[Hoot Gibson]

In the end IMHO, we would all be pretty surprised at the outcome. Washington actually attended the original constitutional convention, a fact which I believe gives him a tremendous advantage, as his advice was given to all in retrospect. Like executive orders rammed down the throats of one party or another, or one group or another, the next successive unfriendly administration could just whisk it all away in another Convention of States.

We couldn't control the outcome or the struggle with any degree of certainty. Or maybe Washington had it all wrong. My eggs are in his basket.

It's not up to any administration, friendly or unfriendly. What Levin proposes is to circumvent Washington politicians entirely by calling a Convention of States. Neither the president, Congress, nor the Supreme Court would play any role in setting the agenda, drafting the amendment(s), or ratifying them. That is the point. Levin argues that we cannot trust the federal government to address the biggest problems facing this country and I agree with him.

Consider term limits, which many Americans favor, and a balanced budget amendment. The federal government will never pass amendments addressing either of these issues and send them to the states for ratification. They will promise to address these issues when they campaign, but most will not endanger their own power by taking any real action.

I will eventually get around to reading The Liberty Amendments but until then I am not taking a position on the Convention of States. I listen to Levin quite a bit and what I have explained above is based on his defense of his positions to skeptical callers.

Washington and the other founding fathers never intended for our federal government to grow as powerful and centralized as it has become. Federal politicians have treated the 10th Amendment like a joke and a Convention of States might be a valid way to reassert the power of the states, an action that Washington would surely approve.

[TheRealThing]

It's not up to any administration, friendly or unfriendly. What Levin proposes is to circumvent Washington politicians entirely by calling a Convention of States. Neither the president, Congress, nor the Supreme Court would play any role in setting the agenda, drafting the amendment(s), or ratifying them. That is the point. Levin argues that we cannot trust the federal government to address the biggest problems facing this country and I agree with him.

Consider term limits, which many Americans favor, and a balanced budget amendment. The federal government will never pass amendments addressing either of these issues and send them to the states for ratification. They will promise to address these issues when they campaign, but most will not endanger their own power by taking any real action.

I will eventually get around to reading The Liberty Amendments but until then I am not taking a position on the Convention of States. I listen to Levin quite a bit and what I have explained above is based on his defense of his positions to skeptical callers.

Washington and the other founding fathers never intended for our federal government to grow as powerful and centralized as it has become. Federal politicians have treated the 10th Amendment like a joke and a Convention of States might be a valid way to reassert the power of the states, an action that Washington would surely approve.

I knew you would take my post like that. I was in a hurry and should have waited I suppose. Washington covered that base in the quote and I know you saw that. I hope you also know that it means nothing to me to get the last word, or win a debate for the sake of winning.

My position is that American government types have come to the point in time when they no longer revere the founders intent, or our national heritage as was recorded so carefully in US History. Being a student of history I can tell you that the greatest threat to any people is to forget their own origins and history. Revisionists have dismantled our history and our heritage has followed suit. Therefore, most people's knowledge of the story of this nation's birth goes no deeper than being able to sing "Yankee Doodle."

My concern is based in the change I see in everyday Americans. Polls reflect that this nation's youth are okay with just about anything including gay marriage and abortion. There are all kinds of colloquialisms for the condition, "the genie's out of the bottle," "that ship has sailed," "that train has left the station," "innocence lost'" and on and on. I saw the voter awaken and I was heartened. Then I saw members of government do their best to disenfranchise those good folks of their votes and their will. Some are okay with that because it suits their cause. Others are convinced that they know what's best for everybody else, and are more than willing to run over the voter to force whatever that may be on them, as in the case of ObamaCare. Or perhaps the nominee that Mitt Romney thinks is best for us.

I think the only safe haven we have, is to live and abide within the system set up by the founders. The system or checks and balances, the electoral process, the proud history of a lawful people. We are society of laws and we are governed by "the people." Like I said, we don't respect that anymore and the erosive side effects lie all around us. Schools can no longer truthfully educate our young, as standards have been watered down until education has become a joke. In fact, the student has become the master of late as those who have supposedly come to be educated now feel disposed to lecture everybody else. Crime is rampant, police have their hands tied behind them as do our military. We are in the midst of a debt crisis of nightmarish proportions, morality is now relative at best, many men just do not feel compelled to work, alcohol and drugs are literally everywhere including some church pantries. And we grind up babies to make cool stuff for consumers.

We are a people who despise laws. Our laws were not set forth in vague ambiguities, and newer and clearer laws will be run over with the same reckless abandon. Case in point. How clear really, does one have to say it is wrong to cut appendages off of the unborn until they are dead?

We turned our back on God, became lost and confused, and have forfeited the moral authority to govern ourselves. I had hoped that we were about to see a resurgence of personal dignity by a people who wanted to see Godly principles honored once again in America.

[Hoot Gibson]

I knew you would take my post like that. I was in a hurry and should have waited I suppose. Washington covered that base in the quote and I know you saw that. I hope you also know that it means nothing to me to get the last word, or win a debate for the sake of winning.

My position is that American government types have come to the point in time when they no longer revere the founders intent, or our national heritage as was recorded so carefully in US History. Being a student of history I can tell you that the greatest threat to any people is to forget their own origins and history. Revisionists have dismantled our history and our heritage has followed suit. Therefore, most people's knowledge of the story of this nation's birth goes no deeper than being able to sing "Yankee Doodle."

My concern is based in the change I see in everyday Americans. Polls reflect that this nation's youth are okay with just about anything including gay marriage and abortion. There are all kinds of colloquialisms for the condition, "the genie's out of the bottle," "that ship has sailed," "that train has left the station," "innocence lost'" and on and on. I saw the voter awaken and I was heartened. Then I saw members of government do their best to disenfranchise those good folks of their votes and their will. Some are okay with that because it suits their cause. Others are convinced that they know what's best for everybody else, and are more than willing to run over the voter to force whatever that may be on them, as in the case of ObamaCare. Or perhaps the nominee that Mitt Romney thinks is best for us.

I think the only safe haven we have, is to live and abide within the system set up by the founders. The system or checks and balances, the electoral process, the proud history of a lawful people. We are society of laws and we are governed by "the people." Like I said, we don't respect that anymore and the erosive side effects lie all around us. Schools can no longer truthfully educate our young, as standards have been watered down until education has become a joke. In fact, the student has become the master of late as those who have supposedly come to be educated now feel disposed to lecture everybody else. Crime is rampant, police have their hands tied behind them as do our military. We are in the midst of a debt crisis of nightmarish proportions, morality is now relative at best, many men just do not feel compelled to work, alcohol and drugs are literally everywhere including some church pantries. And we grind up babies to make cool stuff for consumers.

We are a people who despise laws. Our laws were not set forth in vague ambiguities, and newer and clearer laws will be run over with the same reckless abandon. Case in point. How clear really, does one have to say it is wrong to cut appendages off of the unborn until they are dead?

We turned our back on God, became lost and confused, and have forfeited the moral authority to govern ourselves. I had hoped that we were about to see a resurgence of personal dignity by a people who wanted to see Godly principles honored once again in America.

What Levin is proposing does not conflict with your quote of George Washington at all and his proposal is an amendment process provided for by the Constitution. Washington was a great believer in reserving as much power to the states as possible. He was reluctant to attend the first Constitutional Convention because he suspected that the attendees would seek to strip power away from the individual states and concentrate it in the federal government.

Based on my understanding of Levin's proposal, it would not be any easier to amend the Constitution than the way that it has been amended in the past. What the proposal would do would be to return some power to the states that was never intended to be vested in the federal government. That is a very conservative position. We will have to disagree about what Washington would have to say about the matter. I think that he would lead a movement to decentralize our government and return much of the federal government's power to the states.

[TheRealThing]

What Levin is proposing does not conflict with your quote of George Washington at all and his proposal is an amendment process provided for by the Constitution. Washington was a great believer in reserving as much power to the states as possible. He was reluctant to attend the first Constitutional Convention because he suspected that the attendees would seek to strip power away from the individual states and concentrate it in the federal government.

Based on my understanding of Levin's proposal, it would not be any easier to amend the Constitution than the way that it has been amended in the past. What the proposal would do would be to return some power to the states that was never intended to be vested in the federal government. That is a very conservative position. We will have to disagree about what Washington would have to say about the matter. I think that he would lead a movement to decentralize our government and return much of the federal government's power to the states.

Totally disagree.

The Constitution is clear, the power you speak of already rests in the hands of the States. The States, in times past, abdicated that power because it takes more courage to lead than to follow. Boiled down the same holds true for voters. They don't necessarily have the courage to make judgment on who they should vote for, they want to be told who to vote for, and frankly what to think. How else could one explain politicians not getting laughed off the podium for the ridiculous blather they spew? Thus and rather unfortunately, it would seem that once personal integrity of candidates began to fade, so did the fortunes of this nation.

Mark Levin may be supremely confident that everything will be just peachy, but Washington referred to another convention as usurpation. There is no way to limit the agenda of 'a convention of the states' to only the issues conservatives want to take up. It would be a free-for-all on the scale of the movie "From Dusk to Dawn." The blood of liberty and freedom would likely cover all participants. A runaway power mad federal government that sees it their providential duty to legislate the masses into subjection to their personal views, are not so likely to hand that power back over to them. Let me ask you this, who's going to ride herd over a Congress who will surely limit delegates to themselves, Levin? I mean we're talking about people who yelled the falsehood "hands up don't shoot" from the halls and various wells of The Congress here. Not to mention the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Grayson, Graham, and all the rest lining up behind a federally sponsored anti-cop campaign.

Men and women of such caliber don't govern in the way they are elected to anymore, rather they have been engaged in the wholesale redefinition of America according to the tenets of social justice. Which BTW, gives people a pass on personal responsibility. As things stand, I barely recognize the workings of this land, and a Con Con would hand them the master key to walk through any door they saw fit. Likewise, the people have lost the vision and the ability to discern direction, as they have their own spiritual well being.