Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By johnwk
  • 1 Post By johnwk

Thread: Mark Levin will join Fox News on weekend show, life, liberty & Levin

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674

    Mark Levin will join Fox News on weekend show, life, liberty & Levin

    See Talk radio star Mark Levin joins Fox News Channel with weekly show

    ”Fox News announced on Tuesday that nationally syndicated radio talk show personality Mark Levin will join the network with a weekly, weekend primetime show titled, “Life, Liberty & Levin.”

    “Mark’s passion for the principles found in the Constitution and success in talk radio has made him a distinct figure in the media landscape. We look forward to adding this spirited program to our weekend lineup,” Fox News President of Programming Suzanne Scott said.”



    This is good news and bad news! Being one of the few who have actually taken the time to have passionately studied the making of our Constitution ___ researching Madison’s Notes on the Convention, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliots’ Debates and other historical documents documenting our Constitution’s legislative intent ___ I appreciate Mark’s endless task of educating people to the legislative intent of our Constitution and exposing today’s assault upon it by Congress, and especially federal judges and Justices who knowingly and willingly ignore both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution.

    On the other hand, I am very distressed that Mark Levin has been calling for an Article V convention under which our entire Constitution would be put up for grabs by all the snakes and other Swamp Creatures who would find their way into the Convention should one be called.

    I remember during the 1980s many so-called "conservatives" were pushing for a Convention to allegedly write a "balanced budget amendment", but the amendment these "conservatives" were pushing, if adopted, would have made it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget.

    On almost all issues I agree with Mark, but his desire to call for a convention under Article V is a very, very suspicious and dangerous idea as indicated by James Madison:

    ”3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; 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. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.” ___ Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville, dated November 2, 1788


    The fact is, an Article V Convention is a very dangerous idea because:

    1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;

    2) that Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

    3) that every snake on earth with self-interests such as ACORN would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

    4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

    5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;

    6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

    7) and, we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention would adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

    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.’ “

  2. #2
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674

    The Constitution of the New States of America and a constitutional convention

    If our Global Governance Crowd gets their way, and they have been trying to get a constitutional convention convened for decades, their changes to our system of government are found in The Constitution of the New States of America




    JWK
    Beezer likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674

    Who would attend a Convention and who would approve the Convention's doings?

    QUESTION:

    If a convention under Article V were called, who would find their way into the convention, and who, in each state, would approve what the convention proposes? And those are two of the questions which signals an alert and ought to be answered!

    During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very type of swamp creatures who are now causing our misery! Should we really have any confidence in these sorts of people who would most certainly find their way into the convention?


    The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a public office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”

    Madison warned us if a second convention were held, it would “… 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.”

    So tell us, do you not think every snake and swamp creature would find their way into a convention should one be called, and would also dominate state conventions who would approve or disapprove what comes out of a convention?

    I know one thing for certain, our Global Governance Crowd would surely love the calling of a convention and the opportunity it would provide.


    Be careful of what you wish for!
    Beezer likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674

    Mark Levin’s egotistical and wrongheaded call for a constitutional convention

    Mark Levin, when confronted on his radio show with questions that indicate his call for a constitutional convention are wrongheaded, constantly hides behind insulting remarks [referencing the caller as an idiot, stupid, etc.] and panhandles political identifications [liberal, left-wing, socialist, etc.] which have no bearing on the questions asked. He also filibusters callers and prevents them from defending their position. This is how he avoids a sincere discussion regarding very real concerns which surround the calling of a convention under Article V.

    It appears Mark Levin would rather put our entire Constitution up for grabs than diligently defend both its text and legislative intent which gives context to its text. I say this because, the countless sufferings we now experience are not because of defects in our written Constitution. They are a result of people like Mark Levin who are unwilling to defend specific provisions in our Constitution, an example being the reasons why the Founders demanded both representatives and direct taxes would be apportioned.

    Mark Levin desires to re-write our Constitution to accommodate his personal predilections and beliefs. Are we to forget his egotistical "Liberty Amendments" which are a sophomoric and ill-advised attempt to accomplish, in several instances, what our original Constitutional already commands?



    JWK



    At the close of the Constitutional Conventionin 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

  5. #5
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,674

    Scott Walker sides with Swamp Creatures __ wants a Constitutional Convention

    SEE: Walker signs constitutional convention appointment bill


    ”The bill Walker signed Monday calls for the Assembly speaker to appoint three state representatives as convention delegates. The Senate president would appoint three senators. Assembly and Senate minority leaders would each appoint one delegate from their house. The governor would appoint one delegate from the Assembly of the Senate.”

    Well, I see Scott Walker is using the phony pretense of requiring an annual balanced budget to call a constitutional convention during which time our entire Constitution will be up for grabs. Instead of promoting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, which is our Founder’s intended method to balance an annual budget, Walker has sided with countless evil doers who have been attempting to convene a constitutional convention for decades in order to re-write the entire document.

    In addition, we now see ordinary people in Wisconsin will not be delegates to the convention. Instead, existing swamp creatures in Wisconsin will select and appoint delegates, just as was done in 1984 in New Hampshire.

    During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery! Do you have confidence in these sorts of people who would most certainly find their way into the convention?

    The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a public office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”


    Additionally, the attempt to control the actions of delegates sent to a convention has already proven to be meaningless.


    Under the Articles of Confederation, the Convention of 1787 was called and was specifically called for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“, and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government with a number of specific powers being ceded to it, and the event turned out to not be a simple revision of the Articles of Confederation as originally called for!


    See: Credentials of the Members of the Federal Convention. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; April 9, 1787:



    (Seal appendt). By His Excellency James Bowdoin Esquire Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


    To the Honorable Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King and Caleb Strong Esquires. Greeting.

    Whereas Congress did on the twenty first day of February Ao Di 1787, Resolve "that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of Delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States to be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." And Whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their Delegates to attend and represent this Commonwealth in the said proposed Convention; and have by Resolution of theirs of the tenth of March last, requested me to Commission you for that purpose.


    Now therefore Know Ye, that in pursuance of the resolutions aforesaid, I do by these presents, commission you the said Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King & Caleb Strong Esquires or any three of you to meet such Delegates as may be appointed by the other or any of the other States in the Union to meet in Convention at Philadelphia at the time and for the purposes aforesaid.


    In Testimony whereof I have caused the Public Seal of the Commonwealth aforesaid to be hereunto affixed.
    Given at the Council Chamber in Boston the Ninth day of April Ao Dom. 1787 and in the Eleventh Year of the Independence of the United States of America.
    JAMES BOWDOIN
    By His Excellency's Command.
    JOHN AVERY JUNr., Secretary
    _________


    These same words appear in almost every State's call for the Convention of 1787, and the command “for the soul and express purpose” was ignored and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, an entirely new federal government, and a number of specific powers were ceded to the new government being created in addition to the new government assuming state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War..


    The bottom line is, the second method under which our Constitution may be amended begins with a convention being called by the various States for the purpose of proposing “Amendments”. And with reference to the delegates chosen by the various States, they would, in the words of James Madison:


    " . . . 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 Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

    JWK

    Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-22-2016, 06:25 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-15-2014, 04:59 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-10-2014, 07:29 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-18-2013, 04:59 AM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-19-2013, 12:32 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •