution. But the Senate won’t impeach because he is their guy, and ideologically doing what they want done, even if it is illegal. The fact that he is the first black President may also play a part in why they won’t prosecute him, but it is lending to arrogant behavior on the part of Obama, because he is opportunistically using that to do whatever he wants which is flagrantly dangerous for the country. True checks and balance must be restored, and such behavior needs to be punished. I would like to see power restored to the states as intended by the founders, you can read in about half a dozen places in the Constitution and subsequent amendments and rights. I would like to see all representatives ‘required’ to study the constitution. I would like them to be required to read every bill that they vote on (Yes, I mean it. I don’t care I they feel they don’t have time. It may cause them to be more thoughtful about what they vote on). I would like studies to be done prior to those bills being vote on about the pro’s and con’s and the outcomes of those bills BEFORE they vote on them. would like to see voter ID a requirement for voting Nationwide. The argument by the left is as lame as it gets. If someone has difficulty getting to the polls they can receive an absentee ballot in the comfort of their own home. If people are too stupid to plan ahead, or register ahead, then they are too stupid to vote. AND Politicians must be required to be truthful, FULL disclosure, not partial and misleading to the public. And during campaigns they can no longer lie about their opponents. Truthful disclosure. People need to fully know what they are voting for. And the Media must be required to be unbiased and truthful. There is freedom of the Press, but that should NOT mean they are free to lie for a political agenda. Just some feelings about where we are at today.

  • Anonymous

    There are some very important concepts that must apply to our well being, Freedom, Liberty, Constitution, Law and Order, right now Obama has no respect for any of these concepts and the people in this country.

  • Anonymous

    I remember there was a call for a convention of states to amend the constitution back around the early to mid-1990s. I and some other conservatives opposed it then, because we felt that it would open up the Constitution to wholesale revision. We saw an example of an academic project to rewrite the Constitution into forming a gov’t that was much more bureaucratic (reminiscent of the EU), and it didn’t look good. We feared that’s what the proponents of the convention were after.

    I think Mark Levin makes a great point that today these fears over a convention don’t make any sense, because the Left is violating the Constitution anyway. They’re not following the written law. They’re making it up as they go. I agree that we need to have a conversation about the Constitution again, because in the mind of the public it’s become increasingly irrelevant, and the elites in Washington are taking advantage of that.

    Looking back at the history of amendments to the Constitution, I was surprised to learn that for most of the 20th century amendments were added on average every 6 years, the length of a Senate term. Then it suddenly stopped in the early 1970s. Only one new amendment has been added in the last 40 years: the 27th Amendment, ratified in about 1993, and even that was an exception to the rule. As I recall, it was an amendment proposed by Thomas Jefferson back in the late 1700s, which had been ratified by about 14 states over the course of 200 years. Someone noticed this and created a campaign around it to get the remaining states needed to push it over the “finish line.” It’s not that new amendments haven’t been proposed. It’s just that they never got ratified. There was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s. And there were the repeated proposals for a Balanced Budget Amendment in the 1980s and ’90s. It seems to me what this history should show is that we should not be so fearful of a convention, because our system has become much more resistant to amending the Constitution than it used to be.

  • Bill Gradwohl

    There is really no respect for the Constitution now, so amending it would allow the criminals that are the Federal Government to ignore any changes to it. This is a feel good measure. It sounds like it will put things right. It won’t.

    The NSA, CIA, TSA, etc are in place and don’t intend to commit suicide. The concept of “Executive Orders” is nothing but dictatorship light. The Supreme Court is a joke. The 535 members of Congress are a Mafia.

    The solution is to get rid of the Federal Government. It’s a monopoly we can ill afford. Disband it totally. No need for a Constitution that gets ignored. Let there be 50 new countries that will compete with one another for residents and businesses. Competition will secure what the Constitution couldn’t.

  • jorgaone

    WHY would you want the second Amendment repealed?

  • Anonymous

    The problem is the Progressives no longer feel constrained by the Constitution, because the public doesn’t see it as relevant. The reason it seems irrelevant is we don’t talk about it anymore. This is really what they’ve been after. They don’t want to be constrained by written law. They want to do what they’ve been doing, which is make up the law as they go. I don’t think they’d want a convention, because it would lend legitimacy to the Constitution again. If people start talking about it as if it mattered, then they’ll become conscious of it again. If Progressives thought revising it would do them any good, it would only be to give their actions legitimacy in the eyes of the public, but that presupposes the public thought the Constitution had any relevance. If we make it relevant again, sure, I could see them making a go at it, but then at least people would be conscious that the Constitution matters, and the public would be less willing to allow them to go outside its confines.

    The flip side is that the people might allow the Progressives to use constitutional law to erode our freedoms. That’s the main fear I’d have with this. People seem quite willing these days to blindly sacrifice some of their freedom if they think they’re going to get some goody in return. The ACA was an example of that, but now that the SHTF there’s some realization of what they’ve done to themselves. The big test would be whether conservatives truly hold sway over state legislatures, since that’s where the amendments would be ratified.

  • Anonymous

    That’s one of the points of this move. The Constitution has become irrelevant in the minds of the people. This is what’s allowed Washington to do what it’s doing, because their constituents don’t care whether they’re following a written law or not. Your call for people to “demand and enforce constitutional government” will only fall on deaf ears unless people see the Constitution as relevant.

  • Anonymous

    Please call it correctly. It is NOT a Constitutional Convention. That is different. It is a Convention for Proposing Amendments, as Article V terms it. A very important distinction.

  • Anonymous

    Elevenarrows asked the same question. I suggest you read my answer. I was responding to wdcraftr’s concern that a CoS could eliminate the right to bear arms.

  • W432

    Only need to repeal the 17th Amendment and have Senators appointed by State legislatures as originally intended. We wouldn’t have Obamacare or gridlock.

  • http://www.splinterslair.com splinter48708

    Well, this is all well and good, but, to accomplish this goal, there are certain things that, IMHO, will have to be done before this would actually work:

    (1) No career politicians. They will only want to protect their jobs.
    (2) No lobbyists. They will only want their interests protected and to heck with ours. They will want to make sure that their “status” as “legal persons” is maintained so that they, not us, put forward candidates for office that represent us.
    (3) Put non-politicians in there, people who aren’t beholden to the corporations.
    (4) Do as they did in 1787 and lock the doors and windows to keep outside influences out. Put delegates on strict NDAs and the utmost secrecy. If the Vatican can do it to elect a Pope, then, we can do that here and that means a media blackout. Yes, the media will scream foul, but, if this process is to remain untainted by outsiders, it has to be this way.
    (5) delegates to said convention should also not be under pressure or even a legal requirement to clear everything through their state legislators who would be under pressure from corporate lobbyists to apply the screws to the delegates to this convention.
    (6) Try to stick to the matter at hand and not propose a whole new document. The Constitutional Convention was originally supposed to fix the Articles of Confederation, but, the Founding Fathers realized that the only way to fix was to replace completely.
    (7) if a complete rewrite is necessary, then, it’s doubly important to leave the best aspects of the Constitution alone or strengthen the.document to allow for greater accountability to the American People and not merely to the sucker with the deepest pockets.
    (8) Keep the partisan politics out of it. States sending delegates shouldn’t put people there based on if they are democrat or republican. The only thing that should be required is that they are citizens with no ties to corporations or lobbyists. People that remember to set partisanship aside. Put folks in there that can come to an agreement on fixing things, ensuring that the rights already afforded are truly inviolate by making it possible for the People to revoke their consent on a federal level with a recall. There’s no real accountability because unlike at the state level, a politician can either resign their office, be voted out, be expelled if in the House or Senate, or impeached. But, no right of recall for politicians who WILLFULLY ignore the Constitution and either submit bills that are in clear conflict, or the President signs into laws that are unconstitutional. But, even when the courts rule that HB 7953 as signed is unconstitutional. there’s no other accountability. If there were clauses added that granted people the right to revoke consent prior to a general election, those career politicians would be sweating, correct?

    Anything I missed??

  • Anonymous

    We have to do something…this Congress, this president is not working for us.. they think we are their servants. Everything they do is immoral, or unconstititional.

  • Anonymous

    We started on this shaky road when we enumerated a “Bill Of Rights”. Filled with good intentions, it has become the framework of this nation’s undoing. In specifying these man-made “rights” the wordsmiths and agenda-minded-people have twisted and hammered them into grotesque licenses. That the “rights” “had” to be specified showed that there was, from the very beginning, a distrust of people and motives.

    Based on the recent ACA, I shudder to think what might sneak through a present-day Convention Of States.

  • B-Funk

    Wow! Amen man!

  • Anonymous

    Move the rock! With enough “We the People” we can do this.

  • Anonymous

    What you all fail to realize is that not only the US, but the world has been under the control of 300 very evil men for a very long time. They and their minions of which our government is chock-full, have been doing everything they possibly can to erode and undermine our nation and its morals and faith. I sense however, a turnaround, I’m sure you all have also. That is why they are suddenly cooking up all this garbage about “terrorism” and “National Security” and such nonsense. The neo-cons aren’t going to go down without a fight. Obama, Brzeznski, Kissinger, Cheney, Bush, Rockefeller, Rumsfeld..the whole damn bunch of them, the CIA FBI and the UN needs to all be arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity, and as for the RIIA—boiling in oil, perhaps? I’ve been hearing stuff–I don’t know if it’s true–that their house is falling down around their ears. I hope so. The main amendment I hope they put in is to pull the power of executive order away from the presidency, and make him have a leash and a muzzle in the form of every decision he makes is not legal unless co-signed by the VP AND voted on by Congress.

  • Anonymous

    Well,,,your always free to do that. You can do anything,,,,,,,once.

  • Anonymous

    Very well said!

  • Tommyzax

    The “Federal Government” is a district with employees, and tentacles. The States are the geography and population of this country. If we are not the United STATES, there IS NO Federal Government!

  • Tommyzax

    Stop it! Get a hold of yourself! If Article 5 doesn’t work, it is secession. We NEED to go forward into this measure!

  • 4WIW

    The problem with a CoS is the 3/4 state ratification requirement could go out the window. With a con-con, were talking about a new constitution, here, not the current one with its 3/4 of the states ratification requirement. With progressives at the CoS, what comes out of there could be it, no ratification needed or required. It’s all up to the delegates at that point. The Articles of Confederation required 100% state ratification of amendments at a con-con, the last convention reduced that to 3/4. What would this one do? Not worth the risk.

  • Anonymous

    All need to read Liven’s book. He has 12 amendment proposals that would put term limits on the courts, including Supreme Court and all other courts, the congress, both houses, and more controls of congress and the bureaucracy by the states, and a definition of the commerce to stop the Supreme Court, an over ride of the Supreme Court by the congress and the states and the states could override congress. these are a few of the proposals from Liven but these are not mandatory but just suggestions of a place to start but with modifications,it is a good start. As I said at the start of this you need to read his book The Liberty Amendments. This might be a last chance to save our country for good.

  • Anonymous

    The real problem is that over the last 100 years the Supreme Court has gutted so much of the constitution that it allows Obama to get away with what he is doing. I would love to see Obama impeached but this has about as much chance of happening as a snow ball in hell. There is no way that the Senate to convict Obama even if there was a movie of him shooting a group of Tea Party people, all should remember that it takes 3/4 majority to convict after impeachment by the House.

  • Anonymous

    See my post 3 up

  • Anonymous

    Most of what you are asking for you will find in Livens book The Liberty Amendments you need to read it.

  • Anonymous

    We all have to remember that all that has to happen is for 14 states to walk out and nothing happens.

  • Anonymous

    You mentioned that it would require 37 states for a Convention of States to be called. According to my calculations, 2/3 of 50 is 33, which should be an easier number to reach.

  • jdgalt

    No, 33 1/3 rounds up to 34.

  • Anonymous

    As I have said before read The Liberty Amendments book it will tell you the process that would go on.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe at some point. And certainly there are other issues to be addressed. These are simply emotional rants, but many share the frustration. But before any amendments are passed, we the people certainly will need a say. I pray the majority of the people are of similar mind.

  • Anonymous

    While I may trust some of the people there are very, very few of our elected legislators that I trust not to be turncoats to conservative ideals when given the opportunity to come out of the liberal, progressive closet.

  • Anonymous

    2/3 or 66% of 50 is 33

  • DisqMatt

    Again, listen to Levin’s argument. We know that most elected officials at the federal level (and virtually all unelected ones at that level) no longer care about the rights of the individual. Are 3/4 of the state legislatures now majority corrupted as well? If so, then a convention to propose amendments doesn’t matter–your 2nd amendment guarantee is already meaningless, and will only be tolerated until TPTB decide to stop tolerating it.

    What will be the difference in endgame between a) no convention, and in the not-too-distant-future your current 2nd amendment rights are ignored and your weapons confiscated by federal authorities; and b) a convention gone awry, with the 2nd amendment repealed, and a government official shows up to “lawfully” confiscate your weapons?

    In either case, you will either 1) stand on your porch and bewail the confiscation of your firearms; or 2) fight like a madman using your weapons and convincing lots of friends to do likewise. Right?

    The reason the convention to propose amendments cannot hurt you, 2nd amendment-wise, is because your so-called “2nd amendment right” isn’t a right granted you by the Constitution. It in fact was granted you by God (or nature, if you prefer) and merely _guaranteed_ you by the Constitution. The right to freedom from tyranny (which is what the 2nd amendment refers to) is yours, regardless of what any piece of paper says.

  • DisqMatt

    The Framers exhausted all legal means before declaring independence from Great Britain. We should honor their sacrifice of blood and treasure by doing the same. They provided this legal recourse for us–only if and when that recourse fails would it be honorable to resort to some sort of revolution, and destroy what they created.

  • DisqMatt

    Remember that a convention of states will not be filled with Congressmen. Each state legislature chooses its state’s delegates, and most likely they would be leaders in that state legislature.

    And think about this: isn’t it reasonable to assume that state legislators are disgusted with Washington’s attached strings on the money they so high-handedly disburse and all their federal shenanigans that get in the way of what the legislators want to do within the state? The purpose of the convention would be to propose amendments that transfer power from the federal government *to the states*. What state legislator wouldn’t want more latitude in solving their state’s problems? There is just no way that any noticeable number of state legislators would sabotage the convention by sacrificing an increase in states’ power (their own power!) and instead grant the federal government more power. It just doesn’t compute.

    And with a 3/4 supermajority requirement, nothing is going to sneak through. Worst case, there’s a lot of talk and we can’t get 3/4 of the states to agree on a change. But the grass-roots effort that’s also part of this whole deal will put lots of pressure on 3/4 of the state legislatures. I think there’s a good chance of getting some substantive changes through.

  • Anonymous

    This is great for it will show the federal government what we the people will stand for.I just hope we go back to out roots and start over from there and have the right people to do it.It’s time to end the liberal progressive movement once and for all and bring the laws down to a senseable level.

  • DisqMatt

    Many of your concerns are, in fact, subjects of proposed amendments. As for limiting the Supreme Court, try this one on for size–better than term limits, I think. One proposed amendment calls for the creation of another court, composed of all 50 Chief Justices of the several states, which would convene only on an exception basis (I think it requires a vote of 26 or 34 state legislatures to convene it), and have full authority to overrule any Supreme Court decision. ACA would likely be DEAD today with this amendment.

  • DisqMatt

    Amen on the Founders’ superiority. Fortunately, we don’t need to rewrite it. We just need amendments to clarify the Founders’ intent and box in the criminally ambitious. It can be done and there are decent, ethical people with sufficient talent and experience to draft amendments in clear, legally enforceable language.

    Now, there’s a lot more to do than just drafting the language. The grass-roots movement will need to be intense and nationwide to put enough pressure on enough state legislators to pull this off. But it is definitely doable.

  • DisqMatt

    Agreed. Let’s at least try to use the path the Founders gave us to fix this set of problems. If it doesn’t work, then we’re left with only plan B.

  • DisqMatt

    And that’s the beauty of this. Even if all your state legislators are progressive megalomaniac scumbags (but I repeat myself), and your state elects one of them to be convention delegate, you can count on them to vote to increase state power at the expense of federal power (“my state can make our own commerce laws with no federal interference? Yippee!”). It’s in their own self-interest. They’ll focus on their dream of setting up a kingdom in their own state, and fail to see that they’re actually freeing their state from federal tyranny.

  • DisqMatt

    2/3 is actually 66.6666…% and laws usually require rounding up any fraction.

    Anyway, it’s 34 states to call a CoS, and 38 states (3/4) to pass any amendments.

  • Anonymous

    Changes. We’ve had that. We hoped for the best but received the worst. The founders made it very difficult (so they thought) to enact fast, sweeping changes. Through the results of present efforts, the unimaginable have become imaginable and enacted. When that much power is up for grabs, a divided people will not be able to resist it.

  • Anonymous

    Where do they walk to? A country that they want to preserve or a country that they want to create?

  • DisqMatt

    Not sure I follow your conclusion. Wouldn’t state delegates want to “grab that power” for the states, especially the delegates who are also state legislators?

  • Anonymous

    Personally, I would give pretty much anything to see term limits on BOTH houses of Congress and I love the idea of abolishing Executive Orders. We need both of these to get our govt back in its rightful place….EMPLOYEES of every American citizen. When Kathleen Sebbilius had the audacity to say ” I don’t work for those people”‘ in reference to her critics (all of us) I nearly screamed. This is the mentality of this administration; no accountability and no personal responsibility. Sick, sick, sick!

  • Anonymous

    At the risk of sounding obtuse and certainly off topic…why is it that so many people use the words “We need to have a ‘conversation’ about…” instead using the word ‘debate’? Conversations do not deal w/ facts, there are emotions and people’s feelings involved. While in a debate, each side states their case using supporting facts to either win or lose the debate. I suppose this conversation word must be PC because we certainly don’t want to have winners and losers. Or perhaps hurt anyone’s feelings. Is this how this nonsense came into Vogue?

    Just curious. I really would like to know the answer. Thank you!

  • King Richard

    I don’t believe it is even close to 50/50… what you see on TV is
    what you might refer to as the “other half”… but it’s just a small
    minority. I believe most people live in real-ville, and are
    ideologically aligned conservatively on economic interests, and this is
    what it all comes down to.

    Now if we could just change the “commerce clause” to mean what its original intent was, that would reign in the feds greatly,…

  • Anonymous

    In normal times, that would be the hope. Presently, I think other agendas would dominate the convention. If we don’t fix ourselves first, I don’t see how we can fix the Constitution.

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    Mark Levin is not telling the truth. Please read Publius Huldah’s review of his book.

    “Levin starts his book by saying how bad things are and how the federal government has trampled and mangled the Constitution. Those pages are true. And they serve the purpose of making readers believe that Levin is “on our side”. And because of that, many are induced to lay aside their critical thinking skills and accept on trust what Levin tells them. That is a deadly mistake.”

    “Levin’s amendments actually gut our Constitution. Most increase the powers of the federal government by making lawful what is now unconstitutional because it is not an “enumerated power”. Others put a band-aid on a problem without solving the problem. The
    amendments pertaining to “overrides” undermine the Constitution as the Objective Standard of what is lawful and what is not – and substitute majority vote therefor.”

    http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/

  • Anonymous

    This is yet another example of why AMERICA is so GREAT,and how prescient the FOUNDING FATHERS were….and why “WE THE PEOPLE” was written so prominently…the REAL POWER IS in the hands of the CITIZENS….which is why Factual American history and the U.S CONSTITUTION is never taught by the apparatchik Teachers.
    NO other country provides for so many ways to KEEP GOVERNMENT IN CHECK.
    Native born Americans take SO MUCH FOR GRANTED….until it is TOO late.
    Those of us FORTUNATE enough to have emigrated to the United States know TOO painfully what SOCIALISM does to the”citizens” in the name of ” fairness” the elderly and handicapped are targeted first and continuously,and those who disagree are targeted,then the family..and complicity is rewarded.
    In AMERICA THE CITIZENS MUST BE PROACTIVE.
    Thank you

  • James Thomas Hyde Jr.

    i have family members. that are by far some of the most idiotic people i have ever met. they are ignorant head in the sand disgraces to the human race .

    i want to believe that yes it’s way of 50/50 .

    but i have been proven wrong when it comes to estimating the stupidity of my fellow americans .. .if you can even call them that

  • James Thomas Hyde Jr.

    i am hesitant as well . i don’t like the idea of having the states that are against our position in on it.

    it just hits me as too much of a chance at getting stabbed in the back .
    that coupled with our governments ability to black mail those voting and in charge .

    major ground work would need to be put in place to make it safe. the only people on our side . are us .

  • James LaBarre

    But if we kick NYC out of NYState like I think we could get the reasonably-minded upper-counties to go along with a CoS.

  • Terry Teal

    agreed.

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    So therefore a Constitutional Convention will do no good and will only open the door to further chicanery. This call for a Con Con as a solution to our problems defies human wisdom.

    “Machiavel, discoursing on these matters, finds virtue to be so essentially necessary to the establishment and preservation of liberty, that he thinks it impossible for a corrupted people to set up a good government, or for a tyranny to be introduced if they be virtuous; and makes this conclusion, ‘That where the matter (that is, the body of the people) is not corrupted, tumults and disorders do not hurt; and where it is corrupted, good laws do no good:’ which being confirmed by reason and experience, I think no wise man has ever contradicted him.” ~Algernon Sydney

    “Where it is corrupted, good laws do no good”, yet Mark Levin and Glenn Beck (among other talking heads) are telling us that it will.

    James Madison (chief architect of the Constitution) reiterated this very point in his speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

    “But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”

    Until ‘We the People’ are a virtuous society again, nothing can save us from ourselves. That is where the real battle has always been at, and what we are continually being distracted from.

    ~BTG

    “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no
    constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no
    court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no
    constitution, no law, no court to save it.” ~Justice Learned Hand 1944

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    No, it is still a Constitutional Convention despite attempts to rename it. Similar to the Democrats calling themselves progressives until that became a dirty word.

    Michael Farris’ Convention of the States?

    Is he still proposing that God awful Parental Right’s Amendment that actually does the opposite by giving the Federal Govt authority over parental rights?

    http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/parental-rights-amendment/

    Publius Huldah also refutes Mark Levin’s fallacious book calling for a Con Con:

    http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/

  • Nancy

    Absolutely right go2gym. People don’t pay any attention. There is a huge difference between the Con con and the COS. Why can’t people pay attention. Oh that’s right people not paying attention is why this is necessary in the first place. Brain Dead people who don’t vote, don’t keep up on what is going on and are totally clueless as to what is really going on in our nation’s Capital. Most of them don’t even know who their Congressman or Senators are.

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    This is dangerous stuff to which Judge Robert Bork correctly referred to it as, “conservatives reaching for bromides to palliate their sufferings”.

    A Con Con will not solve anything but it will definitely open Pandora’s Box and make things much worse.

    Phyllis Schlafly has an excellent blog on the dangers of a Con Con.

    http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/

    In order for a Con Con to be the “only solution left”, Mark Levin denies the States their natural right to nullify unconstitutional laws. Publius Huldah also has great article pointing out Levin’s erroneous assertions.

    http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/

  • Stephen Erwin

    Try actually reading the Constitution. What you claim is not there.

  • Anonymous

    Remember that ALL of Our “governing” agencies are infected with criminals – from the local Planning Commission to the White House. And not just any old criminals, these are ravenous power-freaks, gluttonous libertines and travesties of deviance. Also, most of them are well educated in sophistic twisting of the law.

    These “Public Servants” drool at the idea of adding to Our Constitution. Look at how they have abused the 10th Amendment already. We have an adequate Constitution already. We are not missing any Amendments.

    We are suffering from a psychological disorder called avoidance. To avoid Our bound task of enforcing Our Constitution, we are proposing a Constitutional Convention, er I mean Convention of States. This will spin faster the vortex of chaos we are already in and lead to Our demise.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for the historical context.

    By the way a Constitutional Convention would be the immediate end of America. An Article V Convention of States is the issue under discussion – also far too dangerous to consider at this juncture.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, and, if wishes were horses all beggars would ride.

    If Californians sent all our migrants (Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, the Hollywood idiots, Mexicans, Central Americans, et cetera, et cetera) back to where they came from,we could have both Open and Concealed Carry laws across the entire State, but that ain’t a gonna happen any time soon.

  • Anonymous

    You are mixing apples and oranges. A CoS is not a Con-Con.

  • AZRanger

    The danger is that the Communists will also go after the 22nd Amenement! When this Pandoras Box is opened, it will be impossible to safely close it again.

  • Anonymous

    Speaking as a family which is country folks, LET”S ROLL!

  • Karen

    Who will uphold any amendments to the Constitution if “they” don’t uphold the existing ones now? That is my concern. We can put in a lot of new and needed “stuff” in the Constitution but what is the mechanism for upholding the amendments? If you have lawlessness at the time the Constitution is amended, why would the lawlessness stop just because the Constitution was amended? I hate to be a pessimist, but I honestly don’t think there is anything that can be done at this point. If someone has an answer to my questions, I would be most happy to hear them.

  • 4WIW

    The convention that produced our constitution was originally called by the states to only propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates, though, decided to close the doors, and created the document we use today. That could happen again, but with a decidedly different outcome. By whatever name, a convention is still a convention. A lot of legal research has been done about it in Ohio, see http://www.principledpolicy.com.

  • Anonymous

    Considering the fact that Republicans control half of the state legislatures, I doubt that the convention of states will verge away from the 3/4 requirement to alter the Constitution. That being said, it only takes 13 states, ironically our original number, to put the kibosh on any mischief making. Do you think that there aren’t 13 honest legislatures — who answer to their citizens — among the 50?

  • debbie

    Let the North, South, East and West join together and compose these 37 states, it’s time.

  • debbie

    How do we get this started?

  • Bill James

    A Constitutional Convention should be called on a regular basis. Amendments purposed must still be approved by 3/4ths of the States. The Constitution is a great, but flawed document. Changing it will require great rigor. Regular Conventions would focus the attention of the People on the correct nature of government.

    In preparation for such a Convention, repeal of the 17th Amendment would be a good step. Liberty, not democracy is the mission of the Federal government. Democracy is an essential and flawed tool. Good side: the book “The Wisdom of Crowds” presents great examples of why free markets and democracy work, the aggregated wisdom of all of us, acting in our own self-interest is wiser than the wisest of us at choosing between choices.

    The Senate, elected by State Legislatures was to accumulate the wisdom of the governing ourselves in States, laboratories of democracy, to set national choices. The 17th Amendment changed the defining of choices from the States to Big Money (banks, corporations, unions).

    Big Money can influence voters to elect Senators creating the Corporatism we see in America today with the central grid and Federal control of the means of production in food, health, education, transportation and power. Liberty over communications infrastructure was restore to the people in 1982; a century of rotary telephones was replaced by innovation.

    The bad side of democracy is Tyranny of the Majority. The corporate interests of auto/oil companies/unions taxed all Americans to fund the Federal highway system in direct violation of the “post Roads” restriction. The entire US economy was centrally planned to sell cars and oil. US Peak Oil was in 1970. Since 1970 national deb as increased in tandem with oil imports. Oil-wars have been required since 1990. Pollution is tilting the balance of nature. The costs have been socialized into national debt instead of capitalized into the cost of gasoline.

    Children are a defenseless minority.

    Debt is the tax on future labor, the labor of children that did not vote to have their liberty and future labor obligated for $53,000 to pay for our consumption. Debt is Taxation without Representation on the part of the Governing and Tyranny of the Majority on the part of us for electing Senators that set choices to benefit corporate interests.

    Repealing the 17th Amendment, forcing Big Money to have to buy whole State Legislatures would dilute its influence.

  • Bonnie Somer

    THIS IS WHAT THE NATION NEEDS THE STATES HAVE RIGHTS SO DO INDIVIDUALS TIME WE USE IT. I HOPE THE SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVES DO NOT OVERTAKE IT THAT IS MY WORRY. TIME TO STAND UP BUT THIS IS IT OUR WEALTH PROPERTY VOTING RIGHTS GUNS AND ALL AMERICA IS WE MUST SAVE IT THIS, BY THE WAY, BYPASSES CONGRESS AND THE PRES

  • DisqMatt

    A legitimate concern. But we can’t mandate everyone fixing themselves–each of us can ultimately control fixing only one. Several of us can agree to each fix ourselves, but that probably isn’t enough, and certainly isn’t enforceable.

    My hope for this approach boils down to the fact that the 50 states want power, state legislators want power (for good and bad reasons), and the whole thrust of this movement is taking power away from the feds, not giving them more. I can’t imagine any state leader responding to the question, “Hey, what do you say we get together and give ourselves some of the power that the feds currently have?” with either, “No, I have enough power, thanks anyway” or, “I have too much already, what if use this convention to give more to the feds instead?” Everyone has a strong self-interest, scumbags especially.

    That said, I’m not 100% convinced this amendment approach would fix our current situation. However, if the amendments do pass, with clear and unmistakable language, and the feds still refuse to comply, only then are we morally justified in taking up arms, just as the Founders were after exhausting all legal avenues under the British system.

  • DisqMatt

    The purpose is to propose amendments, not to rewrite the Constitution. Would it be theoretically possible to propose enough amendments to effectively rewrite it? Sure. But there’s no way 3/4 of the state legislatures would ratify. And your juxtaposing this effort to the Democrat/Progressive deception is simply an attempt to de-legitimize it in people’s minds through association, instead of debating on the merits. (And besides, the Republicans started the Progressive movement…)

    I read Publius Huldah’s opposition piece to the PRA and Farris’ response. For someone who is “passionate about the Bible”, Huldah quotes no scripture in her piece, yet Farris does. Who’s the real believer? For the record, I agree with Huldah that because rights come from God, the Federal government has no jurisdiction. But Farris is clear on this point: “Asserting that parental rights are God-given and inalienable won’t work in current American courts.” He claims correctly that parents need textual legal tools to defend themselves against judicial overreach. Huldah’s proposal to “roll up our sleeves” and fix our states is a good idea, but not enough. We need to build the firebreak to stop the overreach, and then clean up the mess that’s already there.

    As for Levin’s argument, he’s right because if this doesn’t work, what else will? To my thinking then, it’s the final legal avenue to pursue before resorting what lots of others are advocating here: “throwing off” the old government.

  • DisqMatt

    The prevalence of criminals is exactly why this is so appealing. The reaction of local power-hungry folks would be, “Take some of the feds’ power and give it to me? Where do I sign up?” In process of doing so, they would free the states from tyranny.

    We aren’t missing amendments if we were a “moral people,” as Adams said. But many have lost their morals, so the Constitution needs strengthening. I fully agree that if the loss of morals worsens and spreads, then eventually, amending the Constitution is futile. (That’s why religion and morality are “indispensable,” according to George Washington.) But before then, we need to pursue all legal remedies the Founders gave us.

    What would your counterproposal be? Do you think we’ve already exhausted all peaceful and legal means, and the only way forward is revolution?

  • Defend Liberty

    Knowledge is power. Spread yours: http://www.savageleft.com/resources/beacon.html

  • Anonymous

    Petersen, you are still making a huge assumption that good people will suddenly be in control. If we were attempting something of this nature back when the majority of Americans were decent, hard-working, pious people, it would be one thing. That is not the case today. Look around you, Sir. The masses want to sit home and get free stuff. They vote for whomever will give them the most free stuff. Morality does not enter the equation. I don’t see these people making good, sound decisions for the future of America. If the founders couldn’t do it with all they had going for them, do you really think anything we do now will be any better? Good grief. Congress has to engineer a crisis every Christmas to convince us to keep them in office.

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    Re: “The purpose is to propose amendments, not to rewrite the Constitution.”

    What you are advocating for will fundamentally alter the Constitution for the worse. The very amendments that your side is proposing will do that, let alone what the Democrats and RINO’s will propose.

    What will stop the Dems and RINO’s from making a backroom deal and passing their own amendments?

    You guarantees are meaningless because you cannot control anything once the Convention is called. All one has to do is research what happened when delegates were sent to recommend changes to the failing Articles of Confederation…

    The delegates threw it out and wrote a new Constitution!

    Re: “And your juxtaposing this effort to the Democrat/Progressive deception is simply an attempt to de-legitimize it in people’s minds through association”

    If the shoe fits?

    The fact is proponents of this radical course of action are indeed being DECEITFUL in their claims.

    Re: “For someone who is “passionate about the Bible”, Huldah quotes no scripture in her piece, yet Farris does. Who’s the real believer?”

    So all one has to do is quote a little scripture and that makes one instantly correct?

    I would say that is a combination of two logical fallacies, the ‘Moral high ground’ and an ‘Appeal to authority’.

    Take heed of Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

    Re: “We need to build the firebreak to stop the overreach, and then clean up the mess that’s already there.”

    That firebreak is us, no man-made laws can save us from ourselves, only God can do that.

    ‎”We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~John Adams

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    Hi ireAmerica,

    No problem and am glad to see other people defending the Constitution instead of trying to alter it. As you correctly pointed out, the tools are already embedded in the Constitution to handle the lawless, all that is missing is an educated populace with the will to enforce it.

    Whether one wants to call it an Art. V Convention, General Convention, Con Con, or a Convention of the States; there is only one Convention named in Article V of the US Constitution.

    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”

    The States’ Legislatures only submit an Application to Congress to call a Convention for proposing Amendments. The States are not in charge of anything, especially since they are not represented in the Senate anymore because of a previous subversive idea, the 17th Amendment.

    Keep fighting the good fight.

    ~BTG

    “You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness . . .” ~James Madison 1788

    http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_mad1627

  • 4WIW

    Sorry, Tasha, I wouldn’t trust that there are 13. Rebublican or Democrat matters nothing. You need to check the website I gave you.

  • bumpkin

    Interesting Aside: I get Disqus updates in my inbox. Whenever I try to respond to a discussion on this website, it seems that consistently, I get the message Oops, something happened… indicating it will not take me back to the Glenn Beck site. However, it does work with other sites. Go figure. Anyone else having that little challenge?

  • DisqMatt

    Hmm. Unlike Publius Huldah’s refutation of the proposed Parental Rights Amendment (see my comment on that above), this refutation against Levin is pretty convincing. I’ll have to consider my position on this…

    But if PH and Phyllis Schlafly are correct, then the appropriate legal recourse to pursue would be convincing the state legislators to nullify.

    BTGadfly, do you really think that’s doable? Seems like very, very few of them would have the convictions to do that.

  • DisqMatt

    Yes, consistently.

  • DisqMatt

    Great point. And the more I think about this, and realize some of the assumptions I held were invalid, the more the plan seems too risky. Nullification seems like the safer alternative. But, talk about hard–if it would be a challenge to get a majority of your state legislators to vote for a convention, what are the odds of getting them to vote to nullify each and every unconstitutional federal statute (or even just the most egregious ones)?

  • bull57

    I say we conservative best have control of the majority of states before this is done. I would hate to see the progressives and. Rino’s have more votes!!!

  • jdgalt

    States have been calling for such a convention for decades; indeed, according to Friends of an Article V Convention (foavc dot org), all 50 states have passed such calls, many multiple times.

    The problem is that Congress doesn’t feel like calling the convention, and no one is in a position to make them do it. Try suing and the courts will say that neither you nor themselves have “standing” to make such a demand.

  • jdgalt

    This is usually a result of ad-blocker software such as NoScript. When it happens, right-click on the page to check what requests are being blocked, and try whitelisting them one by one until it works.

  • Anonymous

    One word; “Bingo”

  • Karen

    You are right!!

  • DisqMatt

    See my other posts. Nowhere is it written that the states get to decide how delegates are chosen. If we don’t have that, then we have nothing. I’ve changed my opinion on this.

  • DisqMatt

    See my other posts. Nowhere is it written that the states get to decide how delegates are chosen. If we don’t have that, then we have nothing. I’ve changed my opinion on this.

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    “The big question to ask about proposals for new laws and policies is not whether they sound reasonable, but what damage they can do when they are used unreasonably.”
    ~Thomas Sowell

    How do you think the three branches of the federal government would interpret Section 3 of Michael Farris’ PRA?

    “Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interests applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

    If convincing the State legislatures to nullify unconstitutional federal laws is not doable, then how can we trust them to faithfully uphold the Constitution and administer a Convention (as claimed by it’s proponents)?

  • MisterBee

    How about the complete banning of tax on income?

  • MisterBee

    Why do they even have to do that. Just call for a convention and pass the amendment.

  • Terance Healy

    The problem with the Constitution is NOT a federal one. State law has usurped the Constitution… AND THAT”S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. http://work2bdone.com/live/2013/12/what-is-this-constitutional-challenge/

  • Anonymous

    A lot of folks worry that people with different values might “win” the ConCon, steering it in a different direction. Given the huge dissatisfaction figures with Congress, America is already going in the wrong direction. Why not begin a nationwide debate about what the direction should be? Get it out in the open. Have ConCons in every State, on live TV, with transcripts and videos, and thrash it out openly, instead of letting lobbyists and politicians decide in secret. Bring it on!

  • Anonymous

    Mark Levin could make a lot more progress if he’d stop bashing allies, such as the Tenth Amendment Center. Nullification and a ConCon are complementary. In fact, one aim of the ConCon might be to explicitly recognize the rights of jury nullification, interposition, and secession. The right of juries to judge the law was simply removed from the dictionaries; let us restore it.