10 votes

Mark Levin Wants A Constitutional Convention

He is writing a book called: The Liberty Amendments. We'll see what they turn out to be. It comes out in August.

However, he will be pushing an Article V constitutional convention very heavily on his show and in TV appearances.

He argues that the Article V convention isn't dangerous because all it does is propose amendments, which must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This is no different then the power Congress already has. In this case, Congress is out of the loop. State legislatures can handle the process all by themselves.

What do you think about this?

I think the idea of an Article V convention seems pretty good, and I'm not so worried about it. On the other hand, every new law in this country sneaks in trojan horse rules. Can that happen with simple amendments? Particularly if each requires 3/4 of the states to ratify?

But, will 3/4 of the states ever really ratify any liberty amendments? Maybe they will, most 'blues' are in big cities, and many states' GOP are a little better than the national party.

Anyway, we'll see what the proposed amendments are, but what of this Article V convention idea? And Mark Levin leading the charge?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Denise B's picture

If the sole purpose of

an Article V Convention is to propose Amendments, how is it that all of the other Amendments we have past the original 10 (Bill of Rights) got added without an Article V Convention? Clearly, if adding Amendments is the only goal, we can pursue that end without an Article V Convention.

I love this idea

I am not married to his specific suggestions but the concept is brilliant because it completely bypasses the federal government. Also under this process states like Idaho have just as many votes as New York or California so we could much more easily influence it than we can influence the federal government. I agree with mark levin that it is the last option within the existing legal frame work open to us. If tptb simply ignore it then they they show their hand and we will win more converts to our side. I think we will have a good chance to get a lot of state legislatures voting for it because we will be inviting them to vote themselves more power at the expense of the federal government. If all we accomplish is pulling power back to the states it will help our cause because we have more ability to affect local government than federal government.

I got voted down on this one

I got voted down on this one and I am curious about what part of it you think I got wrong. I don't believe I am always right so if you think I made a big mistake please let me know what it is so I can think it over

Bad idea...

Hi DP'ers

This is from a debate I had on facebook concerning this subject so the wording will be based on that and not directly related to the post here so if some of it seems off, that is why:

>>Paul Hanson: Hi Dwayne, The short answer to the reason why an article 5 convention should never be called is that it cannot be "controlled" to just say a balanced budget amendment or a term limits clause.
November 27, 2011 at 8:42pm · Like · 5

>>Thomas Mick: The Convention of 1787 was just supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation, yet an entirely new Constitution came out of it.

Trusting today's politicians with that power would not be in the best interest of our liberty... there are no rules or limitations in a convention and David Rockefeller has a new form of government waiting in the wings...

Constitutional Convention | Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America
November 27, 2011 at 8:47pm · Like · 10

>>Dwayne Stovall: Mr. Mick, I can see your position concerning the use of the word "State", but I still don't see the problem with a Convention of the States. It seems almost impossible to come out of a Convention with proposals that would actually pass the ratification process. Anything clearing that hurdle would most surely have support beyond reproach.

I apologize for my slow responses; I think my computer is about to crash...
November 27, 2011 at 8:53pm · Like · 1

>>Thomas Mick: You're misunderstanding me when I say there are no rules. In a convention there is no longer a ratification process unless the Convention determines it exists... the Convention of 1787 defined the ratification in Article V, and defined the process of ratifying the work of the Convention in Article VII...

Another Convention would not be bound by the terms of the Constitution.
November 27, 2011 at 8:55pm · Like · 7

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, the precedent to support my argument has been set. It was set during the original convention. That convention was called to "amend" or "fix" the articles of confederation. What we wound up with was something entirely different and profound. Do you really want Nancy Pelosi to have a hand in writing our new constitution? And if you don't think the morons in the California legislature would send her as one of their reps to the convention, I'll refer you back to the term "morons" just 24 words ago.

Some say that the ratification process would stop a "bad" constitution from being adopted. Of course this argument rises or falls on the fact that no changes to the article 5 and article 7 processes for ratification are made during the convention. Since the convention can't be limited, the ratification process could be changed to a self ratifying document once approved by 50% of convention attendees or 20 drunken monkeys who recently escaped from the local zoo seated around a bar in Boston watching a red sox game.
November 27, 2011 at 8:59pm · Unlike · 8

>>Dwayne Stovall: I'm not sure I follow. Article five appears to clearly set the rules of a convention. How is it that a convention, that by our own Constitution is designed to only allow for "proposals", can be so limitless? To pass either of the allowable manners of ratification, wouldn't the support for an amendment have to be overwhelming?
November 27, 2011 at 9:04pm · Like

>>Dwayne Stovall: That is to say, even if what you say could happen, were to happen, it would still take a 3/4 ratification vote first to change the process. Right?
November 27, 2011 at 9:09pm · Like

>>Dwayne Stovall: I guess we could assume that only a few likeminded states would show up and control everything, but I think the odds are astronomically against that happening.
November 27, 2011 at 9:18pm · Like · 1

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, I think I answered this before but please allow me just to highlight a few things you may not have thought of.

First off, because the precedent has been set by the first one, any limitations can be thrown out by the first vote of the convention attendees. The first one was limitless and there is a strong argument for precedence to allow the same of any subsequent convention. Could the supreme court stop it? Not if there no longer was a supreme court (do you see where I'm going with this, they could literally remove all obstacles to their silly whims).

Honestly Dwayne, do you really feel that our current state legislatures would select even 1 representative to the convention that would be worthy of latching the shoe buckle of the lowliest member of the original one? Have you taken stock of this current cast of bought and paid for clowns? Dwayne, the global cabal that wishes to enslave us would like nothing better than an article 5 convention call. And make no mistake about it, they would make sure that a majority of the representatives sent to any such convention would have to kiss david rockefellers pinky ring prior to their selection.

Also, I've already answered your previous question about the ratification process. Article 5 itself can be changed thus altering the ratification process by "3/4th's of the states" to a self ratifying document approved by a mere majority of the globalists in attendance of any such convention.

Is your passion for an article 5 convention so fervent that you would be willing to risk our freedom and liberty to such a folly? Even if part of what I'm saying is true (all of it is actually true), doesn't that that thought alone scare you enough to shudder at thought of the results of such an epic opportunity for the likes of our current "servants" (read here "morons") to tinker with the very foundations of our current system? I mean just imagine all the hype of the liberal media alone. It would be Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey on an unprecedented scale. That is freakin scary enough in and of itself. Really think about this long and hard Dwayne. If you do, I'm sure you will plainly see that beginning with something more simple and less drastic is a more appropriate choice.

A repudiation of the 17th is an excellent choice for a place to start and should correct many of the flaws in the current system and an informed electorate should be able to correct the rest. In the case of a senate elected by the state legislatures, if the Senators vote for an un-balanced budget, they get recalled by the legislature, never to be heard from again. If they are there too long, the legislature can correct that and voila! the term limits problem has been corrected as well, at least as far as the senate goes. These are usually the 2 biggest reasons for a convention call and I just corrected them both with my original article.

A convention call should be a last resort, not the first remedy pulled form the first aid kit. And, unless it is the year of our Lord 1787, should NEVER be pulled from the first aid kit even as a last resort. Should another convention ever occur, I can assure you your freedoms and liberties will be nothing but a smoking pile of rubble on the ash heap of history because that is exactly what those who are really in power (read here the global banking cabal) actually want. Thoughts of anything more hopeful are just pipe dreams. Trust me on this Dwayne, I've done the research and paid my dues in this battle for freedom and liberty. I penned my original article 1994 or so and have been in this fight even prior to that. Sincerely, Paul C. Hanson
November 27, 2011 at 9:54pm · Unlike · 7

>>Thomas Mick: Until we restore State representation in the Senate, nothing can be done about the other wrongs... which is why the globalists cut the legislatures out in the first place. It is much easier to undermine a democracy than a republic.
November 29, 2011 at 7:03am · Like · 5

>>Dwayne Stovall: Mr. Mick and Mr. Hanson, as far as I can tell, there were no guidelines restricting the first convention. The rules for future conventions came with the adoption of the new Constitution.

I can't see how the first convention set a precedent. The creation of Article 5 removes the gray area. What am I missing?
November 29, 2011 at 7:13am · Like

>>Dwayne Stovall: Mr. Mick, this is no scholarly read, but it is where I think we left the track.

Why we are controlled by lobbyists and special interest groups.
Does everyone understand that according to the Constitution (Article I, Section...See More
By: Growing Up Colorless
November 29, 2011 at 7:17am · Like · 1

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, A former chief justice of the supreme court of the united states disagrees with your thoughts that a convention can't become a runaway convention. If you insist on me doing the research, I will. I know that such a treatise, penned by a former justice of SCOTUS exists and if asked to produce it I will. however, I've done all this before and have been aware of it's existence for over 15 years since first looking into con-con calls. Maybe it's time for others to carry a pail or 2 of water in this fight and do some research on their own.

It may be Berger (Burger) Warren. I don't quite remember for sure. If you think your legal opinion carries more weight than a former SCOTUS justice, then there is nothing more I can say or do here and I wash my hands of the matter. Paul.
November 30, 2011 at 1:54pm · Like · 5

>>Thomas Mick: I'm in the same boat as you, Paul... I am so tired of doing other people's research for no compensation whatsoever... even when it is presented many times, the effort goes unappreciated.
November 30, 2011 at 1:59pm · Like · 4

>>Thomas Mick: Lobbyists have existed as long as the republic in one form or another... the problem we have, Dwayne... is that we continue to elect people with little or no moral compass and capacity to say NO.

When we start electing people who regard their oath as more than a formality... I believe that then we will begin to see changes for the good... AFTER we repair the damage this plan addresses.
November 30, 2011 at 2:02pm · Like · 4

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, Here is a couple of quotes for you that I found in the very brief search I conducetd. Total time = 17 minutes:

"One of the most serious problems Article V proposes is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights." - Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg.

Here is the one from Berger I mentioned earlier:

"There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention would make its own rules and set its own agenda." - Chief Justice Warren Berger.

The latter quote is just a portion of a larger treatise on the subject that I haven't located yet. Should I decide to search further and find the commentary, I may provide a link.

You don't become the Chief Justice SCOTUS by being a mental midget in the law or the U.S. Constitution. So if you still think you know more about the law and the U.S. Constitution than The Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Warren Berger, I'll leave you to your folly. I will just pray that any efforts you personally or anyone else for that matter make in helping along a successful con-con call fail miserably. I will also actively lobby and/or oppose any such fresh con-con call in my state and others with every fiber of my being (which I have already done in the past, successfully, BTW). Sincerely, Paul C. Hanson
November 30, 2011 at 2:33pm · Like · 3

>>Paul Hanson:

Constitutional Convention Can Not Be Controlled
In recent months the action most heard in state houses across the nation is a ri...See More
November 30, 2011 at 2:59pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

>>Paul Hanson: Dwayne, Here is probably the key thing to take away from The New American article I linked to above having to do with ratification by the states after the document has been hacked to death. It supports my 20 monkeys in a bar in Boston theory of ratification. It also directly relates to precedent. Although you may not completely grasp what I meant by my harping on precedent in all my earlier posts, I can assure you that the people who wish to enslave us do. Here is the pertinent part of the TNA article:

"And there is more. Concerning the argument that no matter what the delegates produce, the states still must ratify it — thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact: The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land — until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, suddenly they needed only two thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was used — even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Obama and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document produced by the Con Con said ratification only required a vote of Congress — or of some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection by the states."

I pray you see the folly of this path sooner rather than later. The 17th amendment repudiation method is a much safer route. It also turns the clock back on court decisions and any Senate actions taken since the first senators were fraudulently seated. That's around 1917. That oughtta take us back to the basics.
November 30, 2011 at 8:38pm · Like · 3

Me, present day: The above debate occurred in comments below an article I wrote on removing the 17th amendment. I edited out one comment that didn't apply to the con-con call but the rest is intact. As you can see, one side was backed with facts, precedent, logic and legal opinions that matter. The other with passion, pleadings and a true desire to change things, albeit with a dangerous approach. I don't think I convinced him (not due to what I presented but because his passion overruled logic) but any others who read and can think clearly and logically on the subject may be, and educating those that can is the only way to truly fix this Republic.

Here is a link to the facebook note containing my original article and the comments below which contain the debate:


Hope this helps answer some questions about what to do when faced with a call for an article 5 convention.


Paul C. Hanson

A Constitutional convention easily dismissed by the aristocrats

Ohh!! This is ridiculous. Mark "Israel and the other, lesser 50 United States" Levin can have his damned Constitutional Convention. And it will easily be dismissed by the princes and aristocrats who really run this country.

I studied too deeply the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848 to see how these things turn out. First blessed by the princes, even given power and authority by the princes, then rescued from their own dissention by the princes, then sidelined and ignored by the princes, and finally, shuttered at bayonette point by the princes.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

Hell no.

Hell no.

Southern Agrarian

ignore the clowns and liars!!

ignore the clowns and liars!!


Liberty = Responsibility

Mark Levin wants to sell books

So what?

We had the liberty amendment, guys like Mike Church have been talking about this.

So Mark Levin just raised the profile of the issue astronomically.

Even one amendment, like allowing Congress to overturn a supreme court ruling, or repealing the 17th amendment - these would make a big difference.

Trashing Ron Paul and then pretending to care about the

Constitution is more than enough to make me question his motives.


Yeah I know

But, I think Mark Levin is NOT a neocon contrary to what most people think. I think he is a Yankee Republican, which is a bad thing. But it is also an infinitely better thing than a progressive or even a neocon. He's like a sort of Barry Goldwater/Reagan type.

Either way, he is raising the profile of an Article V convention. It's an opportunity for all of us.


If tptb won't follow our current constitution, why do you think they would follow a new one? They would simply call it illigitement or interpret it as they see fit.

BINGO!! peAce



Liberty = Responsibility

maybe he should have it

then the neo-con bitch he is can maybe actually understand it!
the way he treated ron paul he can die in a fiery car wreck for all I care.
he is an on air bully like oriely...if he don't agree what you say he overtalks you and cuts you off..he is a fake!

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves...the land of liberty needs a regime change!

neocon trash

levin has always been one of the most vile and nasty ron paul haters. i really hate to even see his name mentioned here.


yah claims he is a constitutionalis...

yet he slams the only politician that stands by it, and knows it far better than he does...unlike ron paul mark Levin twists and distorts what it says to benefit his shill ass!

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves...the land of liberty needs a regime change!

crietmann's picture

It gets trickier - from the DP originated Liberty Amendment

It is possible, but highly difficult. The state conventions (or legislatures, depending on how you interpret it) would all have to agree on identical text for it to occur. That means there must be a central draft that's floated, issues would have to be addressed as they are received, sent out again, etc. before states could vote, or you could get one to vote in favor and attempt to sell it to your supermajority - the approach we've envisioned. It worked with the original Liberty Amendment (Ron Paul endorsed) - they did get 9 states to endorse but lacked the organization to push it through the states or Congress route (but they tried).

Right now what I've been doing has people committed to working in 10 or so states and we're still working through the draft.

We address five issues specifically:

Repeal the 16th Amendment
Repeal the 17th Amendment
Clarify the States' right to nullify federal law
Prohibit central banks and fiat currency
Require a balanced budget.

Getting those 5 issues drafted has been a challenge - the challenge is eliminating political wiggle room to skirt them. We've had some interesting people involved; an author that's been working on other country's proposed amendments and constitutions, a well known representative from constitution.org and as of this week an attorney with the Barry Goldwater Institute that has been in front of the Supreme Court.

I will say Mr. Levin's book blew my site stats through the roof - thanks Mark!

www.thelibertyamendment.org and if you're seriously interested in working the draft or working in your state let me know here or at founder@thelibertyamendment.org.

Please "Like" Prismstop.com on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/Prismstop

Or visit us at http://www.prismstop.com to protect your whole home and mobile devices from identity thieves, hackers, government officials and other criminals.

@Prismstop on

The Good News is That an Article V Con

Is an open book. Write your local state legislators! This can actually be done! We can propose and should propose all the amendments we can. The most popular ones will have the most traction.

Who needs a Constitutional Convention to change anything?

Who cares? The Constitution has long been set aside. Every session of Congress is therefore a de-facto constitutional convention without restraint. I am with Lysander Spooner on all this. A parchment god is powerless and, at the very most, can only bind the generation that "agreed" to it.


What? Jerusulem as the new US capitol?

No need for a Constitutional Convention. Citizens should ensure, if necessary by force of arms, the present US Constitution is enforced. The best place to start is the Federal Reserve.

Elected by Diebold - Unelected Goverment

They Don't follow the rules now, what makes anyone think they will balance the budget with an amendment. They're accountable to no-one except their money masters.

People forget the push for a Con-Con back in the 80's. Rockefeller's had put together a way to co-opt this con-con and replace the constitution with the 'NEW-STATES OF AMERICA CONSTITUTION" That was the goal or the Hegelian agenda for the 80's Con-Con.

Look it up. JBS affiliates were instrumental in killing that attempt.


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon


Mark Levin actually proposes an amendment that would make electronic voting illegal.

Just a funny irony.

As for the JBS stuff. An Article V convention merely proposes mere amendments. States then can ratify them one by one or not.

No one is calling for a new constitution. Congress can already propose amendments.

I suspect the Rockefeller thing in the 80's was a diversion. Probably an attempt to scare us from using the Article V provisions, which actually might be the one remaining thing we have. Hmm....

I am no fan

of the raving lunatic Levinstein however, I do support using the constitutional authority the people have to act as another check against the powers of tyrannical gvt.

The state legislatures are much closer to the people and therefore far more responsive and accountable.

The fact is, that if the congress in Washington, saw a popular amendment passing overwelmingly in the states, Washington would move quickly to enact the law just to save face.

Using this process, I believe we could impose term limits...it's very popular everywhere, republican and democrat alike.

That is why I am for it.

Michael Nystrom's picture

So does Rand, BTW.

(As I noted below)

From the DP, Jan 21, 2011: Rand Paul to push for a Constitutional Convention to force Balancing the Federal Budget!

And at Kentucky.com, Feb 23, 2011: Rand Paul urges state lawmakers to call for constitutional convention

FRANKFORT — At the urging of Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, the state Senate approved a measure Tuesday urging Congress to convene a national constitutional convention that would consider a balanced budget amendment.

- - - - -

So who's read Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments? What does it say?

From the book: "The text of

From the book: "The text of Article V makes clear that there is a serious check in place. Whether the product of Congress or a convention, a proposed amendment has no effect at all unless “ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof. . . . ” This should extinguish anxiety that the state convention process could hijack the Constitution. After more research and reflection, the issue crystallized further. If the Framers were alarmed that states calling for a Convention for proposing Amendments could undo the entire undertaking of the Constitutional Convention, then why did they craft, adopt, and endorse the language? In Federalist 43, Madison considered both Article V amendment processes equally prudent and judicious."


There are other reasons for assuaging concerns. Robert G. Natelson, a former professor of law at the University of Montana and an expert on the state convention process, explains that “a convention for proposing amendments is a federal convention; it is a creature of the states or, more specifically, of the state legislatures. And it is a limited-purpose convention. It is not designed to set up an entirely new constitution or a new form of government.

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (Kindle Locations 220-249). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.

I have yet to research the arguments that are against an Article V convention, but the fact that so many "pundits" on both sides claim this will be a con-con and will open up the floodgates tells me that Levin might be on to something... the frustrating thing was its been hiding in plain sight.

New Membership Levels with Greeneville Outfitters - Gear at Cost:

Michael's correct.

I have heard Rand state this position before, and also I know he touched on it recently, like within the last week on one of his several MSM appearances.

Cyril's picture

And that was 2011.

And that was 2011.

And that was about...

[...] urging Congress to convene a national constitutional convention that would consider a balanced budget amendment.

Unless I'm having a terrible nightmare, by now, today, it's already about preserving whatever is left, if anything, of the 4th, 2nd, and 1st amendments of the Bill of Rights... to name "only" 3 out of 10.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Good Gawd No

Between the lawyers and the Free Shyt Army, a CC would be a cluster flop of epic proportions.

I will only support this IF:

They drop the constitution and bring back the articles of confederation, in it's currant form, no additions, unless it's further limiting the federal government and banning a central bank.

Articles of confederation:


In other words, I don't support this convention idea, cause they would never do what I want them to do.