From: GemStatePatriot.com March 1, 2014 by Rich Loudenback
Is it possible that ‘Great American,’ best intentioned talk show host and author Mark Levin is naïve, misinformed
or too trusting? Or is he too caught up in book sales to pursue full understanding of Article V of our
I’m reminded of Chief Justice Roberts of our US Supreme Court who was believed to be not only a good traditionalist
American but a staunch Constitutionalist ruling that Obamacare’s mandate is a tax instead of a penalty.
The Conservative world that understands our Constitution was and remains shocked.
Whereas most of Levin’s radio listeners consider him to be a feet-on-the-ground solid American conservative,
I felt the same kind of shock as I had at Roberts’ decision when I read that Mark Levin’s answer to most of
our problems can be corrected with a Constitutional Convention. We don’t have a Constitution problem; we
have an adherence and enforcement problem. Who is to believe the three branches would follow the law of
Of course, any traditional-thinking American agrees with all the issues Mark Levin mentions that are wrong
with our government. His enthusiasm for fixing them is to be appreciated. Unfortunately, his fix is flawed. La
There is no guaranty that 3/4 of the states will have a chance to ratify and that such a convention won’t
be a runaway convention!!!
Given the nature of the far left socialist and world global elitists’ extremely well organized ‘machine’ and its
many manipulations, a ‘Con Con’ probably would not go well for our constitutional republic. Our Constitution
and America as we have known it will probably end.
For every American who has read Levin’s book ‘The Liberty Amendments’ here is a reality check. If you’ve
bought into this ‘Fix,’ for the love of God, your country and your grandchildren, please read the following:
Idaho Falls, ID lawyer, and former Assistant Attorney General for the state of Idaho, the late George Detweiler
wrote specifically for State Legislators’ consumption: Quote – “Convention advocates have touted
the ratification process for Amendments as an adequate safety net for adoption of bad Amendments.
“They claim that there is no danger of a Constitutional Convention having the authority to change the
Constitution. All it can do is to propose Amendments. It cannot enact them they assert. They place total
reliance on a great safety net called ratification. Any Amendments proposed by a convention must go to
the States for ratification, they have erroneously claimed. Remember the ratification process was not
sufficient to stop the Runaway Convention which met in 1787.
“Fortunately, that convention gave us the superb document which we call The United States Constitution.
But the delegates were called to meet in 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. Yet it did not take the delegates long to assume upon themselves more powers
than what they had been given to scrap the Articles of Confederation and to propose a totally different
system of government.
“As they finished their work, they faced a serious problem. The Articles of Confederation were still in
full force and effect. Any Amendments to that document had to be ratified by the Congress as well as by
each and every one of the Legislatures of the 13 states.
“The Founders knew the politics of their day. It was impossible. To overcome the problem they agreed to
ignore the clear requirements of the law under which they operated. They re-wrote the rules so that the
chances of approval were improved. They provided that 9 states were sufficient to put the new
Constitution into effect, and since the Founders anticipated resistance to ratification in the State
Legislatures, they further changed the rules of ratification so that it could be accomplished in Special
Ratifying Conventions called only for that purpose.
“The new Constitution did not have to face hostile State Legislatures in order to be approved. While the
new Constitution has provided the world’s best government, it was nevertheless adopted in complete
disregard of the Rules of Ratification which were in effect.
“The point is simply this: the governing Rules of Ratification were totally ignored and disregarded once
in our history. Who can say with a straight face that it can never happen again? A new convention could
re-write the Rules for Ratification for a New Constitution just as it could re-write or eliminate any other
part of the Constitution as we now know it.
“The late Richard B. Morris, Professor of History Americus, Columbia University, in his comprehensive
history of the writing of our Constitution entitled ‘Witnesses At The Creation,’ wrote: ‘The delegates at the
convention were sober realists. They knew that the greatest battles lay ahead. The convention had
overstepped its instructions. It had scrapped the articles instead of amending them. Having defied
Congress, the convention decided to pursue what amounted to a revolutionary course by declaring the
ratification by nine states sufficient ‘for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so
ratifying the same.
“In other words, the constitution was being submitted directly to the people through Ratifying
Conventions. Not even Congress, which had summoned the convention, would be asked to approve its
work. Still, Congress, after acrimonious debate, and without endorsement or disavowal, did submit the
Constitution to State Legislatures, to be submitted in turn to conventions in accordance with Article 7 of
the Constitution, providing that once 9 states had ratified the Constitution, it would go into effect
between the affirming states.’
“Our Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, is not a failure. It works well when its provisions are observed and it needs no revision.
“Even under the current ratification procedures in Article V, if they are not changed by a newly sitting convention, a Legislature is not guaranteed to have a proposed Amendment come before it for ratification.
“Take the example of the 21st Amendment, which was adopted to repeal Prohibition. The last State completing
ratification was Utah, a State whose political and religious demographics made it the least likely to approve the repeal of Prohibition. There is little likelihood that the Utah Legislature would have approved the repeal if it had been given an opportunity to vote on it. But the Utah Legislature never got to consider the Amendment.
“Congress proposed the 21st Amendment and provided that it would be ratified by conventions assembled in the States for that purpose. Congress wrote the rules and created a process for selecting the delegates to Ratifying Conventions in each State in such a way that the delegates’ selection process was biased to favor the repeal, so that even in Utah the Amendment was approved.
“It was all done in accord with Article V Constitutional Procedures. This could happen again if a convention is called today.” – Unquote, George DeWeiler
NO QUICK FIX
Good representatives doing good representing should see to it that all is well. What has happened? ‘What’s a guy to do?,’ we ask at the overwhelming effects of mostly government caused screw-ups. To start with, recognize that most problems stem from government meddling, micromanaging, and regulating in areas in which they have no right, expertise, or accountable, management skills.
“It hasn’t been what Government did that made America great. It was what Government was prevented from
doing in our Constitution that made the difference. America became great precisely because the stifling effect
of too much government had been prevented. However, freedom in America was not totally restrained,
Americans overwhelmingly chose to limit their actions to moral codes such as the biblical Ten
Commandments. Personal morality and limited government; it’s the combination that characterized America
and made it the envy of the world.” – from the 29 minute video Overview of America – A MUST SEE!
It truly is ‘George Washington Time.’ We must hang in there and keep our objectives clear. Think of the
years of Washington’s defeats, with a ragged, sometimes shoeless army slogging it out in miserable winter
conditions, never giving up.
We must start educating ourselves and as much of our centers of influence as possible about the reality of
what America has been about: Freedom and Capitalism exuding from our wonderful Constitution. Our
problems have all come from not adhering to it and not enforcing it. If we haven’t done too well lately
following existing law, why again, would anybody believe results would be different with new Amendments?
The Constitution of the United States is the bones of what has become the greatest country man has known
created by wise men who had first-hand knowledge of real tyranny. Truly a new Con-Con would be a dream
come true for the machinating socialist and world government advocates who wish to finish fundamentally
changing America as we’ve known it for their own designs. Those that don’t understand their motives are
either deluded or the deluding.