Thread: Daniel Horowitz author at Conservative Review calls for a Convention of States

.
This evening [4/15/18] on Life, Liberty and Levin, Daniel Horowitz, an author at Conservative Review, asserted we need a “Convention of States”. Mr. Levin quickly chimed in, giving his approval. But don’t expect Mr. Horowitz, or Mr. Levin for that matter, to address the many unanswered questions and dangers which arise should the Legislatures of two thirds of the States make application for an Article V convention as mentioned in our Federal Constitution.

Whether knowing or unknowing, Daniel Horowitz is promoting an idea which would open the door for the enemies of our Constitution to re-write its provisions, the violation of which is the basis of Daniel wanting a Convention. So, why on earth would Daniel want a convention to re-write our Constitution when the fault is not found in our existing Constitution, but in a failure to enforce its provisions and the legislative intent behind those provisions?

I’m having a difficult time understanding why Mr. Horowitz has fallen for the dangerous idea of calling a convention to re-write our Constitution when he has not fallen for the Republican concocted and fraudulent Balanced Budget Amendment which would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis, in addition to allowing taxes to be raised by a simple majority vote. How has Mr. Horowitz seen through the rope-a-dope BBA cooked up by Republican swamp creatures, and not realized that calling a convention under Article V at this point in time is a Pandora’s Box which every conservative and freedom loving person in America should recoil from?

I’m hoping Mr. Horowitz will take the time to actually research the work of a number of constitutional conservatives, e.g., the late Conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly, who was one of its most outspoken opponents, and carefully laid out a number of reasons for opposing it. But for now, perhaps Mr. Horowitz will consider James Madison’s fears to calling a convention under Article V when he was asked:


”… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788


JWK

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

.


SEE: David Horowitz: Why Conservatives Need to Amend the Constitution Now


Mr. Horowitz begins his article by writing:


”What do the John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, Common Cause and Planned Parenthood have in common? They all oppose the states’ use of Article V of our Constitution to impose and enforce constitutional limits on Washington.” Mr. Horowitz goes on to write: ”While it is no surprise that Marxist-leaning groups would fight, tooth and nail, to resist any plan for breaking the federal government’s virtual monopoly on policy-making, all conservatives agree that this monopoly is a perversion of our federal system. But, sadly, the Left’s propaganda and junk history have brainwashed some conservatives into opposing the states’ use of constitutional power to check federal overreach.”


Indeed, in Mr. Horowitz’s view, that conservatives who oppose the call for a convention under Article V have been “brainwashed” by, “the Left’s propaganda and junk history”, is absurd and disingenuous to say the least. In fact, conservatives who oppose the call base their reasoning on historical facts and unanswered questions which Mr. Horowitz should address rather than insulting these patriotic Americans and portray the opponents of an Article V convention as sympathizing with “Marxist-leaning groups” and “the radical Left”.


Hey, Mr. Horowitz, how about addressing a few of the unanswered questions and dangers of calling a “convention of states”, which I might add is found nowhere in the text of the Constitution? The Constitution merely declares that Congress shall “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” if the required number of State Legislatures make application.


In the meantime Mr. Horowitz, let me suggest you study Here Be Dragons: Dangers Of A Constitutional Convention and then address the dangers and unanswered questions instead of adolescent name calling.


JWK



”The deception of the appeal for a "convention of states" lies first of all in the name of the project. If you open your pocket Constitution, it's easy to see that the convention authorized by Article V would not be a "convention of states" in any sense of the word.” __ Phyllis Schlafly, 5/24/2016

No Convention. This is where all the looney tunes would assemble under one roof. Our worst nightmare.

Originally Posted by Judy

No Convention. This is where all the looney tunes would assemble under one roof. Our worst nightmare.

From what I have observed over the years, the most vocal advocates of calling this convention, especially those who have access to media outlets, constantly insult those who oppose calling a convention and refuse to engage in a dialogue concerning the various unanswered questions and dangers attached to the idea. All they do is engage in name calling and make insulting remarks about those who question the call for a constitutional convention.


Keep in mind the same crowd that gave us the United Nation's Charter, the Sixteenth Amendment, the Federal Reserve paper money system, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and more recently the NAFTA, have been behind the call for a convention to rewrite our Constitution. One of its principle advocates was Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the three original members of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal “brains trust,” and he authored The Constitution of the New States of America which seems to be the goal of the globalists behind the movement.


JWK


At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.