Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!

By Publius Huldah

What Mark Levin says in “The Liberty Amendments” in support of an Article V convention is not true.1

On one side of this controversy are those who want to restore our Constitution by requiring federal and State officials to obey the Constitution we have; or by electing ones who will.  We show that the Oath of Office at Art. VI, last clause, requires federal 2 and state officials to support the Constitution.  This requires them to refuse to submit to – to nullify – acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution.  This is how they “support” the Constitution!

We note that the Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone.  The Oath does not require obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to any federal court.

We understand that resistance to tyranny is a natural right – and it is a duty.

We have read original writings of our Framers and know what our Framers actually told the States to do when the federal government violates the Constitution: Nullification of the unlawful act is among the first of the recommended remediesnot one of which is “amendment of the Constitution”.

It is already proved in James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers, that our Framers endorsed nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison summed it up as follows:

“…when powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act4 is “the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” 5

The claims of the nullification deniers have been proven to be false.  To persist in those claims – or to do as Levin seems to do and ignore the remedy of nullification – is intellectually and morally indefensible.  So why don’t they apologize to the public and recant their errors?

Instead, they continue to tell us that what we need is a “convention of the States” (which Levin and his mentors insist is provided by Article V of the Constitution) to propose amendments to the Constitution, and that this is the only way out.

Yes, they tell us, the only way to deal with a federal government which consistently ignores and tramples over the Constitution is …. to amend the Constitution!

Do you see how silly that is?

 Levin’s Amendments

Levin starts his book by saying how bad things are and how the federal government has trampled and mangled the Constitution.  Those pages are true.  And they serve the purpose of making readers believe that Levin is “on our side”.  And because of that, many are induced to lay aside their critical thinking skills and accept on trust what Levin tells them. That is a deadly mistake.

Levin’s amendments actually gut our Constitution.  Most increase the powers of the federal government by making lawful what is now unconstitutional because it is not an “enumerated power”. Others put a band-aid on a problem without solving the problem. The amendments pertaining to “overrides” undermine the Constitution as the Objective Standard of what is lawful and what is not – and substitute majority vote therefor. 6

A Defective Constitution? Or a Disobedient Federal Government?

We must distinguish between defects within a Constitution, and a government’s refusal to obey the Constitution to which it is subject.  These are different problems calling for different remedies.

There were defects in the Constitution produced by the Federal Convention of 1787, such as provisions permitting slavery.  Provision for amendment must be made to repair such defects. 7

But our problem now is a disobedient federal government.  That calls for different remedies – and our Framers spelled them out. 3

It is idiotic to assert that you can rein in a federal government which ignores the Constitution by amending the Constitution!  Yet, that is “The Levin Plan”.

Now let us read Article V:

What Article V Really Says

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…”  [boldface mine]

Note that Congress “calls” the ConventionThe States don’t “call” it – all they can do is apply to Congress for Congress to call it.

There are many questions about Article V conventions; and James Madison raised them on two occasions at the Federal Convention of 1787: 8

  • On September 10, Madison remarked on the vagueness of the term, “call a Convention for the purpose”:  How was a Convention to be formed?  By what rule decide?  What the force of its acts?
  • On September 15, Madison commented on this again, and said that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, etc., which in constitutional regulations ought to be avoided when possible.

Mr. Madison saw that these questions are not addressed by Article V.  Eagle Forum has also raised this issue in Twenty Questions about a constitutional convention.

But since Congress “calls” it, Congress has the power to appoint whomsoever they will as delegates;9  and nothing in the Constitution says they can’t do this.

Now note that Art. V provides for two conventions:

  • The first is the one called by Congress to propose amendments.
  • After amendments are proposed, Art. V empowers Congress to select the mode of ratification: Shall the State Legislatures be the body to ratify or reject?  Or shall each State convene a convention for the purposes or ratifying or rejecting the proposed amendments?

The only convention Art. V authorizes States to convene is one within their respective borders to ratify or reject an amendment proposed by Congress or by the convention Congress called.

What Levin Claims Article V Says

As you see, Art. V makes no provision for a “state convention process” where the States control the convention.

Yet Levin makes the bizarre claims (p 16-17) that Art. V authorizes this “state convention process”; and that the convention called by Congress pursuant to Art. V is really:

  • A “creature …of the state legislatures”;
  • That during ratification of our Constitution, the Founders always talked about conventions for proposing amendments as representing the States; and
  • That the state legislatures determine the method for selection of their delegates; and the subject matter of the convention.

Does Levin cite any authority for these claims?  Words of our Framers, perhaps?

No!  He cites an article written by former law professor, Robert G. Natelson, who Levin says is an “expert” on this “state convention process” (p16, notes 28 & 29).

Here is the article by Natelson Levin cites as “authority” for his claims.  Note that:

  • Natelson announces that he will no longer call what he wants a “constitutional convention”.  Henceforth, he will call it a “convention for proposing amendments”, an “Article V Convention”, an “amendments convention” or a “convention of the states”. 10
  • Natelson doesn’t cite any authority from our Framers for the claims Levin regurgitates in his book.  Instead, Natelson cites other law review articles; and
  • Natelson claims it was “custom” at the time of our Founding for States to have all these powers in conventions.

Custom?

Natelson’s article is no authority at all.  And even if he had proven that the “custom” at the time of our Framing was for States to have all these powers in conventions [someone really should have told James Madison about this “custom”]; what is there to make the Congress of today follow this 18th century  “custom” when Congress “calls” the convention under Art. V?

Levin also says he knows Congress’ role in the “state application process” is minimal and ministerial because:

  • The Framers and ratifiers adopted this “state convention process” for the purpose of establishing an alternative to the congressionally initiated amendment process; and
  • Alexander Hamilton said so in Federalist Paper No. 85.

Here, Levin commits the logical fallacy of “circular reasoning”:  We know, Levin argues, that Congress’ role in the state application process is “minimal and ministerial” because the Framers adopted this as an alternative to the method where Congress proposes the amendments directly.  Do you see?

Levin next claims that in Federalist No. 85, Hamilton said, respecting an Art. V convention, that Congress has “no option”, “will be obliged”, and that “nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body” (p 16-17).

Levin misrepresents what Hamilton says.  In Federalist No. 85, Hamilton merely says that Congress must call a convention when two-thirds of the States apply for it:

 “… By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States … to call a convention for proposing amendments … The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. …”

Levin wrongly extends Congress’ lack of discretion on the issue of “to call or not to call” to what follows the “call”:  How the convention is to be formed, the appointment of delegates, the other  questions raised by Madison on September 10 & 15, 1787, and Eagle Forum’s Twenty Questions.

I have never seen any of the Framers say that Congress has no power over what follows Congress’ “call”; and Levin doesn’t produce evidence that any of them ever did.

Levin misrepresents what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787.

This 4 page chart lays out what really happened at that Convention respecting Article V.

To introduce his discussion of that Convention, Levin makes the following fanciful claims:

“The Constitution itself provides the means for restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe (or, in the case of societal collapse, resurrecting the civil society) in Article V.” (p 12)

“The fact is that Article V expressly grants state legislatures significant authority to rebalance the constitutional structure for the purpose of restoring our founding principles should the federal government shed its limitations, abandon its original purpose, and grow too powerful…” (p12-13)

Article V says no such thing!  Read it and see.

Levin then quotes Edmund Randolph & George Mason, delegates to the Convention, as support for his claims respecting the purpose of Art. V.

But Randolph & Mason wanted a method of amendment Congress had nothing to do with. This was an issue at the Convention; Randolph & Mason held the minority view.

The majority view – the one reflected in the ratified version of Article V – involves Congress in both methods of amendment.  Congress either:

  •   Proposes the amendments; or
  •  “Calls” a convention when the Legislatures of 2/3 of the States apply for it.

Our Framers’ Concerns about “Conventions”

Now let us examine the “convention for proposing amendments” which Congress calls pursuant to Art. V; the “runaway” the Federal Convention of 1787 turned into, and “general conventions”.

We saw that James Madison raised concerns on September 10 & 15, 1787, about Art. V conventions called by Congress, because of questions respecting how was a Convention to be formed, by what rule, & the procedures of such conventions.

Yet Levin claims that in Federalist No. 43, Madison shows he considered an Art. V convention as prudent a method of amendment as having Congress propose the amendments (p 15).

Madison does not say that in Federalist No. 43! 11

Second, Levin’s claim is contradicted by Madison’s words in his letter of November 2, 1788 to G. L. Turberville on the same subject.

In his letter to Turberville, Madison speaks, with reference to modes of originating amendments, of both a “general convention” and an “Article V Convention”, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, “the origination of amendments in Congress”.

Madison advises that amendments be originated in Congress – not in an Art. V Convention, for the various reasons set forth in his letter; and that:

“2. A [“general”] 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 [Art. V] 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…” [boldface mine]

Do you see?  Madison advises that when States want amendments, they instruct their Congressional delegation to pursue it.  This is the best way for the States to “originate amendments”!

That is the mode Madison strongly recommended; that is the mode we have followed.  On May 5, 1789, Rep. Bland (pages 258-261) introduced into Congress the petition from the State of Virginia for an Art. V Convention to propose amendments.  But on June 8, 1789, Madison (pages 448-460) introduced 12 proposed amendments for Congress to propose to the State Legislatures.  And on September 24, 1789, the House & Senate having agreed on the wording of the proposed 12 amendments; the House requested the President to transmit them to the States for ratification. 

If we cannot elect to Congress people who will follow the instructions of their State Legislatures & constituents and propose those amendments which actually need to be made; how can we trust Congress to “call” a convention?

And as to another “general” or “runaway” convention, perish the thought!:

On September 15,1787, in response to Randolph’s & Mason’s demands for another “general convention”,  Mr. Pinckney pointed out that nothing but confusion and contrariety will spring from calling forth the deliberations and amendments of the different States, on the subject of government at large.  States will never agree in their plans; and the deputies to a second convention, coming together under the discordant impressions of their constituents, will never agree.  “Conventions are serious things, and ought not to be repeated.”

In Federalist No. 85 (9th para), Hamilton spoke of:

“…the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…”

James Madison warned against another general convention in his letter to Turberville :

“3… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it … would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. … it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America…” [boldface mine]

Do we have “violent partizans”, “individuals of insidious views”, and any who would exploit an opportunity to sap “the very foundations of the fabric” today?  Yes, we do.  They are in Congress, the executive branch, the federal Courts, “conservative” circles – and they are invading our Country at a furious rate.  And what now is the “present temper of America”?

Why a “Runaway” Article V Convention is a Real Possibility and a Grave Danger.

Pursuant to the authority granted by Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress Resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74):

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.” [boldface mine]

So!  The Convention of 1787 was called by the Continental Congress for the “sole and express purpose” of proposing revisions to the Articles of Confederation.

But the delegates ignored these limitations and wrote a new Constitution. 12

As to delegates, the Continental Congress expressly directed the States to appoint the delegates.

But there is no requirement in Art. V of our Constitution that States be permitted to appoint delegates; and no “custom” from the era of the Continental Congress can bind the Congress of today.

So if Congress of today were to call an Art. V convention, Congress would most likely get delegates who would do what Congress wants.

And will Congress appoint Islamists as delegates?  La Raza Mexicans?  Other special interest groups?  How can Congress be prevented from appointing whomsoever they will?

And if the delegates duly appointed by Congress, and acting under the Authority of Congress, come up with a new Constitution, will the new Constitution outlaw Christianity?  (Obama is outlawing it in the military, and Congress isn’t doing a thing about it).  Will it institute Sharia? Will it disarm the American People?  Will it follow the UN Model where “rights” are privileges granted and withdrawn by the State?  Will it outlaw private property?

And this new Constitution will have its own mode of ratification.  This new mode of ratification can be whatever the delegates want – a majority vote in Congress, perhaps?

There is no way to stop them from “running away” and writing a new Constitution with its own mode of ratification. They can cram a new Constitution down your throat and you won’t be able to do a thing about it.

On page 15, Levin commits a formal fallacy (an argument defective as to form) when he attempts to prove that an Art. V convention can’t possibly turn into a “runaway”. Here is the form of his argument:

  1. He was originally skeptical of “the state convention process” because it could turn into a “runaway”.
  2. Art. V says a proposed amendment has no effect unless ratified by ¾ of the States.
  3. Therefore, the “state convention process” can’t result in a “hijack of the Constitution” [“runaway”].

His conclusion (3) is a form of non sequitur – it doesn’t follow from the premises (1 & 2).  And our concern is not with amendments – those are subject to approval by three-fourths of the States.  Our concern is that the convention will “runaway” and write a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification which does not require approval by three-fourths of the States.  Do you see?

Conclusion

Few of us can name even 5 of the enumerated powers of Congress and 4 of the enumerated powers of the President.  Why?  Because we never bothered to learn our Constitution.  Alexander Hamilton expected THE PEOPLE to be “the natural guardians of the Constitution”.  But you can’t “guard” the Constitution if you don’t trouble yourself to learn it.

Since we never bothered to learn the Constitution, we elected politicians who also hadn’t bothered to learn it.  So they ignored the Constitution when they assumed office.

This is why, after more than 100 years of electing politicians who ignore the Constitution, we are now under tyranny and headed for disaster.

Do we now want a way out which allows us to avoid confronting our own personal failures as Guardians of the Constitution?  When charlatans who “sound good” offer us a scapegoat, do we jump on it?  Do we chant, “The Constitution is broken!  Fix the Constitution!”  And shall we pretend that we too know all about how to amend a Constitution most of us never bothered to read?

Our Constitution depended on our knowing our Constitution and in electing representatives who would obey it – and getting rid of them when they didn’t.

James Madison said on June 20, 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

“…. But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.”

We are in a “wretched situation” because we lost our virtue.  Renounce handouts and pride in pretended “knowingness”.  Learn the enumerated powers of Congress and the President.  This chart will get you started.  Learn about nullification.  Form delegations and go to your State Legislators, educate them and demand they start nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government.  States should nullify obamacare!  If Legislators aren’t willing to renounce federal funding, recall or defeat them! PH

Endnotes:

1 We must stop believing whatever we are told.  We must demand proof by original source documents, and think for ourselves.

2 The President’s Oath is set forth at Art. II, §1, last clause.

3 These are among the remedies our Framers advised when the federal government usurps power:

►In Federalist No. 44 (12th para from end), Madison says elect more faithful representatives!:

“… In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…”

But we keep reelecting the same sorry people because we know their names and they are in our party.

►States should nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government! This is proven with links to original sources in James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers.

►In Federalist No. 46 (last half), Madison shows how individual States or several States carry out various degrees of resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments.  See also: What Should States Do When The Federal Government Usurps Power?

►In Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras), Hamilton says:

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success …” [italics mine]

“…The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them…”

“It may safely be received as an axiom …that the State governments will … afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority…. The legislatures … can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition…”

“…When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people … who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense…”

4 Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 8th Resolution.

5 James Madison, Notes on Nullification (1834). The quote is near the end.  Use “find” function.

6 Later, I will show why Levin’s proposed amendments gut our Constitution.  Meanwhile, you read the Constitution, learn the enumerated powers of Congress, and see if you can figure out what is wrong with the proposed amendments.  Use your own head and trust no one.

7 Alexander Hamilton said on Sep. 10, 1787 that an easy mode should be established for fixing defects which will probably appear in the new system ... the National Legislature will be the first to perceive, and will be most sensible to, the necessity of amendments…

8 What happened at the Federal Convention of 1787 respecting Art. V is laid out in this 4 page chart.

9 “Citizens for Self-Governance”, headed by the Michael Farris who is pushing the “parental rights amendment, represents that the “Convention of the States” will soon:

“…open the application process for leadership positions across the country. Consider applying to be a District Captain, Legislative Liaison, or State Director…”

thereby making the gullible believe that they can be a “player” in this “Convention of the States”.

10 Phyllis Schlafly, Kelleigh Nelson, Henry Lamb and others have done such a magnificent job of warning The People of the dangers of a constitutional convention, that many now understand that such is likely to result in a new Constitution – with its own method of ratification – being forced on us.

So!  Proponents now call it by another name: “Convention of the States” or “state convention process”.  Is the purpose of the name change to deceive you? To make you think it is something “different” from the Art. V convention Congress calls?

11 In Federalist No. 43, Madison comments on Art. V:

“8…That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other…”

12 We were fortunate (except for slavery) with the Constitution of 1787, even though the Federal Convention was a “runaway”.  Look who was there!:  George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin; and they weren’t drowned out by subversives.  They would be today. PH

September 15, 2013; revised Dec. 5, 2013; Dec. 31, 2013.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

September 15, 2013 - Posted by | Article V, Article V Convention, constitutional convention, Federal Convention of 1787, Mark Levin, The Liberty Amendments | , , , , ,

119 Comments »

  1. Let’s nullify–albeit with toothless (but teaching-by-spanking unruly hands) resolutions; I’m the guy who wants to work with you to do that.

    Enough of mere education and electioneering at meetings of the “choir” with other retired people like us. It’s time for David(a) to take on Goliath. Let’s take well-fashioned resolutions to Nashville, with the right person delivering them to the right legislators!

    I’m in!

    K.N. told you about me.

    Marc

    Comment by Marc H. | May 29, 2014 | Reply

    • Did K.N. forward to you my letter of earlier today to her re the issues we must address before any nullification bills have a chance? I meant for her to forward it to you.

      But I am sorry to say that the people who attend the meeting of the choir are extremely ignorant of the Constitution. I have asked group leaders to name 4 of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress – and the best they could do was, “make laws?” and “make war?”. The reason the members of the choir are so easily deceived by phonies is that they don’t know the Constitution! So they can’t see that the phonies they love so much and think are so great also don’t have a clue what the Constitution says about anything. THAT ignorance is why we haven’t been able to accomplish anything. B/c WE don’t have the knowledge, we can’t elect candidates who have the knowledge.

      Was it Jefferson who said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

      Comment by Publius Huldah | May 29, 2014 | Reply

  2. Reblogged this on SiriusCoffee and commented:
    The reason the States won’t nullify laws and regulations enforced by the Federal Government is because the States are dependant on federal tax money to fund their infrastructure. The suck on the milk of stolen money, and are now totally addicted. They will not nullify unconstitutional laws without risking their own re-election when the spigot gets turned off (as we are seeing with “common core” education funds). I believe the only real hope if our nation is to survive as a constitutional republic, is to do away with the income tax and the central bank. Otherwise, we purchase our own demise with our own money.

    Comment by Brad S. | May 10, 2014 | Reply

    • They will NOT Nullify because they are spineless finger puppet-ed political circus clowns with their makeup on. Oath violators everyone. Especially after they put they makeup on.

      Comment by Noah | May 10, 2014 | Reply

      • … and the States don’t want to lose their federal funding.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | May 12, 2014 | Reply

        • Hear, Hear. Everything Publius Huldah indicates. Researched and well clarified. The Right Way…….. I’m going through a book just now bought at a book sale “Original Meanings” politics and ideas in the making of The Constitution by Jack N Rakove. i am starting to shudder because of the title. I am going camping. If I believe it deceptive. I will be ripping pages out to feed the camp fire. Camp Fires at Bull Run.

          Comment by Noah | May 12, 2014 | Reply

          • Enjoy your camping trip! Are there chiggers & ticks & snakes where you are going?

            Comment by Publius Huldah | May 12, 2014

          • Thanks, Mam. In GOD’s Nature there are those you mention. Fellow life forms. Their season is just now beginning. All GOD’s Plan. However, Where I will be is near those human inhuman parasitic blood sucking unto destruction of Our Founder’s blood, sweat and tears hard work. We must set up camps outside the gates for the enemy of humanity that has occupation of Our Beloved Grace of GOD Given Republic. WE will do this.

            Comment by Noah | May 12, 2014

    • Publius …you are so emotionally attached your belief about nullification that you can’t honestly consider that nullification and a convention are two distinct methods. I wish you had an open mind, one who was able to honestly judge matters without preconceived notions and appeals to authority.

      Comment by Rob John | May 12, 2014 | Reply

      • Rob John: You presented a string of ad hominems: “emotionally attached”, “a closed mind”, with “preconceived notions”, and can’t “honestly judge”.

        Those are also what trial lawyers refer to as “conclusions” – such conclusions are always inadmissible. They say nothing about my writings – merely that you don’t like them.

        Why don’t you see if you can do better: Let’s do one at a time so as not to overwhelm you: Please set forth the FACTS on which you base your conclusion that I am “emotionally attached” to nullification. Just the Facts, please.

        And if it is your position that nullification is NOT the method of resistance to federal usurpations which our Framers actually advised, then PROVE IT.

        After this, we can move to the other errors in your comment.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | May 12, 2014 | Reply

  3. […] I addressed this same lie in “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!” under the subheading, “What Levin Claims Article V Says”.  Congress’ lack of discretion […]

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy against Our Constitution « Publius-Huldah's Blog | January 28, 2014 | Reply

  4. […] used these same techniques to manipulate the German People. 6. I addressed this same lie in “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!” under the subheading, “What Levin Claims Article V Says”. Congress’ lack of discretion is […]

    Pingback by Bridge for sale…cheap! | Scanned Retina Resource | January 25, 2014 | Reply

  5. […] I addressed this same lie in “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!” under the subheading, “What Levin Claims Article V Says”.  Congress’ lack of discretion […]

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy Against Our Constitution | American Clarion | January 15, 2014 | Reply

  6. […] I addressed this same lie in “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!” under the subheading, “What Levin Claims Article V Says”. Congress’ lack of discretion is […]

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy Against Our Constitution | Grumpy Opinions | January 15, 2014 | Reply

  7. […] I addressed this same lie in “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!” under the subheading, “What Levin Claims Article V Says”. Congress’ lack of discretion is […]

    Pingback by Propaganda And The Conspiracy Against Our Constitution | NoisyRoom.net | January 14, 2014 | Reply

  8. […] Publius Huldah, “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, Not Amendments!”.  https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullif… […]

    Pingback by Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention: Where is the Open and Honest Debate? | Why the TEA Party? | January 10, 2014 | Reply

  9. […] Publius Huldah, “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, Not Amendments!”.  https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullif… […]

    Pingback by Nullification v. Article V Constitutional Convention: Where is the Honest and Open Debate? | Tea In Politics | January 10, 2014 | Reply

  10. […] Publius Huldah, “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, Not Amendments!”.  https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullif… […]

    Pingback by Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention: Where is the Open and Honest Debate? | My Blog | January 10, 2014 | Reply

  11. […] Publius Huldah, “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, Not Amendments!”.  https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullif… […]

    Pingback by Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention: Where is the Honest and Open Discussion? | Forloveofgodandcountry's Blog | January 10, 2014 | Reply

  12. I think some quotes of the Founders are being misrepresented here.

    Ex. James Madison warned against another general convention

    This Convention of States is not being proposed as a general convention, rather it is being proposed a single subject convention “Limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”

    Comment by Rob John | December 18, 2013 | Reply

    • Rob, again, you are merely repeating what you have been told b/c you so desperately want it to be true.

      And the proponents of the COS are taking advantage of your desperation.

      All I can do for you is to encourage you to actually look up & study the original source writings in my two papers. Every single one of them!

      In Madison’s letter to Turberville, he warned against a convention to propose amendments. When the proponents of the COS say Madison was talking of another kind of convention, they are lying. Here is Madison’s letter: Copy it to word, go thru it carefully, and see what Madison actually said.

      http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1937&chapter=118861&layout=html&Itemid=27

      If you have questions, I am at your service.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2013 | Reply

      • You know we can agree to disagree, but don’t assume I’m not knowledgeable of the Constitution, or the writings of the Founders and assume that your judgment is infallible. Just because I don’t agree with your conclusion does not make me just repeating what I’ve heard. Your assumptions are unwarranted and insulting. I am well capable of researching all sides and THINKING for myself, and have done so long before Mark Levin, the Tea Party and others came around.

        Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. [That age though] was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading. – Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816

        A government that provides no means of change, but assumes to be fixed and unalterable, must, after a while, become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation; and it will either degenerate into a despotism, or by the pressure of its inequalities bring on a revolution … The great principle to be sought is to make change practicable, but not too easy; to secure due deliberation, and caution; and to follow experience, rather than open the way for experiments, suggested by mere speculation or theory. – Justice Joseph Story

        The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of government. – George Washington

        Nullification of what? A pocket knife is not going to solve these problems.

        Why can’t both nullification, as South Carolina is pursuing regarding ACA and a Convention be used to limit federal powers?

        Why do you fear a limited convention? Oh yes, you fear a runaway convention. If that’s the case, when will you not?

        Comment by Rob John | December 18, 2013 | Reply

        • Now Rob, read what you have written in your two latest posts. Are those the writings of a rational adult who knows his subject? With all due respect, you sound like an hysterical, spoiled & accusing child.

          It isn’t enough for you to say we disagree. You must prove where I am wrong. You must address the issues I raise. You must deal with Facts, Logic, and the writings of our Framers.

          You are ignoring matters which I have proved!

          You can not properly rant about what I fear and don’t fear. And if you want others to respect your intellect and knowledge, then you must demonstrate some intellect & knowledge.

          Try again, and this time limit yourself to FACTS, Logic, and the writings of our Framers. Don’t impute anything to me.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2013 | Reply

  13. […] Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments! […]

    Pingback by Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments! | Republican Liberty Caucus of Okanogan County | December 15, 2013 | Reply

  14. Thanks for real facts to back my anti- con-con statements. If a con-con were called in October 2008, what would Levin expected as a result? My view is Levin has demonstrated no understanding of human nature and no understanding of “democracy” experiments in human history. Our founders did demonstrate such understanding in great detail of both issues. Levin’s emotions are in the right place. His logic and historical justification are completely missing. Levin is (‘get off the phone you big dope’) right in his emotions, but wrong in his logical, moral and legal justifications.

    Thanks for the excellent article.

    Ed

    Comment by egbegb | December 12, 2013 | Reply

    • I think it is wrong to assume Mark Levin is being intellectually and morally indefensible. Why don’t you call his show or write him to discuss the issue? A Convention of States would be far more effective long term in reforming the federal government. What will the States nullify … one unconstitutional act a time? That will not accomplish a lot. What abut regulations? What about taxation? You are talking about using a pocket knife, when we have a 100 years of bad government and need a chain saw to cut this tree down.

      Comment by Rob John | December 18, 2013 | Reply

      • 1. Rob, precision in speech (and thought) is important. What I said was:

        “The claims of the nullification deniers have been proven to be false. To persist in those claims – or to do as Levin seems to do and ignore the remedy of nullification – is intellectually and morally indefensible. So why don’t they apologize to the public and recant their errors?”

        What is indefensible is persistence in making false claims and ignoring Relevant Truth.

        2. Levin is welcome to write a paper pointing out any errors he can find in my work.

        3. There is no such thing as “a convention of States” for making amendments. Read my paper on Mark Levin and my latest paper which you can read here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/131215

        You are being deceived. I prove it in those two papers. The issue for you is whether you will permit yourself to be deceived or whether you will use your own head and look at the Facts which I lay out for you in my two papers.

        You assert that a COS would be “far more effective” – So prove it. Show me. Lay out the FACTS proving this. You can’t. You are merely repeating what you hope to be true and what you have been told. But it is your obligation to use your own head and not blindly repeat what others say.

        Nullification is not effective? Read my paper, “James Madison rebukes Nullification Deniers”. THAT is the remedy our Framers advised.

        What about regulations? Read my paper on the presidents enumerated powers – I discuss rule-making by executive agencies, as well: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-presidents-enumerated-powers-rulemaking-by-executive-agencies-executive-orders/

        For 100 years, we have been moving in the wrong direction. We can’t fix this in a week or two. All the unconstitutional federal and state agencies must be dismantled – but this must be done in an orderly manner. Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. must be phased out in an orderly manner.

        With all due respect, you are not thinking this through. I understand that you are angry, you are frustrated, you want to “Do Something!!!”. The leaders of this COS movement do not want to dismantle the Leviathan federal government: They want to legalize what is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; and they want to institute a legal tyranny. [What we have now is an illegal tyranny.]

        For 100 years, the American People have permitted themselves to be “played” by the Progressives. The American People got suckered into supporting the 16th & 17th amendments; they got suckered into supporting the welfare state; and now they are being suckered into giving up our Constitution all together.

        And YOU are helping them.

        You must use your own head. Study my papers and check out the original source writings of our Framers to which I link.

        Ask Questions. [Don't make pronouncements you can't support.]

        Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2013 | Reply

        • I guess your judgment is infallible. You assume too much.

          Comment by Rob John | December 18, 2013 | Reply

          • And never guess. It is unseemly.

            And don’t impute motives or assumptions to others – how would you know?

            And why do you believe my judgment is infallible? I am more knowledgeable in this field & more rational than most; but I am not infallible.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 18, 2013

  15. […] Believers in the USC/BoR should read this post carefully. […]

    Pingback by Con-Con Con, Encore | Western Rifle Shooters Association | December 12, 2013 | Reply

  16. What do you think of this Mount Vernon Assembly? And if they do go through with petitioning for an Article V convention, what recourse to we have but to get involved and try our darnest to keep it from running away? I know this is far from ideal, but looks like it may be becoming a real possibility. I am genuinely concerned.

    Comment by JohnnyDollar74 | December 8, 2013 | Reply

    • I am not trying to step out in front of PH concerning this. She knows best. Just a question?? Does anyone anywhere that knows anything expect the tyrannical government to fix itself? Simple question. Simple answer. I say.

      Comment by Noah | December 8, 2013 | Reply

      • We certainly cannot expect the current crop of legislators and executive, judiciary and regulatory clowns to ‘fix’ government if ‘fixing’ means moving back to constitutional government. Virtually all elected and appointed officials have moved away from the supreme Law of the Land and refuse to be constrained by its limitations.

        There is also no point in expecting a few new elected patriots, tea party, or otherwise, to fix government because it is the long-term establishment members of Congress who control government according to the major political parties, both Democrat and Republican. Both political parties are nothing more than the most influential lobbyists against constitutional government. They control most elections and work extremely hard to disenfranchise any candidates who buck the party system and platform.

        In order to ‘fix’ government, we need a clean slate–fire virftually every member of Congress and find new representation (that isn’t controlled by either political party) that will PLEDGE to support the Constitution–and then hold their feet to the fire. We also need clean slates in our State governments; electing individuals who are willing to take back State sovereignty (refusing federal dollars–and control) and to nullify legislation and court decisions that are outside the bounds of constitutional authority.

        If a convention to amend the constitution is called, the real danger is who will control the appointment of delegates to the convention? Will it be the major political parties or the State Legislators who are beholden to the political parties?

        If we have any possibility of taking back our country and restoring constitutional government, an increasing number of average citizens who’ve never been involved in ‘politics’ and government need to get involved. Will they?

        Comment by AZ-Ike | December 8, 2013 | Reply

    • I say we actually try doing it the way our present Constitution specifies for a few years before we start messing around and really screw it up.

      Comment by sootsme | December 12, 2013 | Reply

  17. […] to see how many prominent people are advocating that a Constitutional convention should be held.  Mark Levin supports it and is actively promoting this idea with his book The Liberty Amendments.  Levin has no […]

    Pingback by Is the solution to federal tyranny a Con Con? | Paradshift.net | November 23, 2013 | Reply

  18. […] the so-called Article V Convention that Long wants to discuss at Mt. Vernon.  See for example here and here.  To date, the enthusiasm for having state legislatures consider bypassing the […]

    Pingback by State Legislators Are Redundant. George Would Be Mortified. | Grumpy Opinions | November 12, 2013 | Reply

  19. […] the so-called Article V Convention that Long wants to discuss at Mt. Vernon.  See for example here and here.  To date, the enthusiasm for having state legislatures consider bypassing the […]

    Pingback by State Legislators Are Redundant. George Would Be Mortified. | Unified Patriots | November 12, 2013 | Reply

  20. […] Tuesday, October 29th, Women Patriots will be joined by Publius Huldah, lawyer and Constitutionalist on the topic of Nullification.  Here is an excerpt from her latest column, Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments! […]

    Pingback by Publius Huldah Discusses Nullification on Women Patriots | Women Patriots | October 29, 2013 | Reply

  21. […] publiushuldah.wordpress.com […]

    Pingback by Constitution | Annotary | October 14, 2013 | Reply

  22. As the author of “Hologram of Liberty”, while I agree with P.H. about the danger of a modern ConCon, I do have to object to any credence given to Hamilton’s disingenuous contributions to The Federalist. Those papers were a sneaky marketing tool written by the major actors at Philadelphia, and should be read that way.

    I quote below from pp. 243-244 of my 2012 revision of the 1997 original Hologram. [rest of post deleted by Publius Huldah]

    Comment by Kenneth W. Royce aka Boston T. Party | October 14, 2013 | Reply

    • Royce, much of what you said is not true.

      I hope you will start from the beginning and take another look at this. Lay aside what you think you know – ’cause it just ain’t so.

      Read this about the interstate commerce clause – and look up all the links to The Federalist Papers and to Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787. I prove the original intent of the interstate commerce clause: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/82/

      It is a terrible thing to spread confusion and untruths. Far better to keep silent than to spread misinformation.

      Do the right thing always.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 14, 2013 | Reply

      • PH – you clearly have an acumen for discerning intent via the writings and historically reported views of the stake-holders in both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

        Do you think Hamilton changed his mind over time regarding the Commerce clause (the Whiskey Tax levy on the people of Pennsylvania may have been an evolved position deviating from his previously stated positions as well) or do you believe based on his writing of the subject in Federalist #17 and the subsequent report on manufacturers in 1791 that this was merely a subterfuge in order to “grease the skids” of ratification?

        With the benefit of the historical mirror, who do you believe was more genuine in their publications regarding the Constitution’s protections of Liberty and Freedom, the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists?

        Thanks!

        DC

        Comment by Doug Carlton | October 16, 2013 | Reply

        • I love Hamilton. He was a genius – but like all of us, was not perfect and not always consistent.

          He was a lawyer. I am a lawyer. I understand what he did. He wanted America to become a great commercial power. He didn’t want us to import our stuff. So he came up with this idea of “bounties” and an expanded interpretation of the general welfare clause to justify the bounties which he expressed in his Report on Manufacturers. Do I agree? Heck, no! Do I understand why he said what he said? I think so. He wanted America to become a manufacturing power.

          He was an honorable man. He just wasn’t perfect. But his writings in the Federalist Papers are jewels in the history of political philosophy.

          The Whiskey Tax? Congress has authority to impose excises. The idea – as expressed in Hamilton’s 6 papers on taxation – was that excises would be imposed on items which were judiciously selected. Best to impose them on luxury items (whiskey, carriages, etc.) and not necessaries (bread, milk, & peanut butter).

          Federalists? Antifederalists? There is confusion between the original meanings of the terms and the later political parties.

          “Federalism” refers to the form of our civil government: An alliance of sovereign States united ONLY for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution:

          1. War, international commerce & relations
          2. Control of immigration & naturalization of new citizens
          3. Domestically, the creation of a uniform commercial system (weights & measures, patents & copyrights, bankruptcy laws, a money system based on gold & silver, mail delivery and some road building); and
          4. with some of the amendments, to secure certain civil rights.

          with all other powers reserved to the States and The People.

          So YES! I would have been a federalist in support of ratification of the Constitution. Look at its enumerated powers! How could anyone oppose that?

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 16, 2013 | Reply

  23. Emphasis added:

    “OR, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, SHALL call a convention for proposing amendments,”

    Congress SHALL call the convention. They have no choice in the matter if two thirds of the states apply for it.

    Comment by Karl | October 10, 2013 | Reply

    • Please, “NO CON-CON”, “Please”. “It is a sin against Our Constitutional Republic” Enough, Enough, Enough, “Please”

      Comment by Noah | October 11, 2013 | Reply

      • Amen!

        Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2013 | Reply

    • Let’s suppose that 2/3 of the states petitioned Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments, what would be the details for such a meeting? There are no set rules or guidelines which Congress would have to follow. There is no statement in the Constitution as to how this would work and who gets to decide the details. It does not say that the People or the States set the rules. So, in reality, can you imagine our Congress letting something like this happen without them being the ones who decide just exactly how it would operate, who would be there and how much weight each State would have? Before any convention would happen, the elite in D.C. would have defined the rules in favor of their political agenda. With the rules predetermined to produce an outcome in a specific direction, the results could easily be a disaster entrapping ALL of the States and ALL of the People. The 2nd would most likely be gone for good. The 1st would be restricted. Freedom would be lost forever. If you believe the conservatives would win and save the Republic, I believe you are dreaming. Our political climate in D.C. would guarantee that did not happen.
      Nullification can save one State, with it’s residents, at a time. For the convention to help, you would first have to convince 34 state legislatures to make the call, actually win over the delegates to the convention to propose and pass amendments which would better and correct bad amendments already passed, get the required number of states to vote to ratify, etc. It looks like an almost impossible path for conservatives to win.
      With nullification, you only have to convince your own State to act and you win.

      Comment by Mike Foil | October 11, 2013 | Reply

      • YES! To all that you say!

        Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2013 | Reply

    • Right. Only CONGRESS may call the Article V Convention – the States may not. And we all know what it means when CONGRESS is the one who “calls” it.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2013 | Reply

    • Congress violates the Constitution every day. What makes you think they would even call a Convention to Amend the Constitution upon the request of two-thirds of the States?

      In fact, two lawsuits previously were filed in District Court relating to Congress’ failure to call a Convention for Amending the Constitution: Walker v. United States (2000) and Walker v. Members of Congress (2004.) Walker and his attorneys set up a website: http://www.article5.org/ to tell the story of his efforts to force Congress to call the ‘Convention.’ The website includes the actual lawsuits and Court Decisions, as well as their personal narrative/explanation. (The lawsuits and Decisions also can be found at the usual sources—Cornell.edu or Justia.com, or both.)

      Summary from the ‘article5.org’ website:
      “WALKER v. UNITED STATES was the first lawsuit in history to directly address the question of whether Congress was required to obey the text of the Constitution and call a convention when the states applied which the evidence in the suit clearly showed they had, or whether, despite the language of the Constitution which the Founders termed “peremptory” Congress could ignore, or veto, the direct text of the Constitution and refuse to call such a convention even though the states had applied.
      IN WALKER v. UNITED STATES, an over-length brief citing over two hundred Supreme Court rulings favoring the position of the plaintiff, Bill Walker of Seattle, Washington, was presented in district court. The court refused to read the document and ultimately, citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) established that under the court’s political question doctrine, Congress was empowered to ignore or veto the direct text of the Constitution.” The supreme Court, of course, refused to hear the appeal.
      (Note: In additional commentary, the attorney(s) noted the Court did not restrict Congress’ empowerment to ignore the Constitution specifically to Article V. Apparently the Decision allows Congress to ignore the Constitution at will.)

      Article III states that ‘Judicial Power shall extend to ALL CASES, in Law and Equity, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY. As a citizen, I simply do not understand how the Courts can define a violation of the Constitution (the supreme Law of the Land) as political question doctrine, and I do not understand why U.S. citizens can be deemed as having no ‘standing’ when charging government with failure to uphold the Constitution. However, it does seem the District Court’s Decision has given Congress the ‘green light’ to ignore the Constitution if they choose to do so.

      That said, I no longer believe a Convention for Amending the Constitution is a good idea—especially at a time (1) when too few citizens understand the Constitution or even know that it guarantees our inalienable Rights and our consent to be governed, and (2) too many States are afraid they will lose federal dollars if they actually side with their citizens in support of the Constitution. The risk of actually replacing the entire Constitution with something like the Communist Manifesto is too great.

      [Emphasis (capitalization) within comment is mine.]

      Comment by AZ-Ike | October 11, 2013 | Reply

      • AZ-ike

        1) I am so sorry, I just do not have time to read the materials you linked to. But I do not know that the requisite number of States has ever applied for an Art. V convention. Eagle Forum has been tracking this for decades, and has not reported that the requisite number has ever applied. Here is their page on the con con: http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/

        It also makes no sense that Congress would decline to call an Art. V convention if the requisite number applied: Congress could get rid of the Constitution they despise so much by appointing delegates who would do just that!

        2) Re “political questions”: of course, I do not have an “in” to the U.S. supreme Court so I – like everyone else – can only speculate as to why the supreme Court refused to review the birther cases. But I can understand why that Court might properly decline to hear the cases – it is because it is a political question.

        The Constitution is very specific as to the manner in which presidents may be removed from office: Impeachment by Congress, removal via Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, resignation, and of course, by death.

        The Constitution does not permit the supreme Court to remove the president - so that Court has NO AUTHORITY to remove obama from office. That power is vested ONLY in Congress and in the persons named in Sec. 4 of the 25th Amendment [and of course in God who visits curses on us or removes them from us at His pleasure.]

        3) And yes, an Art. V convention is dangerous – our People have no understanding whatsoever of the purpose of civil government. And they are so easily deceived. We would not like the Constitution they come up with – there won’t be any “right” to keep and bear arms…..

        Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2013 | Reply

  24. Forgot to add that I believe the best course of action is to revoke the 17th Amendment so state nullification ability is once again built into the constitution explicitly as it was before!

    Comment by Mike Duttera | October 6, 2013 | Reply

    • Do it the right way. “Simple of Spine” Anything that violates Our GOD Given Unalienable Rights “Defy DO NOT Comply” “Nullify It” Afterwards “Interposition” should be but don’t count on it. Enough amendments, enough laws, enough, enough, enough.

      Comment by Noah | October 6, 2013 | Reply

      • Right! Nullify!

        Comment by Publius Huldah | October 7, 2013 | Reply

    • Yes, we ought to repeal the 17th Amendment.

      But do not think that nullification was ever “a constitutional right”. It is not and never was.

      Instead, nullification is that “natural right of self-defense” which pre-dates and pre-exists the Constitution and the federal government.

      The starting point for understanding our glorious Constitution is the 2nd para of The Declaration of Independence. And you must understand that Rights come from GOD and pre-exist The Constitution.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 6, 2013 | Reply

      • In lieu of repealing the 17th Amendment, which won’t happen without the consent of Congress, couldn’t we accomplish the same thing by amending our individual State Constitutions to read that our Senators first responsibility is to State sovereignty?

        Comment by AZ-Ike | October 11, 2013 | Reply

        • It is interesting that proponents of the Art. V Convention trust Congress to “call” a convention [which means Congress could appoint the delegates]; but say we need the Art. V convention in order to repeal the 17th amendment b/c Congress won’t do it.

          WE THE PEOPLE could send to Congress people pledged to repeal the 17th amendment.

          Yes, States could provide for that in their State Constitutions. But politicians break their promises, so how could we enforce it?

          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 11, 2013 | Reply

  25. There WAS a built in check of Fed usurpation of lower levels of government’s power. It was the Senate, appointed by the state legislatures to guard their prerogatives. The House already represented the people directly so the 17th Amendment didn’t really increase that, it cut out of the loop the state governments right to curb Fed incursions very simply and irrefutably, while the idea of extra-constitutional nullification is debatable and not specifically provided for by the constitution itself. It wasn’t needed as the Senate was obviously at the beginning able to nullify Fed encroachment on state rights with a simple vote down of any legislation desired. Having a bicameral legislature makes no sense when both houses are basically representing the same kind of factions.

    Comment by Mike Duttera | October 6, 2013 | Reply

    • 1. Right, the Federalist Papers explain that having State Legislatures elect U.S. Senators helped States to retain their Sovereignty. My paper, “National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America” explains that and provides the citations to the Federalist Papers.

      But the American People are gullible and shallow. They do not look under the surface. They are easily manipulated to support bad ideas. I expect they did not understand the reason our Framers provided for the State Legislatures to elect the U.S. Senators – b/c they had never read The Federalist Papers. So they were manipulated by the Progressives into supporting the popular election of U.S. Senators.

      I know from personal experience that it is pulling teeth to get Americans to stop supporting the extremely destructive proposed Amendments now being presented: The Balanced Budget amendment, the parental rights amendment, the 28th amendments, etc., etc. We are a People who do not understand the Constitution we have, clamoring for amendments, the significance of which we do not understand.

      And the progressives take advantage of this ignorance, gullibility and conceit of the American People.

      2. Nullification: it is debatable only b/c establishment conservatives and phony libertarians HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT WHAT OUR FRAMERS ACTUALLY SAID. Do not you too be taken in by these phonies.

      My paper, “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers”, explains what our Framers actually said; and shows that the phonies are either blatantly LYING ABOUT IT, or they have been ignorantly repeating what others before them have said without checking it out themselves to see if what they are parroting is actually true.

      I will be giving a major address on nullification at the Tenth Amendment Center’s Nullify Now! rally in Raleigh, N.C. on Oct. 19. Watch for it – I’m sure it will be on line.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 6, 2013 | Reply

  26. Reblogged this on Carl Stevenson's Blog and commented:
    Beware of politicians wanting to amend the Constitution …

    Comment by carlwk3c | September 24, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, PH, for a very well-researched and well-documented article.

      A few weeks ago, I was torn between Levin being a liar or just plain ignorant in his repeated claims that “Article V is THE recourse the Framers left us” and that it represents “the only way” out of our current mess. Then, the day after Constitution Day, he went on air in the second hour of his show blasting “nullification kooks” and claiming that Madison “NEVER” supported this “neoconfederate” idea. At that point I was able to determine, without a doubt, that the man is lying to his audience. The question is: why? What ulterior motive could he hope to attain by poisoning the public against what Jefferson himself called “the rightful remedy” to Federal tyranny? I don’t have the answer to that, and it troubles me, because his book is selling so well and people are buying into its claims.

      So, as people who have read and understood the writings, warnings, and recommendations of the Framers, we must band together to provide the TRUTH to the misinformed audiences of Levin, Hannity, and others. I am doing my part by working with The Coolidge Project, which is proposing for states to counter Federal overreach (which the states themselves have accepted in the past) by refusing “Federal money” and the mandates that come along with it. It is our belief that nullification cannot succeed without states getting out from under this Federal bribery and coercion first.

      We would love your thoughts on our plan, as you have clearly demonstrated not just a thorough knowledge of what the Framers intended, but also a strong desire to actually get back to it.
      Thank you.

      Comment by vociferouscal | September 29, 2013 | Reply

      • I think your assessment of Mark Levin is correct. And I do not think he is on our side. I never believed he was on our side; and he always struck me as being particularly ignorant of our Founding Principles and of the original intent of the Constitution.

        So I am baffled by this fawning article: http://thecoolidgeproject.wordpress.com/mark-levin-and-article-vs-second-option/ I assume you did not write it! I think we subvert ourselves when – out of a misplaced conception of what “being nice” requires, we chant that we are certain that so & so has good motives, his heart is in the right place, etc.; or say that people who are really ignorant & vicious are “brilliant”. Or maybe we just don’t know one way or the other.

        We must rediscover the Principle that we know people by their fruits – not by what they say.

        But yes, our side [assuming there are more than a handful of us] needs to organize. And yes! State legislators have been corruptly selling their retained powers and the retained powers and rights of their People to the federal government for BRIBE MONEY.

        But we the people don’t seem to be able to elect to our State legislatures people who will stop selling us out for bribes.

        But YES! You hit the nail on the head: The solution is for States (1) To renounce bribe taking and (2) nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government by refusing to obey.

        But I fear that States won’t nullify because they don’t want to lose their federal funds. How can you turn a totally corrupt People around? Particularly when you have only a very short time to do it?

        Comment by Publius Huldah | September 29, 2013 | Reply

        • I, too, heard Levin castigate the nullification ‘kooks’ and go on to misrepresent the Constitution. Too many of our ‘conservative’ commentators misrepresent the Constitution, insisting their own interpretation is correct. This is especially true when (1) they insist that any Bill passed by Congress and signed into Law by the President (in this case, the Usurper) becomes an Article VI supreme ‘Law of the Land,’ and (2) their belief that SCOTUS has the final say on what is and isn’t constitutional. For the past two weeks, all I heard was “Obamacare would become the Law of the Land on October 1st.”

          I have not heard about the Coolidge Project. Usually I refer to The Tenth Amendment Center for state nullification efforts, as they seem to have a well-organized site and State tracking info. Although we are closer to our State governments than to Congress, we have lost control of them because (again) we continue electing and re-electing the same corrupt, professional politicians who come out of the major political Parties—and it is obvious the Parties have become our enemies.

          I still believe Alan Keyes’ ‘Bucket Brigade’ plan (article 8.24.13) (http://www.renewamerica.com) is a potential solution, and the only actual blue-print that suggests a way to take back our country. The same plan also can be used to replace State legislators and governing officials.

          Alan Keyes states: (9.2.13—‘Impeachment: going from talk to action’)
          “It’s not enough to focus on impeachment as talk, or even as some kind of legal project. Discerning Americans need to focus on impeachment as a constitutional and political strategy, one that could restore the active, intelligent sovereignty of the American people, without destroying the civil peace of the United States.” …
          …“With impeachment and removal as the battle cry of grassroots mobilization in those elections (2014), the people can exercise their sovereign power to order rather than supplicate. But they can only do so if they:

          · Demand that candidates for the national legislature solemnly swear and affirm that if elected, as their first priority when the new Congress convenes in 2015 they will initiate, vote for and carry out the impeachment and removal of all civil officers they find to be involved in or collaborating with the Obama faction’s assault on America’s liberty and Constitution;

          · Make clear that they will withhold their vote from any person or party that refuses to represent them in this regard;

          · And effectively organize themselves to do so, regardless of sham party labels or specious promises of other action.”

          Our State officials and legislators are also required to take an Oath to support the U.S. Constitution, as well as the State’s Constitution. If our ‘grass-roots’ efforts can effectively organize, we can certainly require similar oaths or affirmations to take back State sovereignty, refuse federal dollars, and begin nullifying federal laws that are outside constitutional authority.

          Keyes’ ‘Bucket Brigade’ plan is both a benchmark and a starting point. As voters, we need to FIND our own candidates who, in Congress, will pledge constitutional integrity and the impeachments as stated above, starting with Obama and Biden. At the State level we must FIND candidates who will restore State sovereignty and pledge to nullify all federal overreach.

          If we want to elect candidates of character and integrity for either or both federal and State offices, we need to stop re-electing incumbents and avoid those candidates who are supported and/or backed by the political Parties. We simply can’t rely on the political Party candidate selections and ‘hope for the best’—because we are likely to get the same old ‘lesser of two evils’—and even if it may be ‘lesser,’ evil is evil.

          Keyes: (9.23.13—‘Gideon’s Army: a lesson for political action’)
          “The present political process is predicated on the notion that the controlling money and media powers determine election outcomes. These powers manipulate public perception to hand victory to whomever they choose. Insofar as the politicians perceive this to be the case, they understand that their hold on power depends on pleasing these controlling powers. They can therefore dispense with listening to voters and concentrate on pleasing their real masters, the elitist forces that hold the keys to manipulating voters.”

          In order to circumvent the present ‘political process’ we also must be willing to get the word out to our State’s voting population, because it is a good bet the media will not help us and the political Parties will put up serious roadblocks. There are few States that are so large that its citizens can’t effectively spread the word to our fellow voters—set up neighborhood and townhall meetings, and use the internet and social media to counteract network media and television ‘spots, etc.’

          And, finally, since voter fraud has become a significant factor in our last several elections, we must start NOW demanding (and protesting, if necessary) that our States clean-up our voting rolls to reflect ‘live’ State citizens, establish a voter ID procedure (regardless of federal interference,) and go back to paper ballots (ending the control of foreign corporate ‘capture and (mis?)counting.’ Reasonable persons would never choose to give control of their voting process to foreigners! Who made the decision for this treasonous act?

          I know there are other good ideas out there, but we have to be careful of choosing candidates who are committed to economic reform, or another single focus, but find both broad and specific constitutional issues a ‘distraction’ from their specified important ‘work’ to be done. The Declaration of Independence defines our belief in God’s Natural Laws, His endowment of inalienable Rights to humanity, our sovereign Authority in relation to government, and our establishment of government by our consent in order to secure our Rights. The Constitution GUARANTEES our inalienable God-given Rights, limits federal governments authority to few and enumerated powers, provides checks and balances against accumulation of excessive power, and insures government by consent—but only if WE elect representatives (and refresh frequently) who will support the Constitution and acknowledge our sovereign Authority. Why should WE the people settle for anything less?

          Comment by AZ-Ike | September 29, 2013 | Reply

          • Yes, I fully support Alan Keyes’ Bucket Brigade. All the things you say are true. But how do we get the people to start doing right?

            I look at the people in our Country and think we are too corrupt and stupid and lazy to fix it. People like me get smeared by the establishment conservatives and republicans and their hatchet men. And the “Christians” have been so indoctrinated into “non-judgmentalism” that they refuse to take sides in the war between Good & Evil.

            Still, our job is to do what we can and remember that we do not see the consequences of what we do. SO – we persevere!

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 29, 2013

        • Yes, our time is very short. Which is another reason I’m upset at Levin for his proposal which he admits will take “a generation or more”. We don’t have that kind of time and, even if we did, the Feds would ignore those amendments just as flagrantly as they have the entire document Levin wants to attach them to.

          By the way, the article you cite was written by one of our team who is a huge Levin fan, and may be leaving us soon, as we are about to revise that article as well as publish a new post destroying Levin’s “our only recourse” nonsense.

          But the new site is a much better-looking platform and has newer content. It’s http://CoolidgeProject.us
          I hope you will help us spread the word about the Project’s efforts, and we will add you to our blogroll, alongside The Tenth Amendment Center. We must all band together in the face of these ignorant (or worse) talking heads who distort the Founders for whatever perverse end they aspire to.

          Comment by vociferouscal | September 29, 2013 | Reply

          • Well, maybe the writer of the fawning piece is amenable to having his eyes opened: I really did prove that Mark Levin misrepresented Madison’s position, misrepresented what happened re Art. V at the federal convention of 1787, etc. Perhaps if the author of the fawning article would actually READ the original source writings which Levin so flagrantly misrepresented or ignored – starting with Madison’s letter to Turberville?

            I will check out your new site!

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 29, 2013

      • and James Madison also said in his Notes On Nullification (1834):

        “Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.”

        See links here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/

        I go thru life these days in a constant state of bewilderment as to how our “experts” could tell such BRAZEN LIES about what James Madison said; or how they could just repeat what they heard w/o actually having first hand knowledge of what Madison said.

        For example, I would expect NO ONE to repeat as a FACT anything I said about Madison w/o checking out the writings of Madison I cite to see if he really did say what I said he said in my linked paper.

        If you live near Raleigh, N.C. go to the Nullify Now! rally on Oct. 19 (10th Amendment center) I am speaking. so are several others! Should be a great day.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | September 29, 2013 | Reply

        • What PH says, here. Tickets are going fast and will be even faster when near time of Nullify Now Raleigh NC, Sat. 10/19/13. Starts at 9am EST. Stand up-Show up for this Patriotic event in support of Nullification. You will be glad you did. I got mine weeks ago. I am on the front row.

          Comment by Noah | September 29, 2013 | Reply

          • I am looking forward to seeing you again, Noah!

            Comment by Publius Huldah | September 29, 2013

        • One of our members lives in Southern Va, and may be able to attend that rally. He interviewed Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center on an internet radio show he hosted back in 2010.

          Also of note is that Levin quoted a letter from Madison to a “Mr. Everett” from 1830, as his “proof” that Madison opposed nullification. This letter refers to the South Carolina crisis (as you have referenced), but Levin did not even bother to read the entire letter. Yes, Madison rebukes Calhoun’s “peculiar method” of nullification, but later in the same correspondence has this to say about the Alien and Sedition Acts:

          “Concert among the states for redress against the alien and sedition-laws, as acts of usurped power, was a leading sentiment; and the attainment of a concert, the immediate object of the course adopted by the legislature, which was that of inviting the other states ‘to concur in declaring the acts to be unconstitutional, and to co-operate by the necessary and proper measures in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the states respectively and to the people.’

          That by the necessary and proper measures to be concurrently and cooperatively taken, were meant measures known to the Constitution, particularly the ordinary control of the people and legislatures of the states, over the government of the United States, cannot be doubted; and the interposition of this control, as the event showed, was equal to the occasion.”
          Letter of response from James Madison to a Mr. Everett, August 1830

          Funny how Levin never mentions that, but acts as if that “ordinary control” doesn’t even exist (all the while touting his allegiance to the notion of federalism). Nor does Levin mention the fact that Madison himself, in Federalist 46, refers to Federal overreach and the recourse of the states being a “means of opposition to it (that) are powerful and at hand”. And nowhere does Madison refer to amendments as part of that powerful means.

          Anyway, you know all of this, but the average person doesn’t. They need to. That’s our job.
          Thanks again for your efforts in this fight.

          Comment by vociferouscal | September 29, 2013 | Reply

  27. Hi PH, With the organized crime we call congress we would indeed be foolish to allow a Con-Con, thanks for the well researched and footnoted article!

    Comment by Spense | September 20, 2013 | Reply

  28. Thank you, PH, for another great article. I am also impressed with the posted comments. I agree that a Convention for Amending the Constitution would be a terrible risk, especially at this time with so many minority factions exerting enormous influence and control of both government and public opinion.

    I have not read Levin’s book. Athough I am not disagreeing with your analysis, in a small defense of Levin’s proposal I admit I also believed (and had been taught) once either Convention was called, the States controlled the choosing of delegates in the same way as Electors are chosen in each State. Since Congress had the authority to propose amendments in Congress, the conventions method was the alternative for the States/people—in the event Congress would not respond to the people. The justification for the States controlling the convention amendment process, would be the lack of enumerated authority for Congress to control the ongoing process, and/or the absence of the type of ‘operating’ instructions that guide or direct each House of Congress in Article I. However, after reading your article, I can see that what we were taught was based on assumptions of States’ Rights, and even if true, the risk remains: how do we insure convention delegates who will be responsive to the Constitution when our Electors aren’t? So the answer is not amending the Constitution, but nullifying constitutional overreach and abuses.

    Unfortunately, most States were happy to trade their own sovereignty for federal dollars, and will not act for their citizens in nullifying federal overreach. WE are the sovereign authority in the United States and all we have to do to restore our country is exercise our authority. Citizens may have the authority to individually nullify federal laws and judicial decisions, but authority without power to accomplish is a risky undertaking.

    There is a plan of action for the 2014 election that has recently been published and explained by Alan Keyes at http://www.renewamerica.com — “‘A Bucket Brigade’: The most simple, feasible way to take back America!” His plan is basically obtaining a firm ‘PROMISE’ from any candidate for Congressional Office to support the Constitution, as it was written and intended, AND a firm ‘PROMISE’ to impeach Obama, Biden, and then other civil officers and federal judges as their first acts in assuming Congressional Office in 2015.

    “The aggrieved grassroots — not the GOP — must lead the effort to impeach!” WE must FIND candidates, men and women of honor and integrity, whose ‘promises’ will be kept. And, we will not find them through our major political parties. The Democratic and Republican Parties have proven to be Enemies of the Constitution. If we continue to elect the ‘lesser of two evils’ candidates proposed and supported by either Party, we will continue on the same path to America’s destruction.

    We know our current representatives in Congress (did any object to seating a usurper, and did any object to the continual constitutional abuses?) and we know honorable people within our States. It is up to us to draft them into the service of our country, help them to become known within their districts and States, and elect new Guards for our freedom and prosperity—for both federal and State governments—and be ready for the 2014 primary and general elections. Finally, even if it takes massive protests and State nullification of federal oversight, we must force our State governments to control the voting process with citizen oversight by returning to paper ballots and accurate counting until voter fraud is once again eliminated from the process.

    Comment by AZ-Ike | September 19, 2013 | Reply

    • Oh, I do dearly love Alan Keyes. He is the one whose words turned on the light for me about our Constitution. During the Terry Shivo controversy, Keyes was on the radio a lot talking about Shivo’s case, and I heard him and got flooded with light – and then, for the first time, I saw the elegant beauty and simplicity and purpose of our Declaration and Constitution.

      YES, I think his idea about the Bucket Brigade is right and a good one and the WAY for us to proceed.

      I was at a Republican Party event a while ago, and all the tables had free bumper stickers for the re-election campaign of Tennessee U.S. Senator LaMar Alexander (R) and our sharia-implementing Republican Governor. The Tennessee Republican Party is in full support of these two worthless men

      It hit me! THIS IS NOT MY PARTY!

      We must renounce party loyalty.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 19, 2013 | Reply

      • A Hear, Hear from here to what PH is indicating here.

        Comment by Noah | September 19, 2013 | Reply

  29. I was just listening to Mark Levine and he said that there are a bunch of kooks out here saying that a convention is not the answer that we should use nullification. He then put down nullification as an option and stated that James Madison was against nullification and supported an Art.V process with a convention. He then stated that after such a convention, where the states would make these decisions, that if the Federal Government ignored (and he used the word nullified) what the States decided, then the States could ignore the Federal Government.
    Excuse me, but is he not stating that nullification would be the answer to D.C. not following the newly amended Constitution? Seems that nullification is only the answer, from his viewpoint, after D.C. ignores the Constitution, again.
    I believe that D.C. is already ignoring the Constitution and the decision made by the States when they first ratified the Constitution. How many balls do they get before we say they struck out and throw them out of the game?

    Comment by Mike Foil | September 18, 2013 | Reply

    • Mark Levin lied to his audience? He said James Madison was against nullification?

      I quote James Madison in the following paper and Madison clearly supported nullification! http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/

      Surely you didn’t hear right! Surely Levin is not a Liar?

      And Mark Levin said James Madison supported an Article V convention? I quoted and linked to Madison’s letter to Turberville in the paper just above, and Madison “trembled” at the prospect of another convention! Madison goes into great detail in his letter to Turberville as to why he was against the convention aspect of Art. V.

      Surely Mark Levin didn’t lie about that too!

      If he made the statements you say, then that suggests that he read my paper and he knows that what he says is NOT TRUE!

      What do we do about the gullible people in this Land who believe every word Levin says?

      I thought he might just be a sloppy thinker & researcher who is out to sell books – but I never thought he was a Liar.

      But now, well, well…..

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 18, 2013 | Reply

      • He’s going to be on Glenn Beck’s radio program in the morning, too, discussing his book, even though the two of them haven’t gotten along. I’ll be curious to see what they say.

        Comment by washbear | September 18, 2013 | Reply

      • By the way, Judge Andrew Napolitano just confirmed there is “firm historical and constitutional ground” for nullification:

        http://mises.org/daily/6531/Judge-Napolitano-on-the-Worst-Supreme-Court-Decisions

        Comment by washbear | September 18, 2013 | Reply

  30. The fact that Levin’s book has become a bestseller proves there are people out there who are so hungry to find the truth and to find solutions… it’s just too bad they’re looking in the wrong places for the truth. I agree we have to go back to the Founders and see what solutions they presented for such complex problems as we have in this country. Thank you for another article, and helping to point the way.

    Comment by washbear | September 16, 2013 | Reply

  31. The fundamental flaw of the Levin plan is a misunderstanding of what the Constitution really is and what makes it work. The Constitution is a contract that has many cousins: Treaty, Bond, Testament, Charter, Agreement, etc. I describe all of these as “tools crafted to bind the hands of the honorable”.

    What Mr. Levin fails to grasp is that he is trying to use a tool of honor with people who not only have none, but who are more than happy to use his against him. The fix he is looking for can only be accomplished by replacing our currently elected and commissioned public servants with men and women of honor. Fortunately, our Constitution provides for this, too. It’s time for We the People to do our part. How? Read the instructions. Then teach. Thanks PH.

    Comment by Robert Jones | September 16, 2013 | Reply

    • Excellent analysis. Unfortunately no set of principles will survive the debauched, wicked, corrupt, greedy, foolish, or power hungary. It is too late to eliminate the tide of corruption that exists. It pervades all aspects of society. One can only recognize it for what it is and resolve to be apart from it.

      Either that or prepare to do the necessary. As all matters of history are resolved, by blood and iron.

      Comment by Veritas | January 1, 2014 | Reply

      • It is the American People who are corrupt. THEY are the ones who refuse to learn. THEY are the ones who jump on every bandwagon which drives by. THEY are the ones who want to worship humans. Perhaps we haven’t found the right way to reach them. Or is it really that there is no hope for a peaceful regeneration?

        Comment by Publius Huldah | January 1, 2014 | Reply

      • The American People deserve what they are going to get. How will you manage to be apart from it?

        Comment by Publius Huldah | January 1, 2014 | Reply

  32. Great work! Reblogged!

    Comment by Food for the Thinkers | September 16, 2013 | Reply

    • Thanks, Doug!

      Your kind words are most appreciated and valued.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 16, 2013 | Reply

  33. Reblogged this on Foodforthethinkers's Blog and commented:
    “It is idiotic to assert that you can rein in a federal government which ignores the Constitution by amending the Constitution! Yet, that is ‘The Levin Plan’”.

    Comment by Food for the Thinkers | September 16, 2013 | Reply

  34. […] Mark Levin says in “The Liberty Amendments” in support of an Article V convention is not […]

    Pingback by Reblog: Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments! | Republican Liberty Caucus of Okanogan County | September 16, 2013 | Reply

  35. […] Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments! […]

    Pingback by Around to Block with Jackie | September 16, 2013 | Reply

  36. Beautifully done! I so wanted to read your opinion of this proposal, and now that I have, I see we are no better off than before (unless false hope is better than no hope at all — and hope and change got us here to begin with)!

    Thank you O wise counsel!

    jrd

    Dr. J. R. Donaldson Griffin Road Pebble Beach, CA 93953 (831) 521-5050 DrJRDonaldson@aol.com

    Comment by DrJRDonaldson | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you so much, Doc; but really, I have no opinions. I am just setting forth what Madison said and applying that to the claims Levin makes. And of course, I use Logic and Truth to guide me and to show where Levin misses the mark.

      So what I do is really a mechanical process.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 16, 2013 | Reply

  37. […] by Publius Huldah for Publius Huldah Nlog, Septembr 12, […]

    Pingback by Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments! | The Federal Observer | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  38. Very good to read and interesting. This thread is the very reason.”My simple man plan”. I have stood up in a chair with a copy of Our Constitution in hand, held high and yelled out, “This is NOT subject to debate”, “This is NOT subject to interpretation”, “It says what it means”, “It means what it says”, “These Patriots risked their lives and all they had to do this”, “It was carefully thought out”, “NO DEBATE, NO INTERPRETATION”(yelling), “Their English Language says what it is with the help of a nineteenth century dictionary”, “Any doubt and we will commence with sentence diagrams” On my big white board I then begin sentence diagraming. This makes sense to me. “It is NOT complicated” “NO DEBATE-NO INTERPRETATION” Simple Man Plan.

    Comment by Noah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • You are right, Noah! For much of the Constitution, all one needs is an open mind, an old Dictionary and 7th grade English.

      But for some parts, we need The Federalist Papers. E.g., one today can’t tell the original intent of the “interstate commerce clause ” just by reading Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1. One must look it up in the Federalist Papers. We are NEVER free to insert our own “understandings”!

      Sometimes we need Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787.

      And then there are times when we must look to other writings of the period to see what a clause means. For example, to find the original intent of “natural born citizen”, I had to look to Vattel (and then Proof that our Framers knew Vattel and relied on him), and other writings of the time period where “natural born citizen” was discussed. I quote from these other contemporaneous sources in my paper on “natural born citizen”.

      But for the most part, if people would just read this elegant document (and the Declaration), and re-read them over and over, with an open mind wherein they lay aside all they think they know, then they can understand most of it. It’s not particularly difficult! Seems to me I saw a civics test from decades ago where 8th graders were expected to know all that they need to know to fulfill their DUTY of being a Guardian of the Constitution.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

      • Excellent for You and I and many others of our kind who love history and It captures my passionate attention to detail, I love it… I believe, That’s not the problem. The problem is “Bubbah and Jane”. We can maintain the details for them. I look/stare at hands. The rough calloused/dirt under the fingernails Citizenry that do the REAL heavy lifting(makes me weep). We need to bring them into our awareness. NOT to great detail. They get up and lay down with the sun. Usually always tired. They are Our Strength, if we can/could tap it. They can read but opt out not to. They have “The Spine” to smack these deception clowns around IF they understand. Some may have even voted for what they thought was a real rep. Thus, “The Simple Man Plan”… I say to them passionately, “Please, If you do nothing else read YOUR Declaration of Independence over and over till you understand it completely. Even memorize it. This actually gets their attention as I hand then a pocket Constitution for a twenty-five cent donation for another. I can see it in their face. From their tired eyes, It is as if they are looking at a friend that cares. “It works” We need to love Bubbah and Jane to help save Our Constitutional Republic. Just get in their head. Kinda like, “Bringing in the sheaves” They are the bone breakers deception clowns avoid…. just saying

        Comment by Noah | September 16, 2013 | Reply

        • So true, we must find a way to reach them. Seems as if you are finding the way! The Declaration is the best place to start – it is so beautifully written…. who is not moved by it?

          Oh, wait, I know: Elena Kagan.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 16, 2013 | Reply

          • Thank You, Mam. “i” know You are The Best. I do not have your experience. If it isn’t right, you always offer good steerage. You kind words confirm it.

            Comment by Noah | September 16, 2013

  39. Okay. I see it popped up this time.

    Folks, my name is Rob Natelson. By profession I’m a constitutional historian I served as a law professor for 25 years and practiced law for about a decade prior to that. In my non-professional life, I’ve also been a conservative activist for many years, and have made considerable sacrifices for the cause. See, for example, http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/column-natelson-will-leave-legacy-of-strong-conservative-base-in/article_2a9311fa-13b0-11df-837a-001cc4c002e0.html

    In sum, I’m neither uninformed nor cowardly nor unpatriotic.

    Although I used to believe some of the claims made in this post, I have found that most of them are simply not true. For example, Madison did not oppose Article V conventions as a general rule (although he opposed a 1789 NY proposal); my works cite Founding Era (and post Founding) sources copiously and certainly do not rely only on other articles; an Article V convention is not a “constitutional convention,” but a targeted, limited meeting responsible to the state legislatures. The 1787 Convention did not “run away.” And many of the inaccuracies about Article V now being spread among conservatives actually come from a disinformation campaign orchestrated in the 1960s and 1970s by liberals to block an amendment to rein in the Supreme Court.

    Obviously, I can’t make the entire case here, but you can see my bio and publications, on this and other subjects, at http://constitution.i2i.org/about.

    Comment by Rob Natelson | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • Dear Professor Natelson:

      1. You say, “Madison did not oppose Article V conventions as a general rule”.

      QUESTIONS: Please address Madison’s comments on Sept. 10 & 15 at the Federal Convention of 1787. And please address his comments about an Art. V convention in his letter to Turberville (to which I link in my paper).

      Please identify the writings of Madison on which you base your conclusion that “Madison did not oppose Article V conventions as a general rule.” Identify the writing of Madison’s, and I will read it!

      2. I addressed the paper of yours which Mark Levin cited as authority for the claims he was making about how the States controlled the Article V convention. Did Levin cite the wrong paper?

      Instead of telling me I should read all your papers, could you just point to one or two where these writings of our Framers are identified?

      3. You say, ‘an Article V convention is not a “constitutional convention,” but a targeted, limited meeting responsible to the state legislatures.’

      QUESTIONS: How do you get that out of Article V? WHERE did any of our Framers say that? Cite some sources! So far, all I have seen are assertions which contradict the plain language of Article V and what was said at the Federal Convention of 1787 about Article V!

      This chart depicts what was said at the Federal Convention of 1787 about Art. V. Your side lost that debate at that Convention. http://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/article-v-and-the-federal-convention-of-1787.pdf

      Please cite just one or two (if you are busy – more if you have time) writings of our Framers which support your assertion that an Article V convention is “a targeted, limited meeting responsible to the state legislatures.”

      4. You say, ‘The 1787 Convention did not “run away.” ‘

      Are you serious? Did you see where I linked to the Resolution of February 21, 1787 (pages 71-74) of the Continental Congress. Here it is again:

      http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=032/lljc032.db&recNum=80

      “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.” [boldface mine]

      And what did they do? They came up with a new Constitution.

      5. I do not know what you are talking about when you refer to the “disinformation campaign” of the the 1960s and 1970s put out by “liberals”; but can to you point to any errors in my paper? And please cite supporting authorities from our Framers.

      PH

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  40. Is there some reason why my comment is not reproduced here, although other comments posted today were?
    Your post unfairly impugned my constitutional scholarship without, apparently, having read it. At the least I think I’m entitled to a reply.
    Rob Natelson

    Comment by Rob Natelson | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • I approved your first comment when I first saw it! [And if you check, you'll see you posted in on the "contact page" not to this article.]

      And now, I am going to approve your 3rd comment which I just saw.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  41. Thank you!! I have come to believe that Mr. Levin and many of the other so-called “conservative” radio personalities are not who they would have us believe. They may indeed be patriots, but, if they are, they are also cowards. I no longer believe that they have the best interest of our country at heart (at least not above their own self interests). Nor do I believe that they really support the Constitution. I think they have built a very clever facade of opposition to the progressive, liberal, Anti-American, Obama forces when they, in reality, by their actions and in-actions, fully support it.

    I came to this realization quite reluctantly as I used to really enjoy and trust hearing most of what they say. However, when it became unquestionably clear to me that Mr. Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States and, yet, these conservative criers remained silent of this simply proved hypothesis or, as in the case of Mr. Levin, ridiculed those who spoke the truth, they revealed their true colors. Their credibility has taken a huge hit. I listen a lot less and question a lot more.

    It appears to me that Mr. Levin is now trying to leverage his ill-gotten credibility (fake opposition) to the detriment of our nation. Your brilliant analysis is right on the mark and stated far better than I ever could. As always, your views are logically sound, thoroughly researched and documented quite clearly and honestly. I can’t remember a time when I questioned one of your positions and, after having done my own research, ended up NOT having to admit MY error. (Sorry, but I question everybody now.)

    Here’s hoping that Mark and his colleagues in radio and law will read your article and wake up. If they’re sincerely committed to our country, they are certainly in a position to do something about it. Perhaps a reminder of the courage of Nathaniel Hale and the tremendous sacrifices made by so many of our founders would be appropriate. They were willing to give up a lot more than a radio show.

    Special request: Please offer your analysis of this topic and others to the high school and college level Social Studies and Government teachers via Skype. I believe that, through this widely available technology, you could reach a very large live audience with the capability of a Q&A, too.

    Comment by Robert Jones | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • I also no longer believe the talk show hosts are on our side. I did once.

      Yes, it was the “natural born citizen” issue which first alerted me too! And then Rush Limbaugh came out in full support of Marco Rubio, and then Mark Levin’s proposal for an Art. V convention.

      It is true my writings are highly logical. That is b/c my dear Papa started teaching me Logic and analytical thinking even before I started first grade. [Thank you, Daddy.]

      But I am not infallible! I make mistakes sometimes! So it is no insult to demand that everyone PROVE what he says. Me included. It is perfectly permissible to ask people to prove what they say.

      About skype: I need a manager to handle all that. We are barely computer literate in this house.

      And thank you for your kind and supportive words!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  42. Thanks for the accurate detailed analysis P.H.
    My take on this was a bit different. I followed the money trail and it seemed to me that he saw an opportunity to make millions in book sales with free publicity and truth had nothing to do with his decision.

    Comment by Jack Coleman | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • Well, I expect he is making money! I am bewildered as to why supposedly intelligent people push such terrible ideas. I think of our soldiers at Valley Forge and weep.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  43. “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,. You dimwit, is that not plain enough for you? You’re all hot and bothered about nullification. Where will you find lawful representatives to do the nullifying in the corrupt government we have ruling us?

    I’m unsubscribing to your driveling rants.

    Comment by conservativeorganizer | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • OK! But before you go, what does Article V say about WHO CALLS the Convention? What we [should] have learned in 7th grade English tells us that CONGRESS calls the convention.

      Also: Since there are no “lawful representatives to do the nullifying”; where are the lawful representatives who will appoint the delegates?

      Finally, would you be as rude and insulting if you weren’t anonymous?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • For the sake of argument; let’s suppose that either path is legal, constitutional and would have the potential for change. Which path (nullification or States calling on Congress to call a convention) would bring about immediate results for the people, is the least likely to have unintended consequences, or has the best chance for correction? The answer to all three is nullification. For the same effort that it would take the people in any state to convince their state legislature to vote to ask Congress to call for a convention, they could convince the same people to just nullify unconstitutional federal laws and regulations as to their application on that state and the people of that state = immediate results. Nullification would have specific application and is not subject to a wide range of unexpected outcomes from a convention = no unintended consequences. No matter how hard the people in one or a few states work to get their legislators to vote on asking Congress to call a convention, nothing will happen or change if 2/3 of the states do not succeed in the same goal (which I believe would be unlikely); whereas, nullification would bring about correction for your state regardless of what other states do or do not do = absolute correction.
      To disregard nullification as the best solution, is to act based on a lack of understanding as to who is supreme. As PH has pointed out in other articles, the federal government was not a party to the constitution, constitutional convention, or the forming of the federal government. It is the creature which was created by the People, through their States, for only a few specific reasons and with very limited power and authority. As the 10th Amendment points out, everything else, not enumerated in the Constitution, is reserved by the people or the states. In other words, the People are supreme and not the federal government. We do not need the federal government to approve the concept of nullification, it is not up to them. Of course they would be against this action, it would strip them of most of their self-appointed power and authority, which is unconstitutional. They are afraid that if one state acts, it will snow-ball and others will follow.
      We the People have the power if we would just understand that and exercise it on a wide scale. Any federal action against us, for doing so, would be the actions of tyranny – plain and simple.

      Comment by Mike Foil | September 15, 2013 | Reply

      • Dear Friend, well done!

        James Madison says, “Mike Foil gets it!”

        Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  44. Again and again, Thank You Very Much and That isn’t enough. This is above and beyond ALL of that.

    Comment by Noah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • You warm my heart, as always, my dear.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

      • I can do nothing less for “I believe” The Greatest Patriot I have ever known.

        Comment by Noah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

        • Dear, don’t “believe” in me or any other human. I am not God!

          The issue is: Is Mark Levin telling the Truth? Or, is Publius Huldah telling the Truth? How do you know?

          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  45. Oh, this is, as usual, magnificently simplified!!! Surely someone(s) will see to it that Mark will receive a copy.

    QQ PH: Is there a way for me to single out certain of the list of your articles and put them in this (below) form to either forward or to print and mail? I am not savvy, and when I print them out, lots of other material is involved.

    You blessing!!!!! Thank you straight from the heart! Carol

    Comment by Carol Boggs | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, Carol! I am not computer savvy either. But someone else can probably show you how to print them out in a good format.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • Carol,
      I have copied and saved these articles on my computer as Word documents. If you will use your mouse, begin at the top or bottom of the article and “right click” and drag the cursor through the whole article before letting off of the clicker, then you can copy and paste just the article to Word or as an email text, etc. Just give proper credit and a link back to this site, as PH requires.

      Comment by Mike Foil | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  46. PH,
    Thank you for the time and effort you put into this project. I am looking forward to part 2, the “gut” part. Some of it I can already see, but I know you will expose more.
    This is a good example of “words have meaning”. We cannot just read into the Constitution what we want or wished it said. Art.V is fairly vague in wording. That does not necessarily mean that we, as individuals or writers of books, get to decide what the “rules” will be and just how it will all play out. There is a majority, in Congress, who would love the opportunity to discard our Constitution. They would not say that out loud, in public; but, you can hear it in their disdain for the limits it places on them and when they openly ignore those limits.
    Levin’s book includes a proposed amendment to do what the BBA would effectively do – limit spending to a percent of GDP. As you have written, this would open up the control of spending to anything they want and would give the Court power over spending issues. It would effectively gut what the enumerated powers limit.
    Right On! Fight On!

    Comment by Mike Foil | September 15, 2013 | Reply

    • Thanks! Help me educate the People on this. Too many fail to see that this is an issue of Truth v. Falsehoods. It isn’t who readers “believe” – it is this: Is Mark Levin telling the Truth? How do you know? OR, is Publius Huldah telling the Truth? How do you know?

      One of us is NOT telling the Truth. Are our People so dumbed down or morally blind that they can’t tell the difference?

      Look at the post of “conservativeorganizer“: His bad manners aside, is he really unable to understand that Art. V expressly provides that CONGRESS calls the Art. V Convention?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  47. […] on the Constitution. Huldah refuted Mark Levin wanting a Constitutional Convention follows from her blog, “Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not […]

    Pingback by Publius Huldah Refutes Mark Levin; Says Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments! | USA NEWS FIRST | September 15, 2013 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 811 other followers

%d bloggers like this: