Many are starting to question the extremely hard push from many so-called self-proclaimed conservative talk show hosts regarding Mark Levin’s push for a Constitutional Convention. To many of us, it seems that the only time these talk show hosts (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) join together in this manner is when there is a time to bring Americans into another unconstitutional war or when it’s time to persuade Americans that  they should support another self-proclaimed “conservative” candidate that believes that the U.S. Constitution is a living document that can be altered without regard to the laws of the Constitution.

So why is it that so many are being called on by self-proclaimed conservative leaders to promote a Con Con (also known as an Article 5 Constitutional Convention)? As cruel as they are, the leaders are often heard pulling on the heart strings of Americans by claiming that that this is a way to immediately put an end to things such as abortion, American flag burning, and an unbalanced federal budget. Mark Levin, leader of the push for a Con Con, pulls on the heart strings of Americans without warning them of the real dangers of a Constitutional Convention. He does this by telling Americans that the Constitution will only be reasonably amended because we can “trust” conservative Republicans to do what is right for us at an Article 5 Constitutional Convention.

No Such Thing In Article V As A “State Convention Process”

According to Washington Times columnist Michael Lotfi’s column titled “Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention: Why Levin Is Wrong“, Mark Levin is incorrect when he says that it authorizes a “state convention process.” This is because Article V only allows states to apply for Congress to call a convention. In other words, Congress gets to choose the delegates not the states. Lotfi told directly that “The idea that a Congress with a 5% approval rating could effectively choose delegates, which would protect our Constitution, is almost laughable.”

Since Congress is basically controlled by big pocketed lobbyists, most of us can conclude that it would likely be much worse for Congress to pick the delegates rather than our states. But for the purpose of blowing another hole in Mark Levin’s great idea, let’s assume that states get to pick the delegates rather than Congress.

As many of us know, most states have a majority in both state chambers of so-called conservative Republicans. Mark Levin has convinced Americans that the Republicans will basically control the “state convention process.” Although this sounds great to many members of the Republican Party, the vast majority of these Republicans can not be trusted to protect our constitutional liberties or most states would have proceeded long ago to exercise their constitutional right to nullify the NDAA, Obamacare, federal drug laws, and many other things. The majority of Republican state representatives and senators are Republican In Name Only (RINO) and are not the type of people we can trust at a national meeting where the giant risk would be that our whole Constitution could possibly be replaced or re-written.

Why Americans Should Be On High Alert

At this time, Mark Levin and the other so-called conservatives leading the Con Con effort have been able to convince far too many Americans into believing that a Con Con is a safe and easy way to solve most of the problems that America has. According to, this month Virginia, South Carolina and Florida became the first to pre-file an Application for a Convention of the States Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

As Americans, we should not forget our history. Long ago during the last Con Con back in 1787 the leaders of the state of Rhode Island were deeply displeased by the unlawful actions of the representatives that attended the Con Con and therefore hesitated to ratify the new Constitution. According to the rules before the 1787 Con Con, all of the states were supposed to agree to any changes made to the Constitution but this rule was simply not followed and so the rule was made at the convention that only 9 states needed to agree on the changes to the Constitution.  At the time, the leaders of Rhode Island considered withdrawing from the union and may have proceeded with doing so had it not been for the fear of facing world tyrants alone.

So will the rules be followed at Mark Levin’s Con Con? In the opinion of many, the rules would likely not be followed but that is not what most are concerned about. The fact of the matter is that entering into a Constitutional Convention at this time in America’s history would basically be like entering a game of Russian Roulette with the Constitution. The morality of our representatives needs to drastically improve before we can ever put our trust in them at an Article 5 Constitutional Convention.

What Should Americans Do?

Right now the best strategy to curing our country’s unconstitutional ills is not through a Con Con but through education, persuasion, and encouragement. Americans need to be better educated on how the U.S. Constitution as it is currently written can be enough for us to return to the glory days of living in a booming economy where civil rights are protected rather than taken away by our federal government.
Overall, there is no easy fix as Mark Levin wants Americans to believe and people need to be very skeptical of his intentions due to his lack of warning of what the dire consequences could actually be if a Con Con were held.  As Americans, we should all do ourselves a huge favor in the coming days and make as many phone calls as possible to our local leaders, state representatives, and national representatives to let them know that a Con Con is not in our best interest. Together, let’s tell Mark Levin and his so-called conservative pals that they will not tread on us any longer!

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Evan Mulch

Evan Mulch

Evan Mulch currently lives in Spartanburg, South Carolina. He received his Bachelors in Business Administration from Washburn University and he currently owns and operates the Mulch Tank Business & Leadership Center in Spartanburg. Evan is a liberty activist, business consultant, and serial entrepreneur. If you have any story tips please e-mail him at

Reality Check: Donald Trump May Be RIGHT on Birthright Citizenship!

Enter to win $500 of Gold or Silver from Anthem Vault!

Enter below or CLICK HERE for more details.

"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • Mike

    How about we just follow our current constitution as we should be doing, let’s give that a try first since it’s never really been done.

    • nailsin

      But what do you do when the Federal government doesn’t follow the constitution?

    • Pam Halliwell Capalbo

      I gave you a “down” vote. I did because neither the president or congress adhere to the Constitution. This country is in such deep and vast trouble that as far out as Levins idea may seem to some…it’s better than an armed revolution that may one day come. Ben Swann has turned out to be a huge disappointment with his OPINION. I come for real news.

    • LyingMediaScum

      Its bizarre that the clown above worries about the fate of the constitution when it is not being followed now. Newsflash: we don’t live in a constitutional republic.

      Its not like the political ruling class is ever going to follow it. Good luck getting a bunch of career politicians to suddenly care what it says in the constitution–while they are busy getting fat off of the teet of working citizens.

      Levin proposes amendments to the constitution to save the constitution, i.e. term limits for congress, the supreme court, etc. Because congress and the executive branch will never limit themselves, this needs to be done from the bottom up, via the article 5 process which bypasses congress.

      Clearly the clown who wrote this article (whoever he is) doesn’t even understand what is being proposed.

  • not_retired

    It’s a convention of the states to propose amendments. Not a Con Con. 2/3 would need to agree on the proposed amendments. 3/5 would have to ratify. You’re not going to get term limits without an amendment and US congress isn’t going to propose that. His book has a lot of good ideas.

  • Don

    Disagree – we are in the endgame to it’s time to roll the dice. Look at it this way – if the sheeple want a police state, the Constitution is moot anyway.

  • dking

    You are spreading mis-information ! Read the first 5 pages of his book !! :((
    He is not suggesting a Constitutional Convention, he is merely pointing out that the framers gave us an alternative way to amend the constitution if the rulling class would not allow things like term-limits and balanced-budget amendments.

  • john smith

    why do you push misinformation? Congress dose not get to choose delagates for all the states. each state has its own legislation that chooses how delgates are chosen

  • Jared Kuhlmann

    You do good things Ben Swann, but trying to prove Mark Levin wrong is just a bad idea. He is more knowledgable on the Constitution then you could wish to be. Stick to reporting on drones and your libertarian views on foreign policy. Us Conservatives will handle the domestic part of out beloved country

    • Jerry Harlan

      Says the commie

    • ssj12

      No thanks, we Libertarians would rather handle both domestic and foreign issues. That way things wont continue to screw up like they have for over a 150 years.

    • Cameron

      Since Levin is so knowledgable on the Constitution, why is he so ignorant on the 10th ammendment? He doesnt support nullification which is precisely the reason for the 10th ammendment. How much money would you put up for Ben to debate Levin on the Constitution?(without name calling and ad hominems) Ben is much smarter than you think. He graduated with a masters in history at only 16. Im quite sure he knows the Constitution far better than you think

      • Don’t be a Dick Morris

        Jared take a step back and realize you are supporting a progressive foreign policy.

  • Patty

    Disappointed you are misinforming the public. I thought you were better than this.

  • christ_bearer

    I’m confused here… Mark Levin is a die hard American for all good reasons.. for libertarians as well as Republicans… I’m a Ben Swann fan but I don’t get this article..

    • Don’t be a Dick Morris

      That is not accurate. Levin is those things until it matters. The guy viciously slandered Ron Paul for Romney, with racist, age and kook accusation, and omission of events, just like the Marxists he hates would.

      To understand why Levin is a dick, realize promoting a “progressive” foreign policy, was far more important to him than, getting rid of the “progressive” policies killing us, from with in. That’s phony conservatism.

      • christ_bearer

        Thanks for that info.. I’m a die hard Ron Paul fan and that makes me angry.. just like how the smucks like Hannity treated him during the poll interviews and claims to be a real conservative… I will look into Levin.. thank you!

        • Don’t be a Dick Morris

          Hannity was fair to Paul, and simply disagreed with the foreign policy. Rush tried to avoid the issue, but Levin, Medved and Dicky Morris showed Paul nothing but hatred. Ron Paul’s did himself no favors in selling it, either.

          • Qari

            Hannity was fair to Paul? Were we watching the same race?

          • Don’t be a Dick Morris

            Hannity had him on all the time, and agreed with him on most things. He didn’t trash him. Criticizing, and disagreeing with him on foreign policy is legit.
            Ron Paul’s finesse in selling anti war, to main stream conservatives was horrible.

          • Qari

            He called Paul nuts, said some of his claims were conspiracy theories, and demonized his supporters. Remember in the debates when he would not admit that Paul had won the debates and claimed just a small fraction of people were calling over and over? Remember when he failed to mention Paul in 2nd place during the race and mentioned the first and third? Hannity is nice when Paul was around.. but not when he wasn’t.

          • Don’t be a Dick Morris

            I didn’t say he supported Paul, just compared to Levin, and others Hannity was a sweet pea. Everyone omitted Paul’s victories, and the GOP voter fraud with the delegates. Everyone repeated he can’t win. Hannity sucks, he folded like a noodle on amnesty, when Obama was reelected, and made a fool of himself.
            I supported Paul, but his worst mistake was selling, victimized sympathy for Soviet backed jihadi terrorists, like Iran, and Palestine to main stream Conservatives. That is a really nutty strategy that hurt him, and made him look naïve, and unreasonable. That’s an angle that would only appeal to a Liberal drone.

          • Qari

            As an Iraqi Christian, let me just say, Ron Paul hit the nail on the head on those issues. I don’t think he is wrong with the idea that actions seen as aggressive, like building a base in Saudi Arabia or supporting regimens that are accomplices in what is happening to Palestine, lead to terrorist responses.

          • CincyChris

            How Ron Paul Was Cheated Out Of The Presidency –

          • Don’t be a Dick Morris

            Thanks, I’ve seen it.

        • curious1

          I was going to say the same thing it’s a shame that when someone has conviction that he’s treated like he’s crazy! I love Ron Paul and people bashed him all over the net during the race and if you said anything to the contrary you were labelled as a Paulbot! It was horrible! Other just wish they had his consistency and stictuitiveness!!

  • Gabe

    Regardless of one’s position on this issue, repeatedly replacing the term Constitutional Convention with the idiotic sounding “Con Con” is exceedingly lame and right up there with the popular usage of garbage expressions like ‘selfie’, ‘twerking’, ‘hashtag’, etc.

  • xlaurenstephens

    well, i guess im no longer a ben swann fan. i mean, calling me a so-called conservative? saying to be suspicious of levin for some unknown reason? yeah why dont we just alienate 5 million people – way to go. idiots.

    • Don’t be a Dick Morris

      Don’t be foolish, Levin is a back bencher, its just hard to see.

      • abcnewscansuckit

        Uh huh…who would you call a “front bencher,” stupid?

        • Don’t be a Dick Morris

          Some one who admits they were wrong.
          Someone who doesn’t pretend Rino’s are simply weak, incompetent, and out of touch.
          Some one who understands that supporting a Progressive foreign agenda, is supporting the Progressive Domestic one.
          Someone who doesn’t protect the Progressive Federal Reserve.

        • Don’t be a Dick Morris

          Some one who admits he was wrong, and rallies a big tent.

          • abcnewscansuckit

            And so the vagueness continues…

          • Don’t be a Dick Morris

            Its not vague, its quite simple. Levin was wrong, and instead of apologizing, and joining the only people who were accurate, he chooses to steer his sheep away from that, by marching off in his own direction. Keeping us divided, and distracted.
            What good is changing the Constitution if nobody listens to it now? What a waste of time, and sale of false hope.
            This is why he played stupid, and supported a prop candidate like Herman Cain, who was going nowhere, except to the polls for the GOP Rino nominee.

          • abcnewscansuckit

            This is where you tell the world what he was “wrong” about.

          • Don’t be a Dick Morris

            1. He was wrong about viciously slandering the only real Tea Party candidate, in support of a known Rino liberal, he is supposed to be fed up with.
            2. wrong supporting a Rino progressive foreign policy
            3 wrong for protecting the progressive Federal reserve.
            4. wrong for ignoring GOP voter fraud in the primaries
            5. wrong for defending and praising progressive Bush, at the same time as he act surprised over Rove, and all the progressive Rino’s he defends by pretending they are just weak.
            6. Totally wrong to continue ignoring, and refusing to support, include, or give credit to the real Tea party, and liberty movement that was way ahead of him. INSTEAD, he starts talking third party? LOL. and rallies on his own to change the Constitution that the government refuses to respect now, any way.
            I was a 3hr a day devoted listener. He was my favorite, but he is a back bencher, and Israel is what is most important to him. That’s right I said it

    • Cameron

      Levin has schooled you to be like him. If you cant debate someone, just call them names. Thats why he wont debate Tom Woods. After five minutes, it would be a name calling rant with no substance.

      • xlaurenstephens

        yeah except, im not debating anyone. im making a comment in the comments section on an online article.

        • Cameron

          But you are name calling. And from the comment above you posted, it seems violence is your means of achieving your objectives. He has made a good statist of you.

          • xlaurenstephens

            good grief, stop whining already. how annoying. oh my gawwwwwd, someone called someone an idiot! ahhhhhh!!!!!

          • Cameron

            Not whining. You are proving my point. Now continue to go on your shouting Levin rant.

          • xlaurenstephens

            youre whining alright.

        • nailsin

          So “Con-con” isn’t mockery?

          • Kurt P

            Is Comic-con? Def-con? Hum-Int? Sig-Int? Sec-Nav?
            Only to those LOOKING for offense.

  • J.J.

    Ben, I too am disappointed by your comments. I expected volumes of fear mongering in an attempt to derail this effort, but not from you. “Con Con”? Really?!! You’re usually a little more insightful and grown up in these vitally important matters. How about you discuss your reservations with Mr. Levin and get back with us.

    • LoneWiseMan

      Did Ben write this article or are you failing to read properly?

  • xlaurenstephens

    You know what is such a shame (and a joke) about the libertarian party (other than their official platform)? The fact that they have had FORTY YEARS to make something out of their own party, but instead, they chose to squander away all their resources trying to hijack a party they have NOTHING in common with, the GOP. Who does something stupid like that?? You guys coulda been legit, but you blew it.

    • Don’t be a Dick Morris

      The GOP is already hijacked, by Rino’s, who have way too much in common with the DNC, and have progressively worked together creating this mess. Your comment is so painfully useless, and you don’t even know it. You are a Dick Morris.

      • xlaurenstephens

        im pretty sure you picked up on the fact that im not a republican… right?

        • Don’t be a Dick Morris

          Saying they have nothing in common with Republicans would suggests otherwise, but being a Dick Durbin, or a Dick Ventura is just as useless.

          • xlaurenstephens

            was lifetime GOPer, now an independent with a third party. pretty simple. goodnite.

          • Don’t be a Dick Morris

            Congrats you just proved they have something in common, and that you want Hillary to be President. Stay Republican, and keep pushing liberty. We are winning, little by little.

          • xlaurenstephens

            yeah except you are talking to me like im some libertardian paul bot, which of course, i am not. so instead of insulting me with your silly rhetoric and implying that IM the reason the GOP keeps losing, maybe you can call up reince and tell him to run an actual REPUBLICAN/conservative. and no, that isnt romney and no that isnt ryan and no that isnt that idiot christie. problem solved.

          • Don’t be a Dick Morris

            It’s not my fault you are all over the place, and confused. Maybe you should spend less time trashing libertarians, and realize if you are Conservative, they are your only allies. If you prefer to help the Chris Christies, by defeating yourself, for them, you’ll get nothing but, the fat man.

  • Voluntarian

    Most of you for the “Con Con” seem to think you will have some type of personal input into this convention. I don’t mean to burst your bubble but the Republican’s and Democrats control the main political parties. How do you plan on controlling them?

    • xlaurenstephens

      firing squad maybe?

      • Don’t be a Dick Morris


    • James

      So you are happy with the status quo in Washington D.C.? If so, then you are part of the problem.

      • Voluntarian

        None of us are happy with the status quo in Washington D.C. However I am not living in Fanatacy land thinking that the establishment Republicans Rick Perry and David Dewhurst are going to send anyone but establishment Republicans to represent Texas.

        • James

          Agree. That’s why I voted for and support Senator Ted Cruz from our great state of Texas.

  • Joseph R. Wagner III

    I agree. If a Con con is called to order it would be disastrous for the nation for the very reasons you have given. The track record for conservative members of the government is abysmal. Just look as what was once considered a hopeful victory for conservatives in Chief Justice Roberts. His decisions, to me, represents a cold fact that it is not about left or right anymore but about freedom vs. tyranny. In the general ignorance of the population coupled with the propaganda used to confuse and manipulate them the best thing we can do is sound the alarm and wake more people up. Levin makes me shudder in revulsion along with the lot of the so called talking heads that do not represent real conservatism let alone wish to protect constitutional integrity in regard to original intent.

  • Joseph R. Wagner III

    I was in a conversation over this subject a few months ago with some friends here. The general consensus was that it would be best if we left the constitution alone in light of the current conditions of our populace and congressional decadence. More needs to be said about the dangerous conditions we are in and the consequences and possible consequences we could face if we open up Pandora’s box at this time.

  • Jay Skeetor

    Hey Ben. Now that you are finished demonstrating to us “so called conservatives” how stupid we are, let me fill you in a bit. Many of us have done our due diligence. We have been following Mark Levin, Hannity, Cruz, Palin, and Lee for a long time. We do our homework sir. The problem with you “so called conservatives” is that you think what you are doing works. Let me break the news to you sir. IT HASN’T BEEN WORKING HAS IT Keep following Reince Priebus and Carl Rove. They were convinced they had done everything right in the last election. Did you watch Fox? I did. They were floundering around like little children. Claiming a win when it was obviously a loss. Now you talk about Chris Christie who is a damn laughing stock moderate. What he is, is another LOSS SIR. More of the same huh. Moderate republicrat garbage. You “Republicans” are Democrat light and that is a recipe for loss. Your people, the ones you are the mouth piece for (its obvious). Tell your handlers that the retoric started way too soon. You are off the read list sir and into the douche bag list. WAKE UP MAN.

    • Brian Lewis

      Speak for yourself…Levin, Palin and Hannity don’t represent me.

      • Kurt P

        He absolutely must speak only for himself, as he is so wrong, so many times. It’s clear he is clueless about this site, when he references Preibus, Rove, and Christie…then displays further ignorance referencing “one good comment on gun control”, and wraps up with “Which constitution are you talking about? The one that isn’t being followed? You want THAT to continue?”…this last bit is SO telling as to his complete lack of thought on the matter. See, we HAVE a ‘Law of the Land’…but it’s not being followed…so the OBVIOUS solution is to…wait for it…CONVENE A CONVENTION TO CREATE NEW LAWS FOR THE LAND! Brilliant! Because of course…THOSE laws will be followed!
        “Buh, buh, buh, but MARK SAID…!”

    • Nathanael James

      You clearly have not followed Ben Swann for the last 3 years. Swann is far from a Moderate. It seems that you have read 2 articles from this site, and are making an assumption based on that. Just because this 1 article is critical of Levin does not mean that Swann and Co. are sympathetic to Rove, Christie etc. I promise you that!

    • LoneWiseMan

      Did Ben write this article or are you failing to read properly?

      • Jay Skeetor

        He supports it. He posts it. Who gives a damn who wrote it. Wake up.

  • Rich Grise

    There are two things I’d change about the Constitution. One, the 16th Amendment (the income tax) has got to go. The other thing I’d change would be Article II, section 1, about electing the president. That was written when the fastest form of communication was a person on horseback. We’ve got worldwide instant communication now, so that cycle could be shortened, and the Article and Section could say something like “the guy with most votes wins.”

    In either case, I’m running a write-in campaign on the Radical Libertarian Loon ticket:

  • Cozyrn

    Mark Levin is going to clean the floor with you.

    • Renny

      Total and complete annihilation by thought is awaiting this moron. Can’t wait, Mark!

      • Cameron

        Then why wont he debate Tom woods? I cant wait for Mark to accept. Its been over 2 yrs now since Tom has challenged him.

  • Leese12

    Another one that just does NOT get it ….. Sad. If you’re going to make a statement, the least you could do is know what the heck you are trying to break apart. Maybe you’re mind is just slow to comprehend? I think I’ll pass on your Liberty Forum in Houston Ben.. My brain needs more intellect than what I’m hearing from you.

  • James

    It’s called a convention of the states not a constitutional convention. It gives the states the right to address and approve an amendment to the constitution in the same way Congress addresses an amendment to the constitution and sends it to the state legislatures for approval. Your ignorance of the Constitution is obvious in this article.

  • Pam Halliwell Capalbo

    Wow, not coming back to this site anymore. I had thought more of you, Ben Swann. Like Cozyrn said…..Mark will clean the floor with you. BTW…way too much of lardass Christie on this page.

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      FAKE-conservative Levin has a pretty poor track record of “debating.” Tom Wood ANNIHILATED him and Constitutional Libertarians who are lucky enough to sneak through the “talk show” screeners, are either called names (Alinsky Rules) or hung-up on.

    • Seldom Seen Kid

      Thank you! I am unsubscribing to the email updates, also!!!

  • Chris

    First its not a “con con.” Its a convention to propose amendments to the constitution. He 1787 constitutional convention was a convention to propose a new governing document and do away with the articles of confederation. You are not comparing apples to apples here. And should any amendment be propsed that might be considereed liberal, it would still need 3/4 of state legislatures so the odds of a “runaway” convention is nil.

    • John Stephens

      Just FYI, from the Articles of Confederation.
      Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

      From the Act of Congress that ‘called’ the Constitutional Convention.
      “Resolved 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 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 & the preservation of the Union.”

      From James Madison’s letter to Turberville discussing the dangers of a convention:
      “2. A Convention cannot be called without the unanimous consent of the parties who are to be bound by it, if first principles are to be recurred to; or without the previous application of ⅔ of the State legislatures, if the forms of the Constitution are to be pursued. The difficulties in either of these cases must evidently be much greater than will attend the origination of amendments in Congress, which may be done at the instance of a single State Legislature, or even without a single instruction on the subject.”

      Article V Convention, Con Con, yes, they are one and the same.

      • David Guldenschuh

        Mr. Stephens, your citation to the resolution passed by the Articles of Confederation Congress is accurate but presented out of context. The resolution you cite was in fact a compromise resolution offered by Massachusetts which stated merely that “in the opinion” of Congress the convention should meet. A prior resolution from New York purporting to more directly call the convention had earlier failed. Moreover, the Articles Congress had no actual power to call a convention and certainly no power to limit it purely to proposing amendments. Further, the action of Congress came only after 7 states led by VA, NJ and PA had already called upon the other states for a convention for a broader purpose. Only 2 of the 12 states (NY and MA) which attended Philadelphia expressly limited their delegates to merely considering amendments to the Articles. Since the Articles required unanimous consent to be amended and since Rhode Island had repeatedly vetoed earlier efforts at amending the Articles and expressed its dissent with the Philadelphia Convention by refusing to send delegates, it was well known by the Founders when the arrived that the only solution to fix the federal government might be dissolution of the union and establishment of a new one under a new constitution. It was not directly discussed in those terms, but it was nonetheless well known that an entirely new document might be required.

        • John Stephens

          Can you provide actually cites and quotes please. Can you show where it was ‘well known’ that contradicts the language I cited above? That the convention, including the call for it, wasn’t under Article XIII? I mean, Congress did not ‘call’ every convention, right? So why this one? And it says, “for the SOLE AND EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF REVISING” the AOC. And can not the same arguments be used if a new document comes out of a convention? You know, the government is just too far gone? By your own acknowledgement, the ACTIONS of Rhode Island prove that the convention went beyond revising and ran away. Revisionist history will not change that.

          • David Guldenschuh

            The most prolific constitutional scholar in this area bar none is former Prof. Rob Natelson, now a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute. Here are a couple of cites worthy of reviewing: and

          • John Stephens

            Hmmm, my other comment was moderated away I guess? Let me try again.
            I’ve read Natelson. I even have his The Original Constitution book. I’ve read the writings of the multiple proponents of an Article V. I’m not asking for other’s opinions or interpretation. I want to read them for myself. You should know as well as anyone how lawyers like to twist things up. If you are going to provide hyperlinks, provide them to the actual writings that back up what you contend. Show where it was ‘known’ that a new document would be required. I can read and think for myself, I don’t need Natelson, you, or anyone else to do it for me. Thanks in advance.

          • David Guldenschuh

            Mr. Stephens, God bless you. Natelson cites the original sources in his articles. It seems fairly clear to me that we respectfully disagree on this matter. As a lawyer, I look to judicial precedent and my best interpretation of how a court is likely to address a matter based on that precedent. My analysis in not an effort to “twist things,” but is based on principled legal scholarship and analysis. My political analysis is based on the realistic lay of the political land and historical precedent under analogous situations, not political fantasies or unrealistic possibilities. My historical recitation of the Founders and what they intended is based on their actual writings and the placement of those writings in the proper political context. There is nothing I am going to say that will change your view of this situation and I doubt little you can say, based on what I have already read and with which I disagree, that is going to change mine. What I do think is important is that we recognize that both Article V, Nullification, state compacts, voter education, campaign finance reform, and term limits are important tools that we need to rein our runaway federal government. I would hope we could all work together instead of against each other to fight our real enemy – an oppressive federal government.

          • John Stephens

            Thank you for the kind words and God bless you also. “To disagree, one does not have to be disagreeable” as Mr. Goldwater stated. We both want the same thing, a return to constitutionally limited government. I do believe the Article V convention process is a tool we have, I just believe it to be very dangerous in today’s political environment. And no, I do not trust the lawyers or the courts. I agree with most of your last comment except the fact the real enemy is an oppressive federal government. The real enemy is the uninformed electorate. We The People are suppose to be the guardians of the Constitution, and have failed miserably. And while amendments may help, no amount of them will change that fact. As Madison says in Federalist 51, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?” And by looking at our overgrown federal government, the reflection is not pretty. And that sir, I believe, is the real enemy.

  • Dmgdriver

    “This is because Article V only allows states to apply for Congress to call a convention. In other words, Congress gets to choose the delegates not the states.”

    This statement is incorrect. The reason this clause was written into the Constitution is because the Federal Government is supposed to serve the states, not the other way around. The State legislators have the right to call a convention, and bring forth an amendment to the Constitution. By constitutional law, as long as 75% of the states legislatures are represented, Congress must allow the amendment to be heard, voted on and ratified.
    This is the control the people and States have on those in Washington.
    The whole premise of your article is wrong

    • James

      So many people today thinks the Constitution was written as a set of rules of how the people are to serve the federal government. These lackey’s have bought into this bs. The Constitution was written to restrict the federal government. Thus, Article V provides the steps for the state legislatures to propose and pass into law amendments to the Constitution. Congress’ involvement is purely clerical.

  • John Urban

    I think the mulch I use in my garden is more intelligent than the Mulch who wrote this junior high school-level essay.

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      Then the essay should be easy to refute, right?

  • gman68137

    “Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

    Just wanted to put this out for reference.

  • Tim

    I don’t think Mark Levin is afraid to debate anyone, so let’s squash that nonsense first.

    Secondly, I agree with Mark when he addresses the issue of a runaway convention. To loosely paraphrase, if we don’t have a little over 2/5 of states that would block something outrageous i.e. removal of the 2nd Amendment, we’re screwed anyway.

    Libertarians, look at it this way: if we give this a shot & it works, a lot of lives will be saved.

    If we keep on “persuading, engaging”, etc (I don’t have enough money to persuade someone to work when they make more sitting at home, do you?), the current course will lead us to levels of violence & horror that I don’t think even the most hardcore prepper is ready for. You may think you’re ready, most of you are not.

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      WONDERFUL! So, LAUGHABLY FAKE-conservative Mark Levin has agreed to debate Tom Woods! FANTASTIC! When? Where?

      • abcnewscansuckit

        Hold on a second…below you wrote that Tom Woods “ANNIHILATED” Levin in a debate. I know you libs are psychotics, but do you suffer from multiple personalities too, Sybil?

        • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

          1. FAKE-conservatives who can NEVER, EVER debate… will name-call. You have utilized Levin’s Alinsky tactics PERFECTLY. Constitutional Libertarians are a particular… THORN, for the FAKE-conservatives, so they will ALWAYS awkwardly attempt to position them as “libs.”

          2. Mark Levin ATTEMPTED “debate” from a distance with Woods, and failed miserably. A face to face would be epic… IF Levin would ever accept the challenge.

    • Cameron

      I will ask you the same as I asked another below: why wont Levin debate Tom Woods? His excuse is because it would make him “famous”. Thats an elementary excuse. So where is the nonsense?

      • abcnewscansuckit

        Have the balls to call Levin yourself and ask him. He’s said that he will address this dipschit’s column next week. Call in then, genius.

        • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

          I’ve tried… but, unfortunately I am a Constitutional Libertarian Tea Partier “Paulbot”… I can NEVER get through his screeners. Wise move on Levin’s part.

      • Tim

        Why doesn’t Mark like spinach? Why is his favorite color not lavender? Why won’t he debate some guy named Tom Woods? The answer to all of those is: I don’t know.

        Are Tom Woods & Tiger Woods related? That may have something to do with it. Next time I run into Mark, I’ll get the answer & report back.

        Tom Woods? Talk about a Red Herring…

        • Cameron

          Tom woods is Levins intellectual superior. Thats why he wont debate him. He attempted to refute Woods. Woods responded and Levin wont respond or debate him because ge knows woods is far beyond his intellectual ability, whether it be history, Constitution, or economics. He has a Dr. in history. He has 11 books you should pick up. He is the man behind Liberty Classroom. The list goes on of his credentials.
          If Woods is such a nobody then why did Levin bother to respond to him once? I suppose its the same reason Krugman wont debate Bob Murphy. They cant lose credibility with the sheeple.

          • Kurt P

            Thing is, Cameron…even IF Levin debated in neutral territory (of course all these Levin fans want US to call into the Levin Show – where Levin controls the outcome), and Woods knocked down every one of Levin’s points…the nature of the psyche – and specifically how cognitive dissonance works – would prevent most every one of these Con-conning Levinites from recognizing or accepting that occurrence. A portion of them would say “Oh that Tom Woods…he was one of those Ron Paul guys…he’s a kook…”, *poof* debate results forgotten…and then others would say, “Yeah…Tom Woods sounds like some Ivy-league intellectual…” *poof* “I heard he once got a parking ticket in Canada, that he never paid – HE’S AN INTERNATIONALLY WANTED MAN!” *poof*
            Nope…Levin can’t lose here, because he can say “You’re welcome to come on my show…” and that’s good enough for fans.

        • David Guldenschuh

          I am an attorney. I’ll debate Mr. Woods anytime, anywhere.

          • Buck

            I’ll go out on a limb here, but my money is on Mr. Woods. Interesting comment though. Very bold.

          • Kurt P

            I think those who observed the debate would be the “winners”.

          • David Zuniga

            An attorney? Well, I wouldn’t hold that against you while Dr. Woods cleaned your clock.

        • David Guldenschuh

          I could not debate him on the merits of Nullification. He is clearly my superior there. Moreover, I believe that Nullification is an important part of our effort to rein in our runaway federal government. On the merits and legality of an Article V convention, however, I feel very comfortable speaking to that issue. I have no dog in any fight or disagreement between Dr. Woods and Mr. Levin.

  • Jeff

    Please cal into the show next week and discuss with Mark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • blockchords

    What do you all want to ask Mark Levin about that Tom Woods says (other than article v)?

    We can all compare them ourselves.

    – BC

  • Kurt P

    Reading through the comments, I can’t help but laugh. So many dimwits, but I have so little patience.
    First off, geniuses…Ben didn’t write this article, so your repeated gripes referring to him as though he had written it is confusing. Beyond that, NO WHERE did I see any reference to Ben calling out Levin to debate, yet there are many references to that too.
    I think I know what’s going on here. Levin – and/or his fans – were tipped to this article critical of their position, and being the good little disciples that they are, clicked over here to carpet-bomb the comment section…and to hell with any actual thought.
    Of course, if they were guilty of thinking with any great frequency, they wouldn’t be Levin’s lackeys to begin with.
    And bitching about calling it Con-con? Are you freakin’ kidding me?
    You people the most thin-skinned, memory-selected whiners I have ever seen. Talk about reaching. ALL MY ADULT LIFE, I have heard (when the subject has come up – rarely) “Constitutional convention” shortened to “Con-con”. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE, and is non-judgemental – except on the RECEIVING end of the communication.
    But again, you guys don’t really have much going on ‘up there’, so you take your offenses where you can find them, I guess.
    By all means, you go ahead and keep following your pied-pipers like Levin and Limbaugh and the (R) establishment…they have led you this far down the path to slavery, why stop now? Go ahead and double down…push for a CON-CON, after all, Mark Levin has said nothing bad could come of it, so hey…why bother thinking about it? Because sheesh…Levin said those other things – and dammit – you agreed with him then…so…
    But tell you what…those of us that have had our fill of your empty suit personalities with their righteous indignation will continue to support the critical thinking efforts of guys like Ben.
    There were plenty of us during the last election cycle that told you how it had to be, if you wanted to have any hope of fixing what is wrong with America. But you – in your infinite wisdom – trusted the same party hacks, pulling the same dirty tricks…and got the SAME STINKING RESULTS! And now, frustrated by your impotence, stinging from continued betrayal, and misled by your chosen ‘wise-ones’, you want to exercise your own version of a ‘nuclear option’.
    Problem is, those damned (l)ibertarian types are pissing all over your sacred cows…and who are you to fight off your cognitive dissonance?
    No – better to give into it – and go and throw hissy-fits over at, and viola! All better! Now you can sleep tonight, knowing that you have defended your (untenable) position…

    • John

      I follow Mark Levin regularly. And Mark Levin is on vacation. There was nothing said that “tipped” anyone. I resent your additional comments.

      • Kurt P

        Listen…I’ve been around the block a time or two, and I have seen what one tweet, forum entry, or Facebook posting can trigger, and I recognize it here.
        I did NOT say it WAS Levin, I said Levin (which of course would include any staff, publicists, etc.)AND/OR HIS FANS.
        Your ‘resentment’ is duly noted – and appreciated.- it was my intent to offend the sensibilities of as many Levin fans, dyed-in-the-wool (R)s, Ditto-heads, and similarly afflicted delusionals as I could with my comments.

        • John

          So, you’ve been around the block and so have I…we’re Can you elaborate on how those you wish to offend are delusional? I would really find this interesting.

          • Kurt P

            Certainly not all – but many – of those I listed, are locked into ‘binary’ thought processes…false paradigms, false premises. They ‘know what they know’, and no further open mindedness is necessary or palatable.
            The ‘cult of personality’ cuts both ways, and affects those locked in a false ‘left/right’ paradigm equally. How many times have we all referenced the appeal/following of Obama as ‘cult of personality’, but failed to recognize it in our own processes?
            By and large, America is intellectually lazy – or perhaps more accurately, intellectually fatigued – but in any case, they have chosen to stay locked into the paradigm because it’s easier than smashing it and figuring out a more correct way of thinking…a more realistic assessment of the status quo. In choosing to remain in this mindset, they long ago removed the need or opportunity to think critically…that may cause dissonance in one’s mind. So, as a function of this short-circuiting of the thinking process, early on we identify those perceived as favorable to – or oppositional to – our biases, and lock on. After that, we have given permission to our brains to remove and/or bypass filters that may alert us to bad ideas, were they to come from other sources. Permission is also given to ‘not think’, as the one we have (perhaps subconsciously) placed in an intellectually superior or more knowledgeable position has already done that for us. This leaves us open to being misled. Even if that ‘misleading’ is only to the extent of us ‘spinning our wheels’, it none the less works against us.
            In fact, a large part of the Hegelian Dialectic depends on that.
            I once attempted to create a game based on this concept…it was to be called “DIALECTIC” with of course, a Cyrillic letter “E” and a hammer and sickle as the “C” – real edgy and profound, eh? Anyhow, the basic premise was based on how left vs. right as played in our politics was a false dichotomy. Players would be faced with political/operational decisions in running their country, based on arguably typical positions of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. While they would not be labeled as such, they would be seemingly in opposition to each other. Short version is…based on those choices, the end of the game was the same…totalitarianism…the difference was the speed at which you got to that point.
            Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis
            It’s easy to game a dichotomy.
            So, yes…(R)s, dittoheads, Levinites, Obamanistas,…ALL DELUSIONAL…because they all are complicit in their own enslavement, but their minds won’t allow for it to be considered.

          • John

            You’re just full of $hit…aren’t you?

          • Kurt P

            Well…I made the honest effort to explain my position, shed light on my comments, and provide a basis for an exchange that would rely on the intelligence and/or integrity of those who would choose to take issue with my position.
            You, however…in your infinite wisdom, and mustering the peak of your intellectual capabilities…come here and pull what amounts to putting a bag of poop on my doorstep, lighting it, ringing the doorbell, and then running away and hiding behind the neighbors shrubs. as a response to my effort.
            So, dimwit…I MAY BE full of crap…but you apparently are too lazy, dumb, and scared of being exposed as such, to even mount a counter-argument to my crap.
            In short – you ARE anecdotal evidence of the legitimacy of my positions.
            …and for that, I thank you.

          • Kurt P

            I almost didn’t even bother to further explain my “delusion” comment, but I made the mistake of thinking John was honestly interested (since he said he was), AND that he might be capable of hearing it and responding in kind.
            Obviously I was wrong on both counts.
            And this is the problem we face when we engage with people bound and determined to NOT think.
            These folks are allowing themselves to be led down a blind alley…and demonstrating the truly fractal nature of universe, they attempt to lead others down similar blind alleys.

  • Soulo_Jacob


  • nctenther

    Good grief, what good would a Con Con do anyway? Even with new amendments SCOTUS would ignore them…

  • cqarhs7disqus

    Mark Levin would like to personally debate you live on his radio station, but I somehow doubt you have the courage to accept. Your ignorance of the constitution is breathtaking. You are no scholar, just a charlatan who hides behind the protection of the net. Be a man and take Levin’s challenge.

    There is a saying: “better people think you an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

  • disqus_E4Vdp7qC06

    Is Karl Rove paying you to write this garbage?? You types are all brave on paper making up stuff you obviously know nothing about. How about you call Mark and have a debate on this with him…. after all, it sounds like it is Mark that you have a problem with. So Evan, let us hear in your next story, that you are going on Marks show to discuss this with him.

    • James

      Karl Rove is really sharp. Look at his predictions for the last presidential election. He is so far from the real grass roots he hasn’t a clue what is really going on in America.

      • disqus_E4Vdp7qC06

        Exactly my point and if you are on the right side, we have to be very careful of the plants that are pretending to be conservative… Like the so called libertarian that ran in Virginia. They are everywhere so we need to do our own homework!

  • 10Aguy

    How on earth does Levin propose that adding new laws to the towering pile of laws already on the books – most of which are, at present, utterly ignored by the Feds – would have even the slightest positive effect?

    I listened to Levin quite regularly for about a month, then heard about his shameful treatment of Tom Woods (a man who is his intellectual/moral superior in every way) and dismissed him as the Useful Idiot he is.

    • Kurt P

      These same folks though, will CORRECTLY make the observation in the defense of the Second Amendment (to the EXISTING Constitution), that if EXISTING LAWS were properly enforced, no further infringement of the 2nd Am. would be necessary.
      Somehow, though…we need to have a convention…RE-STATE, or otherwise reaffirm the 2nd Am (and every other worthwhile aspect of the Bill of Rights)…and then – AND ONLY THEN – we will be safe from loss of liberty, because THIS TIME WE REALLY MEAN IT!

  • John

    Evan Mulch, I encourage you to discuss your views with Mark Levin. And I mean on the show.

  • JD

    A “think tank,” eh–that’s what you operate, Evan? You sound more like a rich metrosexual that has zero military service, zero actual private sector industry experience and that were it not for mommy and daddy’s money, you’d be another Sandra Fluke asking everyone to support his hobbies.

    I agree with the others who suggest, strongly, that you give Levin a call and discuss this with him. He’ll tell you what you’re full of in regards to what you think you understand about a document that you’ve not lifted a finger to defend but rather attack those who have via your little “unconstitutional wars” that you whine about.

    You’re exactly the kind of person who that when they tell me “thank you for your service,” I look at and ask, “And where were you when I was over there?” because I know it’s an “obligatory formality” for assholes like you. I lost a lot of brothers in these “unconstitutional wars” you bring up. Fact is, you’ve never been there. You have no idea what was going on on the ground in some of those places. Liberty and freedom is ALWAYS worth fighting for and defending for those who want it but do not have it.

    And so is our Constitution.

    • Kurt P

      So Evan “sounds like” he has no military service (and “sounds like” a few other things as well), and this is to be considered a negative, yes?
      And Mark Levin will school Evan that Evan’s not lifted a finger to protect (presumably by serving)?
      And Evan is mistaken if he refers to “unconstitutional wars”?
      I won’t challenge your obvious psychic abilities, but the rest…
      In which branch did Mark Levin serve? Oh…he didn’t? But he “supports” the troops you say? Like how? Oh…by never missing an opportunity to spread democracy around the world, or by never meeting a war he didn’t like, or couldn’t justify? O.K., so he’s a ‘chickenhawk’? Got it.
      And while Evan “sounds like” he was privileged – and that’s a no-no – Mark Levin actually WAS, and that’s hunky-dory. Evan writes an article skeptical of tampering with the Constitution, but his opinion is worthless because he “probably” never worked in the real world, yet Mark Levin’s closest brush with “working man” life was what? A stint a Texas Instruments? The guy’s been a political hack/lawyer HIS ENTIRE ADULT LIFE (age 19) – but HIS opinion on a Con-con is beyond questioning?
      To sum up…a privileged, chickenhawk, life-long political hack, who supports unconstitutional incursions into foreign sovereign states under false pretenses and puts you in harms way and is effectively responsible for the death of your fellow patriots not to mention countless innocent civilians in those sovereign states…says “Trust me, I’ve thought this out…let’s open Pandora’s Box…there’s nothing that will go wrong.”…and he is to be listened to. BUT, this Evan clown, who ‘sounds’ like a whole lot of unflattering things – some of them identical to Levin’s ACTUAL condition – has the audacity to be skeptical, and not only is he not to be listened to, but his ‘man-card’ will be revoked, and we should spit in his face?
      As an aside…the answer to the question you pose regarding the whole “Thank you for your service…”, were it put to me… and in that way…would have had something to do with your wife, or maybe your mother…either way, Mark Levin will tell you about asking open ended questions like that…just sayin’.

    • JSEAY

      You sound like a flaming asshole when you attack the author personally and don’t offer any arguments against his claims. Maybe you should take a couple of days to cool off before you post?

    • Justsomeguy151

      JD, you NEVER served America, you statist POS fraud. You served corporate masters who told you who to kill because it would make them the most profit or advance their agenda. A REAL patriot would recognize the REAL terrorists and oust our (s)elected criminals. You? You’re just a brainwashed dumbass who STILL has no clue who the enemy truly is.

      • Kurt P

        He’s angry because of the hardships he had to endure. He’s angry because good men died. And he resents those who haven’t had to suffer what he has.
        All good and valid reasons to be pissed….
        …but he’s pissed at the wrong people.
        However…his mind must protect it’s constructs…those being; His service was patriotic, his nation’s cause was just, he did not suffer and his friends did not die over money and power – it was for ‘democracy’, he did not participate in the killing and torture and maiming of innocents – he was rooting out terrorists and making rogue states pay for 9/11, his service entitles him to a superior opinion.
        His brainwashing was largely accomplished before he ever set foot in the military…now it’s just on auto-pilot.

    • David Zuniga

      “JD”, why are you so cowardly as to not even use your name or photograph here, tough guy?

      That anonymous bluster is just one example of the Neanderthal mindset engendered in the service of a demonstrably un-American industry.

      Here, you raving fool — read what the highest-ranking generals said of your industry, and what it has done to this Republic and our Constitution. Then come back here to apologize, or go peddle your gamecock swagger somewhere else. North Korea needs folks like you, I’d wager.

    • David Zuniga

      You sorry coward — why don’t you use your full name and photo, if you’re such a tough guy? I’ll wager that you’ve never even *read* the U.S. Constitution; unless you were in the U.S. Navy, you were VIOLATING it by “serving” the corporate interests that have run U.S. foreign policy since the late 19th century.

      Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12-16 are the only sections of the Constitution in which We The People authorize armed force. We ONLY authorize a full-time Navy. All other national defense — with officer training and logistics support of their State legislatures — is to be carried out by We The People ourselves, in Citizen Militia, WITHOUT PAY.

      We, the able-bodied citizens of America ourselves, mustered in our Citizen Militia units as we did since before the Constitution even existed — are also not supposed to expect free education, lifetime benefits, of the embarrassing, North Korean-style chants, “thank you for your service”, wherever they go.

      Why do you expect to be thanked for operating to your own benefit yet in direct violation of the US Constitution, turning the world into our enemies, for the bottom line of American corporations with overseas operations? Idiot.

      It’s unfortunate that this blog doesn’t allow URL links; but to those who want to learn the truth about the military industry — as told by USMC General Smedley Butler, US Army General Dwight Eisenhower, and former West Point instructor and author Andrew Bacevich — go to our AmericaAgainNow (dot com) website, then to our blog, then scroll down to a monograph entitled ‘Support Our Troops’.

      The proud ‘military man’, unless he is U.S. Navy, has no constitutional leg to stand on; he is an enemy to that supreme law, and to the interests of the sovereign States of this Republic.

  • Zach Mitchell

    How can you play Russian Roulette with a Constitution that has been completely disregarded by our current Executive, Congress, and Supreme Court? Its like you are saying that the Constitution, as currently written is a law that is actually being followed by our federal government. What the amendments would do, if you had actually read the book (and it is clear that you haven’t) is to allow the states to legally return power to the people, the states, and the law, instead of the runaway federal government. But to Lofti’s points: 1.) Lotfi says in his column, “Levin says that Article V authorizes his
    ‘state convention process.’ It does not. Article V only allows states to
    apply for Congress to call for a convention. Only Congress can call a
    convention, not the states.” Lofti is wrong, in reality Article 5 reads,
    “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
    States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” Notice the
    wording, the Congress “SHALL call a convention,” this is not their
    choice, it is required of them. 2.) Lofti writes, “Because Congress
    calls the convention, it is Congress that appoints the delegates, not
    the states.” I am not sure where Lofti comes up with the idea that
    Congress gets to appoint delegates. In fact, I cannot find anywhere in
    the Constitution that it is left up to Congress to choose delegates.
    Historically, delegates for any purpose have been elected popularly by a
    state or appointed by a state’s legislature. I cannot come up with one
    historical example of the United States Congress choosing delegates –
    the word “delegate” itself implies that these persons must be delegated
    power from the state they represent, if they all represent the federal
    government, they would be delegates of that one federal government not the state or the people from that state, in which case there would be no need for Article 5 considering that Congress is already convened; thus, they must have been talking about a different body of delegates. 3.) Lofti further
    writes, “The risk for a runaway convention, by which our current
    Constitution could be completely shredded, is of paramount concern.”
    This is completely ludicrous. A runaway convention is of no concern,
    considering that it must be, “ratified by the Legislatures of three
    fourths of the several States.” Lofti has obviously has not studied or
    understood the history of the United States or its Constitution, or the
    English language for that matter.

    • David Valdez

      Yup. The states and the People have the authority to pick the delegates. Article 10 is clear as day for us to verify such a thing. Under Article V, only Congress can choose the method of Ratification, since there are two. Amendment X
      — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
      nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
      respectively, or to the people.”. We have not had a Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments, ever. I am not sure where Lofti got the delegate spiel from. He’s either mistaken or making it up.

      • Bob

        So, how are we doing the the 10th Amendment applied to preserving the rest of the Constitution?

    • BigIron8

      Our whole government has been corrupted by the PTB/NWO. Why would anyone expect them to do “their” Constitutional duty when they violate it on a regularly recurring basis?

  • David Valdez

    This is inaccurate. Congress does not have authority to pick the delegates. Article V — “The Congress,” — that is the House and Senate –“whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution,” — “or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,” — That is, the states may apply to Congress to call a convention; and Congress shall call such a convention when two thirds of the states applications are received. Notice that there was not any break in the statement so we do in fact still need Congress involved. Furthermore, it states — “which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution” — That means, either the House/Senate may propose amendments themselves OR the states may propose amendments through a Constitutional Convention. As far as selecting delegates, Congress does not actually have the authority to select the delegates to the conventions. They only have authority to select the mode of Ratification for the Amendments proposer – either by Ratification by the State Legislatures or by Conventions – See Article V– “as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress”. The selection of delegates are reserved to the States and the People because it is not specifically authorized in the Constitution. See Amendment X — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”. End of story.

    • Bob

      Practically speaking, if Congress decides to pick the delegates anyway who is going to stop them? The states who already make the call? 200 years ago the states were strong. Today they are weak. Who do you honestly believe is going to run the show. Answer: neither. The special interest are …

    • Kurt P

      Ironic and telling that you use the 10th as rationale for why you could exercise control over THIS process, but cannot use it as an ALTERNATIVE to this process.
      Once again, Con-conners think that they will miraculously be empowered by the Constitution at the very point they seek to CHANGE the Constitution…and what is the reason for opening a convention?
      Answer; Because the Constitution has been abandoned/disregarded.
      Circular logic at it’s finest.

      • BigIron8

        We first need to “re-institute” the Constitution (1787/89/91) that we already have before we make ANY changes in it.

    • Leek

      Forget the Constitution at this point — it’s time for a new Declaration of Independence.

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …

      “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      We’re in post-Constitutional America already.

    • BigIron8

      Somehow, I do not see the PTB allowing the PEOPLE their proper “offices”!
      The PTB/NWO whose “minions” actually run our government will act to interfere with the process in favor of even further “enslavement” of the “people”!

  • Justsomeguy151

    What is w/ all the staist idiots fellating that db Levin? I just flushed something more intelligent and patriotic than him. Levin is a neo-con scumbag thru and thru.

    • James

      Your leader Hillary Clinton is calling you. She needs your support in 2016.

      • Travis Bickle

        LOL. You’re so blind and ignorant: you couldn’t find your ass with both hands and Mark Levin’s penis guiding you to the hole.

      • Justsomeguy151

        LOL so because I can recognize scum, I want to vote for them too? OK

  • xlaurenstephens

    It is obvious that the authors not only did not read the book, but apparently took this gossip from the john birch society who first mistakenly slammed levin for wanting a con con. Here is a video with levin speaking directly on the subject. he is not calling for a constitutional convention!

    • James

      W are calling for a convention of the states which is given to the states by article V of the Constitution. The leftists and rino’s would have you believe that only Congress can present and pass amendments to the Consitution. Didn’t any of you take Government courses in school? This is basic stuff people.

      • BartBotatot

        Talk about basic….what ails you?
        The question is who selects the DELEGATES to the article V state convention…not everyone can go to the convention there genius, this is basic stuff. Is there a popular vote for delegates? Are they chosen by the state legislature? Or chosen by our current federal representatives?

        The devil is in the details so be careful what you wish for…

        • BigIron8

          Today, there is little difference between the Federal or State with respect to their “actions” on behalf of the “people”.
          The “people” must choose via their “offices” as the PEOPLE.

  • bullib

    It seems Ben Swann, just like the entrenched ruling elite, fear they have uncovered a real threat to the status quo, and begin to reflexively project to defend it. His argument assumes a) the federal government is not already un-moored from the Constitution, b) the entrenched are the only ones empowered to fix it, and c) it’s a “GOP” movement. All of which are fallacious. For a government that is supposed to be “for the people, and by the people”, there sure does seem to be a lot of fear by the entrenched and their pundits to attempt a return to the concept. I wonder why?

  • dlmullan

    Good God, people. Are you listening to yourselves? This discussion went straight into a toddler’s mindset without fail. Who cares about Mark Levin, Limbaugh, or any of these talking heads? They are paid shills to make sure you are outraged but not given enough impetus to do anything about it. Stop listening to these idiots and become adults. Immature people are sheep that do nothing but expect change. Evil only flourishes when good men do nothing… and you pretty much are fitting that bill arguing with each other instead of demanding change, expecting change, and well, going out and making change. YOU are the change you want to see in the world. So why aren’t YOU doing it?

    • David Zuniga

      You’ve just recited the thesis of this analysis of the ‘conservative talk’ industry…

    • David Zuniga

      I *am* doing it; our team at AmericaAgain! has been working pre-launch for six years on the most promising constitution-enforcement mechanism in history.

      It will only function as designed if a critical mass of citizens join up, so that we can bring the AmericaAgain! Indictment Engine(TM) into action in a tactical tranche, against six members of Congress in two (demographically disparate) states simultaneously. This takes time and money; we’re working on it!

      As for Levin, he is just one of the minor lights in a constellation of snake-oil peddling called ‘conservative talk’. The performers in this cruel, mercenary industry daily excite their audience’s limbic systems and finally harden their ethical minds into cynical, inert lumps.

      It’s unfortunate (and inefficient) that this blog does not allow the insertion of links; but to read my analysis of the talk radio industry, go to our AmericaAgainNow (dot com) website, click on the ‘blog’ tab, and scroll down to, ‘Is Conservative Talk Our Poison?’.

  • Buck

    I have been reading through some of the below comments and find it difficult to believe that some people are actually comparing the intellectual prowess of Mark Levin to Tom Woods. It is obvious that many people are not very familiar with Tom Woods. I have listened to Mark Levin for many years and only been following Tom Woods for the last three or four (I subscribe the “Liberty Classroom”), but I can tell you that there is no comparison. It is like comparing a WWF wrestler to Mohammed Ali.

    • Cameron

      Then I will ask you the same thing: why wont he debate him? Why are you subscribing to Liberty Classroom if you can get more intellect from Levin? Comparing a boxer to a show that is scripted in not a good comparison. On the other hand Tom doesnt have to name call or scream childishly to win anything. So maybe youre right. There is no comparison. One is a statist and the other anarcho-capitalist. One has consistent principles, the other makes up principles to suit his neocon agenda. What are the neocons principles?

      • Buck

        I should have been more clear. I agree with you. In each of my statements, the former was the “buffoon” and the latter the professional. It seems obvious that Tom Woods is in a league of his own when compared to a radio shock jock like Mark Levin.

    • David Zuniga

      Just be clear that Woods is the professional, and Levin the buffoon.

  • David Zuniga

    Evan, I’m afraid you’ve been far too generous to Mr. Levin. As I explain in this monograph, the newly-hatched conservative talk industry (thus Mr. Levin’s entire raison d’etre with respect to his Levin-branded radio show) is more destructive to constitutional conservatism than is Progressivism’s bankrupt narrative.

    David M. Zuniga, P.E.
    Founder, AmericaAgain!
    Author, ‘This Bloodless Liberty’

  • David Guldenschuh

    For a reasoned response to Mr. Mulch’s commentary above, please see:

    • Chris D

      that was good

    • Kurt P

      I read your piece. While it makes legitimate points as to the process and precedent, it also opens up multiple other ‘cans of worms’ that we could go round and round over.
      -The same state apparatuses (and apparatchiks) that perpetrated fraud and manipulation nationwide during the last election would be the ones administering this.
      -The majority requirements you cite may in fact limit the possibility of a ‘run-away convention’ process…but one could just as effectively argue that those same high bars would make it impossible to ever come to a sufficient consensus to achieve any meaningful reform. Your own stipulation as to the divided nature of the several states and even the divisions within those states makes this abundantly clear argument.
      -You – like others here – continue to use the existing founding documents to bolster your argument as to how this process must occur, yet the whole reason you WANT this process to occur is a prolonged, repeated departure AWAY FROM adherence to these documents…have your cake AND eat it? This point spawns further sub-arguments then, based on if we can agree that we either CAN use the existing Constitution, or if we agree that we CANNOT (as in the case of it being trampled).
      I will stipulate as to your technical explanations and rationale regarding a state convention process…IN SO FAR AS THAT ARGUMENT DELVES. It does NOT address the extended likely realities that would occur based on your own set-up. It does NOT address the inconsistencies of logic that occur when citing law as support for an action, when the law cited is the one to be ‘fixed’ by that action.
      It seems to me, that this would be -AT BEST – a monumental waste of time, energy, and resources…yet another blind alley that we are led down, in order that we feel we are doing ‘something’, and that we still are in a position to do anything.
      Wheel spinning. Controlled opposition.
      On the more negative outcome side, folks get whipped up to have this convention…succeed at getting it…and then the apparatchiks begin doing what they do – and thesis/antithesis/synthesis – *POOF* we end up not reaffirming our founding principles, but dashing them on the rocks of history.
      So ultimately, your argument does nothing to sway me.

      • David Guldenschuh

        Well Kurt, that’s what makes the country great. Two people can look at the exact same circumstances of our government and respectfully disagree. I see no opportunity for a convention to negatively impact the country. It is possible that a convention could meet and amendments be proposed which never get ratified. Indeed that is a likelihood as to a multiple amendments convention, if one ever occurs. But I suspect that you underestimate the power such a convention would have on focusing the usually tuned out average voter on the very real problems facing our future and the need to address them now. So, we just respectfully disagree with each other. Hope you find a mechanism that is more likely to bring about change than any other that I have discovered to date. We need to use every mechanism possible or we’ll devolve into a democratic/socialist state sooner than later. Happy New Year my friend.

        • Kurt P

          Happy New Year to you too, David

        • BigIron8

          You have far more faith in the Government School educated, media dumbed-down majority than I do.

      • BigIron8

        What must first occur is the full acknowledgement (re-institution) of our “proper” Constitution of 1787/89/91. This will not occur unless the “people” become the PEOPLE and re-occupy their “proper” offices. To be remembered is that “The government is best that governs least!” KISS.

    • gman68137

      Ben ought to bring you on to his writing staff. Much better written than some material of late. Thanks for looking into this and sharing. Happy New Year.

  • Chris D

    Written By David Guldenschuh

    Dear Sir: Let me state that at one time, I too had grave reservations about the calling of an Article V convention; however,
    after researching and reading the works of multiple legal scholars and court decisions regarding Article V, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that your reservations are without merit. Permit me to elaborate:

    First, an Article V convention is NOT a “constitutional” convention or con-con as you state. It is a convention of states called for a specific purpose identified by the states in their Article V resolution. Any amendment proposed must be germane to the specific subject or topic for which the convention is called. Any effort to convert such a convention to something beyond that would be illegal, unconstitutional and likely stricken down by the courts.

    Second, since it is a convention of states, the states appoint their own delegates to attend and therefore can send delegates who will follow the instructions of the state. The state legislatures can require the delegates to take oaths and prescribe criminal penalties for the violation of that oath. Further, the states can recall any rogue delegates mid-convention and send new ones who will stay on task. The likelihood that a majority of states would simultaneously allow their delegates to go asunder and try to runaway with a convention is extremely unlikely.

    You surmise that Congress might try to inject itself into the convention process by enacting legislation attempting to control delegate selection and convention rules. History suggests that you grossly overestimate Congress. According to one Congressional report, in the latter half of the 20th century, some 41 different items of legislation were dropped in one or both houses of Congress seeking to restrict or control an Article V convention which at that time was within a couple of states of being called. None came close to passing. The present divided Congress could never agree on such legislation today, particularly where a majority of states have already made clear that they want no such intrusion. But even more importantly, legal and historical precedent both strongly suggest that Congress cannot legal interject itself into the process. The founders clearly intended the Article V convention to serve as a mechanism to bypass Congress; thus, they clearly could not have intended Congress to control a process intended to circumvent them. Moreover, conventions held during the founding era were all controlled by the states, thus further evidencing the founders intent. Finally, existing legal precedent by none other than former liberal Supreme Court Justice Stevens provides that the delegates control the rules of their own convention. There simply is no valid basis for your concern that Congress could inject itself into the convention process.

    Third, I respectfully submit that your concern about conservatives hijacking such a convention and successfully changing the constitution with conservative amendments is misplaced. None of the convention’s proposals would become law UNLESS they were ratified by three-fourths (75%) of the states. That’s 38 states. So, based upon the present political breakdown of our state legislatures (28 GOP controlled legislatures, 20 Democratic controlled legislatures and 2 split legislatures), any worrisome, right-leaning proposal would have to be adopted by ALL of the GOP and split states, and by another EIGHT (8) Democratic legislatures, in order to become law. It would have to pass through 18 different Democratic chambers of the state legislatures to become law. That simply could NEVER happen. Recall that the ERA amendment, an amendment supporting the rights of more than 50% of our electorate, could not garner 38 state ratifications during its 10 year pendency; thus, there is no realistic chance that a truly controversial proposal could succeed. The three-fourths ratification requirement is the ultimate check and balance on the actions of an amendments convention and would politically drive such a convention to propose reasonable, common sense, bi-partisan amendments. Otherwise, any proposal would be rejected.

    Finally, you fall into a common misstatement when you suggest that our original Constitution was illegally adopted by the 1787 convention. The Philadelphia convention was called initially by the states of Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania following an unsuccessful attempt to gather the states in Annapolis in 1786. None of these states nor seven others that followed limited their call to a convention solely to amend the Articles of Confederation. The Article Congress similarly did not call the convention and had no power to do so. It offered its opinion that the states should meet and consider amending the Articles. When our founders finished their work in Philadelphia, they referred the product back to the Articles Congress. If that Congress believed the convention had overstepped its bounds, it could have simply rejected the Constitution, but it didn’t. Instead, the Congress unanimously adopted the Constitution and referred it out to the states for each to decide whether to adopt a new ratification process that required the legislatures to call individual conventions in each state. All 13 states in fact adopted that new ratification procedure, and while North Carolina and Rhode Island initially rejected the Constitution, they ultimately chose to adopt it. The unanimous consent requirement of the Articles was ultimately achieved not once, but twice in the ratifying process. Your concern that an Article V convention could lower the three-fourths ratification requirement of the present Constitution has no basis in fact or law.

    In conclusion, I am convinced that there is no chance that an Article V convention of states could evolve into a runaway convention that could wreck havoc on our Constitution. Thus, the question before us is this:

    Which is a greater threat to our liberty?

    The mythical chance of a runaway Article V convention?

    Or the reality of a runaway federal government?

    If one objectively weighs the alternatives, I hope you would agree that the mythical threat of a runaway convention and all the nightmares associated with it no longer justifies dismissing use of the Article V convention process bestowed upon us by our Founders to fix our broken federal government. Thank you.

    • David Guldenschuh

      Thank you Chris. DFG

    • Offshoreguy

      My understanding is that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called by the states for the purpose of strengthening the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were trashed and we got the current document. I’ve read that the delegates knew they were violating the wishes of the states and kept the proceedings quiet for years afterwards.

      • SAINT

        Offshoreguy the Convention of 1787 definitely was to provide congress with power conducive to burdening the States. However if you’ve studied the Ratification of the Bill of Rights, (1789-1791) in those debates you’ll find that it’s entire outcome was intended to prevent the situation and position that you’ve taken.( See: CAROL ANNE BOND, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

      • David Guldenschuh

        Actually, that is a common misunderstanding about the Philadelphia Convention. Here’s a link to a post I wrote that explains in more detail the history of the calling and legality of that convention:

        • Offshoreguy

          Thanks for this link. I find your final statement in the article to be over the top though, “To claim otherwise is un-American.”

          This link here does take the position of the 1787 convention going well beyond its scope:

      • David Guldenschuh

        Here’s a portion of a speech I gave addressing your very comment:

    • AnarchCap

      Why is it that no State has nullified a single piece of Federal legislation?
      If the State legislatures haven’t lifted a finger to stop the Federal Government, why would any sane person believe they would actually propose sound amendments?

  • Uppity Slave

    Sadly, it seems to me that this whole argument is mute. The Constitution, as it stands, has been ignored (and shat upon) due to willful corruption, why do we still believe that all we need to do is amend a document that no longer has any power to protect us? And if it was actually amended, you ‘trust’ that same government NOW to curb itself? I think not. We need to realize, as a nation, there is no longer redress of grievance thorough political process. That is fantasy thinking imo and only serves to distract us from what we need to do…and that is to REFUSE to participate in begging for the crumbs of freedom falling from the table of our gluttonous slave masters. The paid mouthpieces in the media don’t care about you or your freedom, they owe their prosperity to the same ones who own your con-gress…otherwise they would not stay on the air. Turn off your radio and TV. Have some self respect and with draw your consent to be ‘governed’ by these monsters…do not validate this evil with your participation, for they require your participation to enslave you…

    • BigIron8

      The problem is that the PEOPLE have vacated their OFFICES which allowed them to oversee the government.
      Please note: the following hierarchy:
      I am, you are, a “people” and one of the PEOPLE. WE, the PEOPLE, are the ONLY ones who have the proper “standing” to determine the “constitutionally” of ANY THING, not the SCOTUS!

  • aware

    Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and none of the rest matters. As long as the extortion is paid the monster’s grip will tighten. These 2 amendments are the root of why the individual states are now just lackeys to the federal State.

    Levin and the rest of Con,Inc. are controlled opposition, intended to narrow the perimeters of debate, and hence, choices. Cut the money(16th) and force a return to tariffs and a whole lot of ugly ideas no longer have funding.

    • BigIron8

      ADD the 14th to that list as that was the beginning of the destruction of our Constitution and NOT “lawfully” ratified. It is my belief that even Lincoln would never have allowed its imposition upon the Federation. It was deceptive and allowed the PTB/NWO to establish a monumental foothold in the workings of our Nation and the “checks-and-balances” within our government.
      Checkout the “original” 13th Amendment” (?1812/1818?) which was to deal with the problem of “lawyers” in government by adding “real” consequences to constitutional prohibitions but it disappeared during the aftermath of the “Civil War” when it was “replaced” by the 13th A that we all know!

      • aware

        Agree. But the real problem is the 16th. Nobody ever laid it out better than Frank Chodorov in “Income Tax: The Root of All Evil”.
        The 16th also was not lawfully ratified.

        Not sure why you would think a man who would imprison without due process, use soldiers to prevent representatives from meeting, shut down opposing newspapers, and goad Southerners into a war costing hundreds of thousands their lives would hesitate at the 14th.

  • Big D

    You are a moron. Take a seat in the class of Levin, shut up, learn and get your facts straight.

    • AngelaTC

      That right there pretty sums up my opinion of Levin. Whenever there’s a debate to be had, Levin takes the liberal “sit down and shut up” approach, every time.

      If there are facts not in evidence, then by all means, introduce them so we can examine them.

    • BigIron8

      Are you sure you aren’t a “closet” liberal? Your arguments would seem to indicate that you are.

    • Arizona Patriot
  • Mark Robert

    Zionist are at WAR with the Europeans.

    These are a few Zionist who want to control OUR GUNS, INTERNET and SPEECH.

    Michael Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, Ben Cardin, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Michael Bennet, Brian Schatz, Richard Blumenthal and Chuck Schumer, Henry Waxman, Sander Levin, Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey, Jerrold Nadler, Bradley Sherman, Janice Schakowsky, Susan Davis, Steve Israel, Adam Schiff, Allyson Schwartz, Steve Cohen, John Yarmuth, Jared Polis, Theodore Deutch, David Cicilline, Alan Grayson, Lois
    Frankel, Brad Schneider, Alan Lowenthal, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    We are placing OUR Congressman and Senators on speed dial.

    We want the Zionist expelled from OUR Country.

    • BigIron8

      It is NOT just the “Zionists” who are the problem; it is the “powers-that-be” and the “new-world-order”. Be aware that they will USE other groups to deflect their actions while misdirecting the “power” and “will” of the “people” along ineffective avenues!

  • onooop

    What constitution? 40,000 new laws go into effect across America today! Happy New Year!

  • SQDB

    >> “by telling Americans that the Constitution will only be reasonably amended because we can “trust” conservative Republicans to do what is right for us”

    No, it’s because you have to have a majority of states to make a change, you don’t have to trust anyone but your fellow citizens. This is how the Constitution works. It is lawful.

    I don’t like progressive republicans any more than any other American. Mark Levin is not a progressive. He has watched politicians from both parties rot into corruption over the decades and he’s disgusted by it. I trust him more than you, with all do respect and I sincerely mean that.

    We can’t fix what is broken in the country if we can’t set aside accusations on motives and the bloody gamesmanship of politics. Judge the changes from a Constitutional Convention on the merits of what they are.

    • Derek F

      Your support of Levin is ill-timed, and, at best, misplaced. His gross misunderstanding of the correct constitutional position on war powers is quite scary, down right dangerous, and leads to the killing/murder of many American soldiers and innocents. With respect to the constitution and Con Con, he should be ignored.

      • SQDB

        Yeah? Who are you? Why don’t you be so brave as to let us read the entire body of your comments? Come out of the dark and quit trying to micro-steer the nation with subterfuge comments.

        We’re taking the country back to the Constitution, through the Constitution, legally and peacefully. I know that must piss you off but you better find a good therapist because ‘it’s happening’.

        • Kurt P

          It’s sad that you can’t see the ridiculousness of your logic above.
          1) “Who are you?” says the guy posting under the handle SQDB to the guy using his actual name.
          2)”We’re taking the country back to the Constitution, through the Constitution…” is like saying you’re going to jump in your car which has thrown a rod, had the wheels stolen, and the brakes had failed…and drive it to the mechanic to be repaired. The BROKEN thing cannot be the vehicle TO FIX the broken thing.

          • BigIron8

            It is time for the “people” to realize, in spite of the effect of the Government Schools and the media, that it IS they, the people, that are in control of this Nation and always have been but they have vacated “their” proper offices.

            The CONSTITUTION was created by the “people” acting as the PEOPLE therefor nothing created under/by our Constitution has standing to judge any thing as “constitutional” except the PEOPLE themselves. To make a change to the CONSTITUTION requires a proper “consensus” of the “people” acting as the PEOPLE, not our governments doing whatever they desire.

            ALL that is actually required is that our “original” CONSTITUTION of 1787 w/ the BILL-OF-RIGHTS of 1789 (1st 10 amendments) be “re-instituted” and start from there. The tendency has been to make things too complex as we see in the later amendments. If we do this many of our problems will just go away. …However, the “people” must continue to inhabit their just offices.

    • BigIron8

      No thank you; I trust NO ONE who espouses a ConCon at all; they are just “deep-cover” minions of the NWO.

      We should never trust the Democrat or Republican parties as they are sub-parties of the one party and both controlled by “minions” of the PTB/NWO.

  • HillaryofArabia

    We are called upon as Americans to defend the Constitution with our lives. A lot of us took oaths to this, but even if we never took a formal oath, we still owe it to every American who ever died defending our Country.
    Frankly, the only way to save the country is to stop Levin and his ilk by any means necessary. As Neocons like to say, all options are on the table. Personally, I can see an upside to Americans fighting a justified war, a war we should have started on 9/12/2001.

    • BigIron8

      Our government did escalate their war against the “people” in 2001!

  • Bullwinkle O. Mooch

    There is nothing wrong with the original unamended Constitution, how about returning to 1783 and enforcing the laws from there, and get rid of the sh|t added since then.

    • BigIron8

      A very reasonable idea; why has it not happened? …because the PEOPLE have “vacated” their “power”..

  • Jaffe Garfinklesteeeen

    Mark Levin is a card carrying member of the House of Zionism

    • BigIron8

      It would appear that he is a “deep-cover” member of “powers-that-be” and the “new-world-order”

  • Adolph Histler

    Be very concerned when a man comes forward and attempts to change the country.

    • BigIron8

      Especially when his solution favors the “powers-that-be” and the “new-world-order”!

  • freevoter2016

    Before going down the path of Chaos with a Constitutional Convention we should fight for only one Amendment to the Constitution that being TERM LIMITS for both the House and Senate to a maximum of 12 Years. Then all the others Ills can be addressed with representatives that are not doing the bidding of Lobbyists but that of the people who elected them. To think that we can have a consensus among “Statesmen” duplicating the process of our founding fathers is beyond reason. The power must be returned to the Electorate in order for Freedom to survive.

    • BigIron8

      “The power must be returned to the Electorate” is true however you are far too generous with those who aspire to make a living out of politics.. Our current group of politicos has shown they are NOT to be trusted at all.

      My current idea of a solution is: that there would be NO consecutive terms in our government at all including President, with a lifetime limit of two terms with a mandatory two year wait before holding any other office. the lifetime limits would be two terms as President, two terms in the House and one term in the Senate. And ALL must sign a “contract” that says they cannot become a “lobbyist” for a minimum of ten years AFTER their last political office ends.

    • Judy Spady

      The Articles of Confederation had term limits and the fact is that the Federalists (big government nationalists) like Hamilton, Jay, and Madison had a plan before the convention even began to trash the Articles and give us a central govt with a new Constitution. The first convention was ram-rodded and this one would be worse. I fight, every day, to return to Constitutional governance b/c it would get the lost ship back on track but history shows that the Anti-federalists were the liberty fighters against the big govt hacks like Hamilton. An amendment for term limits would do no good b/c they would just ignore it like they ignore the existing Constitution. The problem is that the people aren’t STANDING UP for the Constitution and making them comply.
      Check out (will be up and running tomorrow).

  • Cavalier

    I would seriously worry about why now an unnecessary con con is being touted as the solution to our problems. I would suspect people like Levin as controlled agents convincing us to willfully cause our own problems. The worldwide communists that have their tentacles fully into every important and influencial group within this countrty and would love to write the 2 amendment out of the Constitution. That is just for starters. Use your imagination as to what other rights imaginary or natural might be added or deleted based on the knowledge of what is known about the communist agenda.

  • BigIron8

    I had a reasonable good opinion of MARK LEVIN up until this point but HIS call for a ConCon places him the category of being a “QUESTIONABLE” player in the restoration of our Republic.

    tA ConCon is the very last thing that We, the People, need; there is absolutely NO way for the “people” to control it properly given the state of education that years of Government education has produced. What the “people” need to do is restore the “people’s” right of the “Common-law Grand Jury”. Which IS the “people’s” most powerful “tool” to “fix’ our NATIONS problems.

    What most “people” have been deluded into thinking by our Government Schools, the MEDIA and our POLITICOS is that WE, the PEOPLE, are their SUBJECTS. Nothing is further from the truth!
    In the hierarchy of our FOUNDERS we have: our CREATOR, WE,the PEOPLE, our CONSTITUTION, our “constitutionally-limited” governments and the “people”,

    As each of us is a “people”, ONE of the PEOPLE, as a properly constituted body of the PEOPLE we have STANDING above the CONSTITUTION as WE created the CONSTITUTION and are the ONLY ones who can determine the “constitutionality” of ANYTHING! The “Supreme Court of the United States” does NOT have that STANDING since it was CREATED by the CONSTITUTION, only the PEOPLE. We have been “manipulated” by that misconception since 1803 when John Marshall usurped that “power” with the Marbury vs Marshall decision; thus began the slide down that “slippery-slope”!..

  • Ed

    Anybody who can think or/and has read Lysander Spooner knows that the “U.S. Constitution” has no authority and that the whole “government system” is a fraud.

    • BigIron8

      What then of the Articles of Confederation?

    • aware

      “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is
      certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have
      had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to

      And my favorite :”The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this — that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot.”

      Spooner is way too neglected.

  • John Double

    Americans need to starve if this country is to be saved.
    Americans care too much about Felons playing with a ball,and dancing with stars to rebel.

    So I hope the dollar implodes in the next few years.

  • James Scott

    Mark Levin is a jew. all of the radio networks all of the conservative talk show hosts are on are owned by jews. Jews hate the constitution because they cannot bribe and control all of the people like they can control the politicians using the media and money creation scheme they own. This is why all of our politicians claim their is no space between Israel and the USA. Jews own both parties and anyone who can’t see it is delusional.

    • Zaporizhian Sich

      Correct, a Red Mafiya Jew whose real intentions is an even greater massacre of whites in America then in Russia and Ukraine. The Jews killed close to 100 million whites in Eastern and Central Europe, you can be sure they want to kill an even larger number of whites here, and unlike the Former Soviet Union they have large numbers of hostile darkies to do their dirty work for them.

    • stevor

      I don’t have a problem with what you say but know that MANY folks will lambast your for talking against “Israel”. Truth be known, the AsheNAZI “jews” which aren’t really Jews (zionists) but from near Turkey created Israel for causing trouble while hiding under Jew skirts are the problem. If anybody has a problem with this, save this link that tells most “jews” in Israel are from Europe:

      Then tell them to look up “ashkenaz” in the bible and learn how they’re less “jew” than muslims are.

  • oldman67

    When Obama, George Soros and Cass Sunstein called for a new ” progressive living ” constitution and when George Bush called the Constitution just a G_dd__m piece of paper, while Obama said the Constitution was outdated and no longer applied today few Americans spoke out. Sunstein ever went so far as to write a new ” bill of rights.” As a young Illinois senator Obama faulted the Constitution for not mentioning ” wealth distribution.”

    • Robert Crim

      George Bush DID NOT call the Constitution a — damn pice of paper. PLEEAASSEEE…. Where’d you read that from? Alex Jones? ROFL! Some people will believe anything they read on the Internet.

  • stevor

    Having a Constitutional Convention where there’s enough MORONS around to have elected o’bama twice is ASKING FOR TROUBLE!

  • CaMaven
  • hippybiker

    They are all licking their fat chops at the thought of a CON con. They could completely gut the Bill of Rights, and set it up so some future tyrant could declare himself President for life. Anyone who subscribes to this scheme is a traitor, or a buffoon.

  • Sovereign Mary

    Many of these Mark Levin supporters are calling for a ‘Convention of States’ … instead of a Con-Con. This attempt would have to garner support from 3/4’s of the states. That is an absolute pipe dream!
    Far better to have each and every individual state decide on Nullification against Obamacare, NDAA and other completely unlawful actions that run counter to the U.S. Constitution/Supreme Rule of Law. This is the number #1 method to succeed against the violations of the 10th Amendment.

    • Judy Spady

      You are, absolutely, correct. Remember…Obamacare would be nothing if the states didn’t sign on to the exchanges. Look at Common Core. Was it forced on the states by the feds? No, they signed on to it. The problem is not in the wording of the Constitution. The problem is that the people need to look in the mirror. We get the govt we deserve. Changing the Constitution does NOTHING to restore the Republic!
      Check out (will be up/running tomorrow).

  • jimkress

    Levin is not wrong.

    Here is Article 5:

    “Article V

    Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
    shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of
    the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a
    Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be
    valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
    ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or
    by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
    Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no
    Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred
    and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in
    the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its
    Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

    is COMPLETELY SILENT with regard to the assertion that Congress will
    select the delegates. It delegates NO powers to the Congress to select

    That brings us to Article 10.

    “Article [X]

    powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
    prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
    or to the people.”

    That makes it clear the States or the people shall be the ones selecting the delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

    So, it is the STATE governments that must be controlled, not the Congress.

    • Paul Robinson

      Levin is wrong and probably a disinformation agent.
      If you closely read the Article V you posted you will note it says “on the Application of the Legislatures of 2/3 of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” what kind of amendents, how many. The enemies of the people of the United States would love to be able to change the Constitution to suit their purposes. Right now as it is written law enforcement and military officers would have to violate their oaths to do many of the things the enemies of the people of the United States would want done. The conventions results would no doubt remove that obstacle.

      • Arizona Patriot

        Yes he is. Controlled Opposition. Just like Glenn Beck was.

        • TheBossyFiesta

          They are both really going after the establishment hard right now. Levin’s show has been great lately. I am expecting them to throw their support behind the weakest anti establishment candidate, and away from Rand until Bush wins the nomination. They’ll get nasty if Paul is close. Then they’ll make you vomit, shilling for Bush.

      • Robert Crim

        PLEASE read Mark Levin’s book, “The Liberty Amendments.” It explains it completely, pros and cons. Just read it for your own information, if nothing else. You can probably check it out at your local library as it has been out long enough now.

  • Gary Holveck

    Michael Lofti is a “so-called columnist” and cannot be trusted to advise us in legal matters of the Constitution. He is unfamiliar with Mark Levin’s full background and accomplishments. Leaving heavy matters to the pen of so-called columnists has been a national problem for too long.

  • Mike J

    Evan is just plain wrong about article 5. It at no time states that congress gets to select the delegates to the convention, no time at all. Also after reading this long winded rubbish of an article his conclusion is we need education, persuasion, and encouragement to change things. You’ve got to be kidding me. Its that type of non sense wishful thinking that has lead us to the point we are at today. We need a solid plan, not a delusional pie in the sky fantasy that Evan offers us. Mark Levin on the other hand has a real plan that makes perfect sense.

    • Robert Crim

      The Feds are completely locked out of the process. The states select their delegates only. Thank God for an option. Hopefully we can get it moving soon.

  • 1836Davy_Crockett

    There is nothing wrong with the constitution. I’ve voted Repub up until the last election since 1970 The Repubs have had the power most of the time. They are just as much at fault for the woes of this country as anyone. All the Repubs need to do is ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION. IT’S THEIR JOB. Repubs were required to vote FOR OBAMACARE for it to pass into law. PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!

    • Dmgdriver

      Name 1, just 1, Republican Congressman who voted to approve Obamacare.Time for you to read up on both history and the Constitution.

      • Robert Crim

        A little bit of information can be dangerous (in regards to Davy) …. smh

    • Robert Crim

      What Republican voted for the ObamaCare bill? The Affordable Care Act was passed exclusively by the Democrats only!! Remember all the promises they made to Sen. Nelson and others who lost their long held seats immediately in the next election? It is NOT required to have BOTH parties “vote” for ANY bill to be passed into law. All that is needed is the allotted number of votes and a presidents signature. It would be impossible to follow your logic if both Houses were full of one party. That is the advantage of having BOTH Houses.

  • Sam E. Song

    Mark Levin is a dangerous phony in that he along with his litany of ghost written books, is trying to open up the Constitution using Article V in a way that only a devote of Saul Alinsky could dream about.
    Levin is in non stop mode ranting and railing against John Boehner and now Mitch McConnell and any and all other Republicans who fail to pass his “conservative” litmus test. Granted the House and Senate GOP leadership leaves much to be desired. But Levin refuses to understand that legislating is a process of give and take. In either case it is rare to hear Levin detract against Democratic party leaders. Only in rarely and in passing will he say anything at all against Obama, Pelosi or Reid. Instead, listening to three hours of Levin’s afternoon radio show on any given weekday, you’ll hear his screaming scathing diatribe against Republicans that he refers to as “re-pubic-ans”. To the point that your eardrums or the radio’s speaker are about to burst.

    • Arizona Patriot

      You are so right. Americans are cheering on thier own destruction again.

    • Robert Crim

      Really? Levin rarely speaks out against the Dems, Pelosi, Reid or Obama?? I don’t know which Mark Levin Show you are listening too, but it is obviously not the same as I listen to. Yes he does rally his folks and he does indeed have a faithful following, just like Limbaugh. I’d even wager to bet most if not all are Limbaugh listeners as well. But to accuse him of almost complete silence against the opposition is misleading to say the least. Good Lord, he rattles the speakers against anyone who dishonors this great Country and her Constitution, regardless of party affiliation. The man is a Constitutional lawyer, practicing law currently w/ Landmark Legal. He has even come up against this administration a few times and won every case. He is quite brilliant. Try listening to his show once in awhile.

      As for the “Con-Con.” You’re wrong. To begin with, the proper terminology Mark Levin is speaking of is called a “Convention of States.” This is completely different then the Constitutional Convention. The referencing above is TO a Con Con and yes it would be dangerous to allow these dolts access to an open Constitution when they won’t follow the current one. As for the states, there is currently 36, needing 38 to start the process and yes the process is well on it’s way as there has been a few meetings so far. Something needs to be done and voting in more “republicans” isn’t working.

    • TheBossyFiesta

      Levin detracts against Democratic party leaders all day long. Suggesting otherwise is absurdity of the highest order.He also righteously calls out Boehner, McConnell, McCain, Bush, Rove, Graham and lots of other frauds, failures, and criminals. Making pathetic excuses for them is simply unacceptable self destruction.

  • Arizona Patriot

    He is Controlled Opposition. Very dangerous man who has many Americans completely stupid.

  • Arizona Patriot

    Turn OFF the Controlled Opposition, Mark Levin & start working on the Solution the Founding Fathers gave us to stop an out of control Goivernment. The 10th Amendment.

  • partswizard

    An article 5 convention is a COS not a con-con. A COS IS limited to suggesting amendments to our current constitution THAN the FEW suggestions that might be suggested by a COS must be ratified by 3/4 of all states. A COS is a good thing a con-con is not, just as cheap and inexpensive ARE two different things so are a COS vs a con-con. see

  • Paul Adcock

    Ok, why is this dangerous? The convention cannot runaway. They’d need 38 states to ratify in any event.

  • Al Gagnon


  • kickk

    By the time anyone agrees on what action to take, Congress will bankrupt the country.

  • michael

    The answer is states exercising the Tenth Amendment. Michael Farris (head honcho for Convention of the States) said this will not work. Well it does work and has worked. Farris and his COS friends have spent two years or so, like Levin, attacking everyone who points out the very real dangers of a ConCon. They have denied the fact that Congress is given the duty to CALL a convention, therefore Congress has the authority to make whatever laws are necessary to RUN a convention. All the time they are denying these Constitutional facts they are representing themselves as Constitutional attorneys and experts.