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.

you answered the need for the convention with your post

look at what you wrote and tell me that any of the "what we need..." will ever happen working through congress, the president, and the supreme court?

answer: not a chance

Solution: cut the bastards out of the process with a convention

Forgive my ignorance, but he

Forgive my ignorance, but he appears to be making a distinction between a Constitutional convention (initiated by Congress), to a convention for proposing amendments (initiated by the states):

"The second method, involving the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures, for a convention of proposing amendments -- not a Constitutional Convention, a convention for proposing amendments, which would thereafter require three-fourths of the states to ratify"

New Membership Levels with Greeneville Outfitters - Gear at Cost:

Congress doesn't convene a convention

they can propose amendments on their own.

only states legislatures can convene a convention to propose amendments

both ways to propose amendments must be ratified by 3/4th of the states (38 of 50 states)

coffee_sponge's picture

The states apply for a convention

but it is CONGRESS that actually calls the convention and sets the ground rules.

Calling an Article V convention with today's Congress is jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

"The Congress... on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."

Congress shall call the convention for proposing amendments. Notice that "amendments" is plural, and there is no provision for any limitations upon what the convention may propose.

Jeezus Please

Pitch Mark Levin and his line of BS elsewhere.

fireant's picture

A very bad idea.

We would end up with a watered down UN type "human rights" document which destroys power of the People and elevates power by the elite. The specific changes which are needed, and will correct many of the problems we all discuss here daily is repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments. It's just that simple.

Undo what Wilson did


If you want the current constitution, as weak and pitiful as it is, to be rewritten by the errant and spineless quisling bastards running civilization into the ground today, by all means call a con-con.. or at least don't resist it when they do.

If you want to know what their new constitution, look no further than the one proposed by FDR's brain trust, Rex Tugwell..


send him one of these


“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Michael Nystrom's picture

You guys forgot Rand wants one too?

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.

The vote was 22-16 along party lines except for Sen. Julie Denton, R-Louisville, who opposed the legislation.

In his nearly eight-minute speech to the Senate, Paul said the balanced budget amendment is necessary "to get our nation's fiscal house in order."

Now run that through the noodle and see how it computes.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

(No subject)

Mark who?

What a terrible idea...made worse by the shrill and annoying sound his mouth makes when he opens it to express such halfwitted nonsense.

We'd be fucked utterly....

The last vestiges of the Republic would be "voted" out of existence; or the whole process would be subverted by ______; or the NWO-supported "representatives" would sabotage the whole thing....

Who knows?

What a completely fucking stupid and unfathomably hazardous idea.

(Curious: Is Levin a dual US-Israeli citizen?)

What would the Founders do?

It's a terrible idea

When our country was founded we were fortunate to have educated, liberty-loving people that wanted to create a nation where the government was small and where the people were sovereign. Today, most people are asleep and our leaders are not of the same quality. The results would be terrible. I'd fricken swim to Australia if they do this.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Why oh why

Can't we just adhere to the existing Constitutional amendments?
That would be a good start!

The amendments are the problem to begin with

We didn't need the amendments, none of them say anything that wasn't already covered by the original. The bill of rights gives off the impression that the Constitution grants rights to the people, when in fact it grants only a few select rights to the government and leaves all other rights to the people.

Kathleen Gee's picture

BAD, bad, bad idea.

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitution Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congressmen might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey it.” -Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger

Eight Simple Questions Expose Dangers of a Constitutional Convention

Unknown Risks and Potential Dangers of A Constitutional Convention

Constitutional Convention Can Not Be Controlled

Beware of Article V: The Danger of a Constitutional Convention


"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan

Public Relations Consulting

Constitutional Convention is opening Pandoras box

very tricky, if it goes the wrong way, could totally end our Constitution.

In the Obama age you can be

In the Obama age you can be sure that any amendments would include a right to food, a right to housing, a right to education, and a right to health care -- all things that can only be provided by taking stuff from other people.

Or if it goes the right way...

Of course

He does. His neo-con subversives along with Marxist dems are in power. They could write whatever they wanted, pass it, and the American people would be helpless to stop it.

He knows they're at the pinnacle of their power, and feels now is the time to act.

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Levin is not a neocon or a Marxist.

He is a Dominionist. He wants the US to be a Christian nation, aligned eith Israel, and to fight in Holy Wars. He basically says it vetbatim in Liberty and Tyranny.

This aligns him with neocons and Marxists sometimes, but he has a distinct agenda from them.

A NeoCOM and Marxist are

the same thing. First off, they are not neo-conservative, that's a misdirection, they are neo-communist, there's nothing conservative about them. Trotsky, aka Bronstein was tutored in Marxist ideology from Marx, aka Levi, himself. They were the best of friends, but it was Trotsky who was the major mastermind in the Bolshevik Revolution, aka Talmudic Jewish Revolution. Marx was tutored by his rabbi uncles in the Talmud, and this is where he dirived his theories in the Communist Manifesto. Here, is some brief exposures of the Talmud, by Rev Ted Pike, who obtained the information from the Talmud out of the Library of Congress. http://truthtellers.org/alerts/Have-You-Read-the-Talmud-Late...

Levin, is a Zionist, who plays as a Costitutionalist, but really uses what I call 'selective constitutionalism', where he uses it only to support his desires. He supports the 'war on terror', the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the DHS, drones etc, all needed to lay down the hammer in a Troskyite styled Totalitarian Corporatist Government. The only reason he goes against some of these at the moment is to play the charade of the left vs right, divisionist game.
Don't be fooled by his Liberty charade, he is really similar to Beck, he play the 'bait and switch' game. I have been listening closely of late, just to find out his game, and if you pay attention, he is very smooth in the 'bait and switch' game. A Zionist, Marxist, Neocom, Leftist, Communist, Socialist, what ever you want to call them all have the same agenda, just different misdirections for reaching the agendas, don't be fooled!


Levin is Definately not a Marxist, or a NeoCon.

He is a Constitutionalist and believes the US is based on Judeo Christian principles.

With the big exception of Israel and protecting Israel etc., the rest of his stuff is 90% with us.

Big Rand Paul fan, but 100% disagrees with Ron Paul on Israel, but has said he agrees with Ron Paul on all the economic issues.

Marxist neocons can contort

Marxist neocons can contort themselves into all kinds of ideological shapes. Their job is to win through deceit.

The infiltration model is, say all the right things up until the key moment, then make sure everything falls apart.

So a guy like Levin says all the right things up to a point, but makes sure his listeners remain fascists with regard to wars and culture wars. He's just capturing the hearts and minds of a particular set of right wingers, then gently steering them back to neoconservatism.

don't disagree with you

however I have listened to Levin for awhile, he is anti-Bush clan and has been slamming them for years. In addition, he has said he is so sick of backing idiot establishment candidates tht he is out, he rather start a 3rd party.

So while I get the whole say all the right words, then flip, I think Levin is not a neocon, which basically is a globalist, Levin is not a globalist. Still I don't want a Constitutional Convention, way way too risky.

Levin has been making some

good arguments for Liberty of late, but if you listen closely he's really just playing left vs right charade. He states the Patriot Act is a good thing, as long as you have good leadership! In other words, if a staunch Zionist, aka GWBush or say Sanitarium were in the office and they revoke our rights it's ok, but when a Democrat does it, it's bad. Levin's first act for Amendment would probably be to make 'our good friend' (sic) Israel a 51st state, so it would force automatic retaliation of any threat without any act of Congress. He's just another Zionist misinformation bait and switch expert like Beck, don't be fooled!

Mark Levin is a (former?) communist.

As is David Horowitz - card carrying - not kidding.

Nuff said.

I think this might be a decent idea

Congress can already propose whatever crazy amendments they want. Yes, the original constitutional convention hijacked things, but for better or worse that's what people 'wanted' at the time. And 100% of the states eventually ratified it. I can't imagine 3/4 of the states endorsing crazy amendments.

Also, yes the constitution is being ignored as is. But that's because of certain 'interpretations'. Clear amendments might 'hook' a couple of loophole interpretations. Let's see what he proposes. August sometime is when I think this comes out.

The people didn't want it.

The people didn't want it. Only 1 state (RI) put it to popular vote / voted down 11/1. All the repair knew that would be the fate without a BoR. The Anti-federalist should went packing with a see you next year when we can talk about protections for the people.

CC? The powers that be still have a firm hand on the reigns. Aside from that no good to come from the old constitution. Or a new one. The blue print to subvert is known and their is no counter move to it. The people will sleep as soon as they feel secured in their liberty, in that Spanish, power will corrupt. The answer is to step out of the cycle of force.

Mark levin is a demi-god

As Thomas Jefferson would say.