11 responses

1. 

   Senator_Blutarsky April 5, 2014 at 11:12 pm | Reply

   ‘Ol Judas Goat – phony conservative RINO Quisling Mark Levin sure keeps good company, witnessed by the above.

   Maybe Eric Matthews and others who voiced support for a con-con in the past here on this blog ,might want to rethink that.. Levin and other establishment mouthpieces masquarading as “conservatives” are leading folks who do NO HOMEWORK right down the path of destruction.

   As an old Friend used to say: “I knocked on the door of the Republic and discovered there was no one home”.

   1. 

      John Lochaby April 6, 2014 at 5:43 am | Reply

      Have you even read Mark Levin’s book ??? Have you ever listened to the Mark Levin radio show.??? Have you ever looked at what the Landmark Legal Foundation has done ??? You simply do not know what you are talking about.

2. 

   John DeMayo April 6, 2014 at 12:21 am | Reply

   My name is John DeMayo. I am a Texas District Captain for the Convention of States movement. I submit the following article at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/can-defend-constitution-fear/ for the above author’s consideration. I am the author of this article. For any opponent of the use of Article V, I would like to extend an open over to engage in a public debate on the issues. I can be contacted through the Convention of States project or through my personal Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/john.demayo.96 . I look forward to a spirited open debate. I welcome all comers. Thank you.

   1. 

      Senator_Blutarsky April 6, 2014 at 1:22 pm | Reply

      Nothing to “debate”, Mr DeMayo…a con-con at this point, is like taking a butter knife to a gunfight. Having the moral and philosophical “high ground” does not constitute a formula for success.

      Ask the men at the Alamo…….or Jews at the Warsaw ghettos. I will add just a few links for readers here to consider, with a snip from each.

      http://benswann.com/nullification-vs-art-v-convention-why-mark-levin-is-wrong/

      “Not only is an Article V constitutional convention not the right answer, it is the bullet to a loaded revolver pointed at the Constitution.

      CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION LACKS SOUND JUDGMENT

      Before going down the rabbit hole, it is important to understand that calling for a convention to amend the Constitution with amendments shows absence in sound judgment.

      Think about it… The NSA, NDAA, ObamaCare, Patriot Act, EPA, DOE, every war since the 1940s, federal gun laws, etc. are all unconstitutional. These laws and agencies all fly in the face of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

      Did the federal government come to a grinding halt simply because of those amendments? Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the American government has been run lawlessly. Some call the Constitution ineffective.

      Americans must ask themselves: Is the Constitution ineffective, or do we have a lawless, disobedient federal government? If the answer is the latter, which it is, then Americans should see little refuge in additional amendments, which the lawless, disobedient feds will simply continue to ignore.”

      Read more: http://benswann.com/nullification-vs-art-v-convention-why-mark-levin-is-wrong/#ixzz2y6xh183m
      Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

      http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/27/article-v-convention-a-recipe-for-chaos/

      “The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation. Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.

      Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of 20 books. She is the co-author, with George Neumayr, of the New York Times Best-Seller titled “No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.”

      http://www.jbs.org/legislation/the-article-v-convention-scam
      The Article V Convention Scam

      “So, Levin and the other Article V convention advocates try to walk the tightrope of deceptively assuring those of us who are concerned about harmful changes to the Constitution that such a convention would be “a limited purpose convention” (page 16 of The Liberty Amendments) while at the same time truthfully portraying an Article V convention as included in the Constitution for the purpose of making the changes necessary for reining in an oppressive government.

      So, that’s the scam. In order to gain the necessary widespread support from both voters and state legislators for their inherently risky attempt to solve the problem of an out-of-control (unconstitutional) government by means of an Article V convention, the Article V convention advocates need to fool huge numbers of people into believing that the provision for Article V conventions was included in the Constitution only for making limited changes.

      Since it is a God-given “Right of the People” “to alter or to abolish [our government], and to institute new Government,” and since Article V provides a constitutional method for bringing about a convention of the sovereign people of the United States for achieving this, we have to agree that the proponents of an Article V convention have the right to pursue their goal of bringing about such an unlimited convention; but, we must interject immediately, such an unlimited convention would be extremely dangerous to the Constitution, given the lack of knowledge of and lack of commitment to the Constitution on the part of most of the voters and/or legislators who would determine the composition of the delegates.

      And, of course, such an unlimited convention would have the option of changing the method for ratifying its proposed changes, just as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 did.

      Our problem is not the Constitution. Our problem is a federal government that is operating outside the confines of the Constitution. The solution is to bring the federal government back into compliance with the Constitution through voter education campaigns and state nullification laws. ”

      The old saying “” be careful what you ask for – you just might get it ” , certainly applies here. Wise leaders know to pick a fight they can win.

      A con-con would, really, be only treating “symptoms”, as the core problem is flagrant abuse of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights, for decades. And you basically, expect the same groups who have the Constitution on a death watch already, to fix such? Laughable…….naive.

      Nullification and enforcement are the winnable options, not a badly misguided con-con nightmare.

      “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
      Dr. Martin Luther King

      1. 

         John DeMayo April 6, 2014 at 10:27 pm

         As always the Eagle Forum runs from debate. What is your fear?

   2. 

      Victor Tiffany April 27, 2014 at 11:02 am | Reply

      “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, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress….”

      The word, used twice, is “amendmentS,” not amendment. The Convention of States is unconstitutional unless it opens up to multiple amendments.

3. 

   John Lochaby April 6, 2014 at 5:22 am | Reply

   I am totally amazed at the number of people who spout off without any study on the facts…and name-calling is not political discourse. An Article V Convention is NOT a convention to write a new Constitution. It is a convention limited to amendments related to the subject or subjects approved by the states legislatures which called the convention. Then the , and only then, the proposed amendment must be approved by the states. There is no chance for an out-of-control, run-a-way convention…AND…The Federal legislature has NO SAY in the amendment(s). I urge you to actually read Article V of the Constitution…(Article V is not the Fifth Amendment). Then I urge you to read Mark Levin’s book: The Liberty Amendments. The Convention of States appear to be interested only in a balanced budget amendment. They are aiming too low. They also need to consider term limits for all federal elective offices and a host of other corrections if we, The People are to take back control of our government.

4. 

   Rosemarie Swaim April 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm | Reply

   John have you signed up on http://www.conventionofstates.com. The pending resolution calls for fiscal responsibility and limitation on an out of control federal government. Remember the resolutions have to be similarly worded so the movement is pushing a generic resolution rather than specific “amendments” which has doomed these movements in the past. The amendments that are being talked about are of course: balanced budget, term limits, restriction of government regulatory agencies, return of power to the states as outlined in Article 10, etc. Thank you for your comments. I too am appalled at an allegedly conservative organization trouting out the same scare tactics used by the progressives. This is the last stand before the total collapse of our way of life,

   1. 

      Senator_Blutarsky April 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm | Reply

      Rosie – you – ” This is the last stand before the total collapse of our way of life,”

      Personally, I think that ship has already sailed. I wonder where all the starry-eyed con-con dogooders were when Repubs pushed through the Patriot Act ? Or where they were when hundreds and hundreds o executive “orders” were issued and never challenged? Or when PDDs were the lawmaking order of the day, especially by Bush. How Constitutional were the corporate bailouts by the billion? What about the dissonance of degrading American citizenship status to where our country has been flooded with 3rd worlld aliens, staking a culture-changing imprint. Maybe Jeb Bush will be a concon leader – he just said such was an “act of love”.

      If any of you think that most of the political and philosophical makeup of various state congresses , which would supposedly have the biggest hand in appointing the concon delegates, would only select strict adherents to the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you are delusional. Right in this own district we have Phil King and Craig Estes active and willing participants in the theft of our highway system to foreign-private interests. And now both are on the bandwagon to steal our water. We have a governor who has championed dozens of nefarious schemes and backloaded every possible appointment with cronies for “privatization”. Our legislature makes gunowners grovel for permission slips to carry firearms. They ppromote warrantless blood draws on the side of the highways.

      We live in a surveillance control grid with no privacy. We have armed SWAT teams ready at a moments notice to raid anyone for any reason. We have a compromised SCOTUS which gives special privileges to corporations.

      we have lost every single one of the Bill of Rights under the NDAA and Executive Order 13603. As a result, 9 out of 10 rights, contained in the Bill of Rights, are gone. The only right remaining is the Second Amendment right to bear arms and it hanging by a thread.

      You can shout it from the roof tops, there will be a Constitutional Convention and the Second Amendment will be repealed and all gun owners will be criminalized in one stroke of the pen.

      Who will be the leaders and the people who shape a concon, for middle-class working Americans who resent and fear the massive government Leviathan we now have ? Bushes, Gingrich, Mccain types? Michael Steel? Kochs? financier Stewart Adelson ?………or any of the hundreds of other ” Republicans ” who are in fact committed globalists, and have been such pathetic compromising stewards of the Constitution ?

      Nullification and enforcement remain the only even remotely viable tools against a central government gone wild

      “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?”
      – Henry David Thoreau

5. 

   MTA Victor April 27, 2014 at 10:57 am | Reply

   Move to Amend is NOT calling for an Article V Amendment Convention…yet. The Convention of States, a right-wing effort, IS doing just that in an unconstitional manner. According to Art. V, a convention is for voting on constitutional amendments, not one amendment.

   The “We the People Amendment” is not “left wing.” When did leftists support going backward? That is what conservatives and reactionaries do. The MTA-proposed amendment would take the US BACK to the constitutionality of campaign finance reform up until 1976 (Buckley v Valeo). How is it “leftist” to address what had Senator Goldwater concerned when he said:

   “[O]ur nation is facing a crisis of liberty if we do not control campaign expenditures. We must prove that elective office is not for sale. We must convince the public that elected officials are what James Madison intended us to be, agents of the sovereign people, not the hired hands of rich givers, or what Madison called factions.”

   The abolition of corporate rights would reset the legal status of corporations BACK TO what they were for the first 98 years of the Republic, back to what the Framers intended when they gave PEOPLE, not organizations, rights.

   Citizens United set into slow motion, a corporate coup d’etat. I understand why fascists might embrace that, but not a principled conservative or constitutional originalist.

   We’re not aiming to amend the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has been doing that for decades. Move to Amend seeks to restore the First Amendment for the people alone. The amendment we seek will restore the true meaning of rights and repair the corruption of them wrought by the Court over the years.

   We’re aiming to restore what was imparted to us by the Framers. A Republic of, by and for the people, not for the corporations. Why on Earth would any principled conservative oppose that idea?

6. 

   dnrevel December 26, 2015 at 5:13 pm | Reply

   I’ve learned a lot from the commentary here. My husband and I are now following MovetoAmend.org news. The article and the comments here shine quite a bit of light on the matter. Citizen’s United was a terrible decision that harmed democracy in our country and further raised up the plutocrats. Money should not buy votes, rather education and wise counsel needs to be the emphasis. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters

   Bill Moyers has been speaking on the dangers of plutocracy, what we’ve become, for awhile: http://billmoyers.com/2015/05/27/bill-moyers-speech-challenge-journalism-survive-plutocracy/