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

[johnwk]

.
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.’ “

[Lenno]

A few pundits have been calling for this for decades; It is incredibly dangerous especially after the Globalists have seized so many state AGs, etc

[Oscar Wilde]

Other than to negate our current Constitution what would be the point?

Our gubermint, at all levels, is corrupt beyond recovery in any sense and has no regard of the current document.

Other than to give itself absolute rule over wee peepses, what could be the purpose?

O.W.

[Pastor Guest]

A Constitutional Convention would result in civil war.

[johnwk]

A few pundits have been calling for this for decades; It is incredibly dangerous especially after the Globalists have seized so many state AGs, etc

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.

[CaryC]

Other than to negate our current Constitution what would be the point?

Our gubermint, at all levels, is corrupt beyond recovery in any sense and has no regard of the current document.

Other than to give itself absolute rule over wee peepses, what could be the purpose?

O.W.

I'm with OW, the government does what it wants now regardless of the what the Constitution says. What would change after a new one?

Old Constitution, New Constitution are merely guidelines, not something set in stone.

[johnwk]

Old Constitution, New Constitution are merely guidelines, not something set in stone.

Your demeanor indicates you are not willing to help defend our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text. Why?


JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[Hoppalong]

I'm with OW, the government does what it wants now regardless of the what the Constitution says. What would change after a new one?

Old Constitution, New Constitution are merely guidelines, not something set in stone.

Well it might just make the wording more understandable in todays language and make it easier to interpret. This is not the same country as it was all those years in the past over 320 million now are in the USA. have to make things better for all concerned.

[CaryC]

Your demeanor indicates you are not willing to help defend our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text. Why?


JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

From your demeanor, I suspect you don't read very many of my comments, or you would know better.

So, to explain:

Whether we use the Old Constitution now in place, or provide a New Constitution, Congress doesn't now abide by it, nor should we think they will the future one.

According to CONGRESS all the Old Constitution is, is a general guideline, and not a document set in stone to be abided by. Again ACCORDING TO CONGRESS.

If anyone doesn't believe that to be the case, all they have to do is view comments, and actions concerning the 2A, by our esteemed duly elected, according to the Constitution (NOT, not when illegals, and dead people vote) Congressional leaders, on both sides of the aisles.

[Sherree]

Well it might just make the wording more understandable in todays language and make it easier to interpret. This is not the same country as it was all those years in the past over 320 million now are in the USA. have to make things better for all concerned.

You have absolutely no understanding at all of that which you speak.