Politicians who only are out for one thing, power over us.
Do you remember in your lifetime government getting smaller to any significant extent?
They will never, EVER do anything to reduce their power unless forced by us to do so and WE will not be running ANY convention, no matter what it’s called, con-con, article V, constitutional convention, etc. THEY will be running it.
 March 27, 2015 at 8:29pm
Personally, I think a much better way to get something really accomplished, rather than trusting our future to a situation we don’t know we can control, is to do this through our States directly.
We all need to begin pushing our State governments to simply withdraw their consent to the feral government. As the old saying goes, just say NO. No, we won’t do this or that as the situation arises.
No, we won’t send you those tax dollars to waste on that.
No, we won’t implement that in our schools.
No, we won’t follow what your courts say if it is wrong for our State.
No, we won’t continue to be a part of this union if you don’t leave us alone. You’ve broken the contract we wrote when we established you, the federal government. Since WE made you, we can make you go away if we choose.
THAT is how this should be dealt with. From a position of power, not a position of cowering and hoping things work out.
A bully only responds to one thing and that is not weakness but strength.
What you are suggesting is just a hair short of secession. That was tried in 1860 when the first state, South Carolina, seceded from the union and sparked the civil war. Since Lincoln's response was to mend the union through force the precedent of using force has been established and upheld. If secession is tried again then it will spark an armed conflict. There is no denying that at this point. Is that what you want? I will concede that the fear of a convention being subverted for nefarious means is a legitimate concern. But the chance of it happening is slim. The chance of armed conflict resulting from a failed, or misguided, convention is small. Whereas your path, according to history, is a sure path to armed conflict and rebellion. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your tactic. The founders laid out a path for the people to reign in the government if it ever came to it. The second provision of amending the constitution is that tool given to us by the founders. They would not have given it to us if they didn't intend for us to use it at some point in our nations history.
[-2] March 27, 2015 at 8:18pm
It’s basically whatever you want it to mean.
Really. That’s the truth since there is no “Constitutional” definition of it, it is just whatever the “system” decided the meaning is.
You could interpret things one way and I could interpret them another. Who is to say which is correct?
It boils down to whoever is in power at the moment the definition is needed and if that definition fits their purpose at that particular time.
That in a nutshell is what the whole problem with this situation is. There are no set standards because this has never happened in the history of this Country. The closest example we have is the first convention which was called to AMMEND the Articles of Confederation. Just ammend it, not rewrite it.
However, that is exactly what they did, they threw it out and started over.
In an ideal world, where the Constitution is read and interpreted as it is written and not twisted to mean whatever the powers that be NEED it to mean at the time, maybe Article V COULD be interpreted to be restrictive in some way.
But in a time in our history when “shall not be infringed” is misinterpreted. You choose for yourself if you are willing to trust the process to those currently in power.
It's not about D.C. It's about the people in the States taking back their power from D.C. through their States legislatures.
Article 5 of the constitution is where it’s spelled out.
Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” discusses the process in detail and also offers some excellent possible amendments to consider. The process bypasses the congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary and is entirely (except for setting the time and place) in the hands of the states. Any amendments proposed MUST BE RATIFIED by 3/4ths of the states to be put into the constitution. Once that’s done, it’s part of the constitution.
Personally, I think to just limit the convention to balanced budget amendment would be wasting an excellent opportunity to consider other measures that congress will never impose on itself (term limits) or a return to state appointed federal senators, thereby putting a stop to senators like John McCain, who regularly votes against his own state’s wishes with no repercussions. Term limits for supreme court justices is an idea well worth looking at also.
The need for approval by the states would be the guard against any runaway shenanigans.
 March 27, 2015 at 7:06pm
No where in Article V does it say the States run the convention. They merely place the request and Congress calls it. From that point there is NO law set as to how it’s conducted.
It’s all speculation at this point and that IS the problem.
ANYTHING left to interpretation by lawyers and politicians is not going to end well for us.
I would suggest you read the Founders and history and pay attention to human nature. Mark Levin wants to sell books and speaking engagements. He has something to gain by this, the Founders and history do not.
[-1] March 27, 2015 at 7:03pm
Just where in the Constitution is there any definition of what is or is not a “Constitutional Convention”?
In fact, where in our law anywhere is that definition? Other than from the pundits and the ones pushing for a convention, there is no definition that I’m aware of.
So who is to determine exactly what a convention means and how it’s conducted since there is no predetermined or predesigned template?
Politicians, that’s who. The same ones that have gotten us where we are today.
Even many of the Founders recommended against having another convention at any point in the future if we wanted to hold on to what we have. There’s got to be a good reason for that.
Maybe it was that, in their wisdom, they knew that once the Country was established and the politicians were entrenched that they would NEVER do anything that would take away ANY of their power. That the only thing they would do in another convention would be to take more from us and give more to them.
Which is exactly why Madison stood up on the day, or several days, before the Constitution was adopted and pushed for the second way to amend the Constitution that is in Article 5. He also did not trust corrupt politicians to restrict there own power and wanted an option for the states to amend the Constitution, independent of Washington, to reclaim power back from Washington.
From the article : http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articleV.htm ::
"...Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don’t come easy. In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective...."
Whether amendments are proposed by Congress, or by an Art V action, they STILL have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. If our populace is so far gone that they would ratify a really bad amendment, we’re so far beyond quibbling over ‘definitions’ that we are already doomed.
Living with the status quo is unacceptable. So, other than ignoring the issue, what suggestion(s) would you have.
ITS ARTCLE V
Look it up and read about it. Its is a solution to the question of how a Free people can reform a Government that refuses to be reformed and want to keep everything like it is.
 March 27, 2015 at 6:52pm
Exactly my point. Thank you for making it for me.
They are not paying attention to the current Constitution. They are not following it at all.
What in the world makes anyone think they will follow the “law” pertaining to a convention no matter what it’s called or who calls it. Once they are there and the ball is rolling, do you really think they will feel constrained by anything?
Who says the method of approval will remain the same? What is to stop them from changing that? The Constitution? Really? Like it stopped them from taking all the freedoms and liberties we’ve already lost?
Hopefully you are not that naive.
The first convention was not called as a “constitutional convention” either. It was called for the purpose of merely amending the Articles of Confederation and they ended up writing a whole new Constitution so how can we say it can’t or won’t be done.
 March 27, 2015 at 6:41pm
Are you sure?
What proof do you have?
Are you really willing to bet your Country on politicians telling you the truth about this?
Remember the closest situation we have to this was the first Convention that was called for the purpose of AMENDING the Articles of Confederation. We all know how that turned out as we have our current Constitution to show for it.
If you are wrong what are you then willing to do about it?
While you are correct in some respects Lordchamp, at this point what other alternative do we have short of open rebellion? None. Washington DC is broken friend. They have completely lost control in terms of taxation and spending. It’s up to the states now to set things right. Our founding father’s knew a day like today would arrive and gave us, the people, the tools to make things right. Quite honestly I believe most of the founding fathers would be surprised that we lasted this long without calling a convention or killing ourselves outright. (we nearly did during the civil war) As for what happens if the convention is hijacked by special interests and powers on either side? We’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Until then… this is the only tool we have left.
kkik is correct, Lordchamp
Article V of the Constitution:
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 . . . .
The Framers knew what they were doing.
Note: 20 years ago, my thoughts were EXACTLY as yours are now on this subject.
 March 27, 2015 at 6:36pm
One question for all those who think a convention s a good idea, disregarding that the last convention we had completely changed the existing Constitution, the Articles of Confederation.
What if we’re right about the convention being hijacked, what are you prepared to do then?
Give that some serious thought because the choices are slim. You will either allow them to continue and rewrite the Constitution or rise up and physically stop them by force of arms.
Those really are the only two choices because the changes that will be made most certainly will not be to give us more freedom.
So think long and hard before you think this is a good idea and if you do you better get your affairs in order because it will not turn out good.
Do you REALLY trust ANY politician or political process in today’s America to do anything to actually IMPROVE our freedoms and liberties?
Its a convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution. Not a Constitutional Convention to open the entire document up for a rewrite which is why the headline is misleading. Any amendments would have to be approved by 3/4 of the states. If 38 states approve bad amendments, then its over anyways.
By the way, what do you think is going on now. The Constitution is being rewritten by the courts and ignored by the executive and legislative branch now, without the benefit of state ratification.
I agree. you people are lemmings to fall for the budget thing. They just want to open it up and then both sides will show their true colors. Rhinos and liberals alike. If this happens, you can kiss the constitution good bye.......
what are you talking about hijack .. by who
It takes 3/4 of the states to approve of an amendment. That's a big hurdle particularly since many states aren't likely to attend the convention. So those states would be deciding to approve something they had no input on. Which is why I would recommend trying to term limits first. The Congress would never vote that for themselves, but it might be possible to get 3/4 of the states to agree.
Plus how could something be hijacked? Every state gets to set the rules for their delegation so they can specify that the delegation can only discuss and vote on a specific type of amendment, or put other restrictions. The only way their vote counts is if they are the legitimately appointed representatives of a state. If they go rogue, the state can just yank the authorization.
I totally agree with Lordchamp. We don't want this bunch of Libs and RINOs messing with the Constitution. In 1913 we amended the Constitution. The 16th created federal income tax. The 17th changed the way Senators came into office. Prior to 1913 the state legislature appointed the Senators to represent state issues at the federal level. The state legislature also had the ability to remove a Senator if the state's interests was not being protected. Now Senators no longer represent their state nor ensure state's rights are considered and maintained. Today, there is no accountability. These two amendments led to the massive tax and spend mess we have today.
The current Balanced Budget Amendment allows Congress to raise taxes to meet any deficit spending. So you thing taxes are high now...
We don't need an Amendment to achieve balanced budget legislation. We only need Representatives and Senators who will represent us instead of big business, their party and themselves. Which is easier: To pass legislation with a simple majority of the House and Senate, or pass an Amendment with 2/3's the House and Senate and 3/4's the states??
Those who want a Constitutional Convention, be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it. And chances are we will lose much of our 1st Amendment rights and ALL of our 2nd Amendment rights.
 March 25, 2015 at 12:28pm
Every single one of those industries is consumption.
NO production. No making of “things”. That means no exports and total dependancy on others instead of having others dependant on us and our products. No manufacturing means you can’t support yourself properly as a Country. It also means lower pay which translates into lower lifestyle.
Walmart/ChinaMart, the new American dream job.
Says a lot for who we have become and yet still are becoming.
 March 23, 2015 at 1:08pm
“…praying with her to accept Jesus, an act that orthodox believers undertake to become official followers of Christ.”
Not sure who initiated this statement, the Blaze or others but I must remind them that personal acceptance of Jesus Christ and repentance of your personal sins is the ONLY way to salvation according to the Bible. “Orthodox” or not, whatever they mean by that anyways, there is only one way to salvation, regardless of what the humanist and others promote.
Me thinks the Blaze is quicking becoming more and more “politically correct” and in fact I see some signs of moving even away from conservative principles and this is very disturbing. It seems the money is becoming more important than the principles.
Statements like this are totally unneeded unless you are attempting to cater to those on the left that are generally not part of us “clinging to our guns and religion”.
Maybe it has to do with a Mormon owning this website.
I thought that statement was sort of odd. You cleared it up though. Yes, Jesus Christ is the ONLY Way. That will disappoint many.
 March 17, 2015 at 1:54pm
The last comment in the article is EXACTLY the problem here. There is no way to discipline these people so there is no fear of discipline. They can do anything they want and get away with it with nothing more than a smack on the hand, if even that.
No rule of law, no discipline, no enforced standards, no morals, no ethics.
 January 6, 2015 at 2:51pm
At the end of those two years, based on the past, where do you really think we will be?
Let’s see, we have the same leadership that has done absolutely nothing the entire time obama has been in office to stop things to this point so what REALLY do you expect them to do now?
I truly hope you are not that naive but unfortunately I expect you are.
That is why they will continue with exactly what they have done in the past, anything that benefits themselves and securring their futures and power. They will GROW the feral government just like they have in the past.
Because people will not get past their naive feelings that politicians in this government will ever do anything for anyone other than themselves, the status quo will continue.
Our representative American Republic is dead, not dying, DEAD. The sooner that is accepted, the sooner the bones can be swept away and replaced.
You better be focusing on your State and local governments and making sure they are strong enough to fight what is coming.
You are one of the only people on here who understand what just happened. This is bad. Real bad. We are now living in a post election, & post constitutional state. They have found a way to make the people & elections irrelevant. There will be some cosmetic changes to fool the masses, & try to keep us from hanging them on the mall until the takeover is complete.
 January 6, 2015 at 2:34pm
If anyone have any doubts that national politics is a dead game to all of us outside of washington you should finally, once and for all have you answer.
We do not matter and what we think and say does not matter.
We are the little people, the ruled. They are the elite, the RULERS. They don’t have to listen, they know best. They ARE the best.
Anyone with ANY remaining small hope of changing anything in washington through the ballot box should officially cast that aside and save those energies for something productive, like picking your nose.
You would accomplish more doing that than working to affect anything in washington.
So what to do now?
Withdraw consent, withdraw funds, withdraw energies, withdraw actions. Withdraw anything that does anything to feed the beast that is washington and the feral government.
No funds to ANY national political candidate. Do not support them with time, money, or actions in any way. Do not support companies that support them. Starve them and starve the government. It’s all about money and power, take away the money and they lose power.
What choice do you have other than continuing the insanity.
This would absolutely work in a very short amount of time.
It will never happen, however.
 December 22, 2014 at 2:21pm
I am SICK of this humanistic, liberal, yes LIBERAL, crap. All the feel good, touchy feely, emotion tweaking garbage. It’s just more liberal propaganda like what is spewed in the public indoctrination centers known as public schools.
There is very little biblical basis to most of what these people spew.
I can almost guarantee that if this man went into his church and preached a sermon on sin and salvation only though belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior or you are going to hell, he would be run out of the church.
He is no better than the race baiters like sharpton and jackson. It accomplishes the same thing. Rather than teaching people how to pull themselves up they give them more reasons to be victims.
 December 21, 2014 at 9:51pm
OK let’s try something that is in short supply when it comes to government. Applying common sense.
The FBI says it’s North Korea and we’re supposed to believe them. Like no one in government EVER lies to us these days. Aside from that let’s think this through.
I’m a country that wants to attack another country electronicly or any way for that matter. I have a particular target in mind that I want to hit. Let’s say communications as an example. I plan it and know how I’m going to execute it.
However, before I excute that plan I decide I am going to attack some random, large, very visible company as a dry run just to make sure my plan will work.
Surely no one will notice and think that it’s me doing it so I can then proceed with my main plan to attack the communications system.
Does that make ANY sense to you? Can you really believe that ANY country would make such a stupid, blatant, stategic mistake? REALLY?
Even North Korea would not do something that stupid but yet the FBI, OUR government expects us to believe them and buy this crap.
This smells to high heaven like a setup of either US, the American people, yet again, or the North Korean, just like Iraq was setup in the 90′s.
The government wants a war, ANY war, ANYWHERE, they don’t care, they just need the cover and distraction.
This is not about starting a war. It’s about taking control of the internet. It’s the only source where people can get ALL sides to every issue. If the government can control the internet and keep you ignorant, they can control you.
 December 18, 2014 at 10:15am
So what? Ignore what the judge rules and do what the town’s citizens want. Two unnamed? So what, ignore them. Let them be offended or even mad.
What is a judge going to do, arrest the town? I wish.
These are bullies and must be dealt with as all bullies should be. Stand up to them and they will go slinking away. Concede and you give them power.
This is way past the stupid stage and it needs to be stopped or they are going to take away anything THEY decide is bad, wrong, whatever they want to invent as the next evil thing.
Stop being the frog and just go ahead an jump out of the pot NOW.
Make it a ballot issue and do what the people want. The first amendment doesn't give authority to a few people over the masses.
There is no freedom FROM religion.. people need to tell them to F off.
The town has offered to let other faith-based displays be established; this is but one more battle wages in the war on Christianity. If it had been something associated with Judaism, Buddhism, or even Islam, nothing would have been said.
When courts declare that Obama has done something unconstitutional (e.g., Defying Congressional subpoenas, Obamacare mandates, blackmailing BP, Gulf of Mexico drilling ban, FCC regulating the Internet, EPA overreach, DOJ blocking voter ID laws, DOI confiscating private land, Obama telling GM to ignore bankruptcy laws, Obama making recess appointments when Congress is in session, DOE violating contracts, etc., etc., etc.), he ignores the courts and nothing happens. I say the people in that town need to follow the example of our President and just ignore the court.
Know who's doing this.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin:
The membership of the ACLU is disproportionately high in Jews. The ACLU's leadership is reminiscent of a temple board meeting. He made this statement in his book, America's Real War, page 279, in regards to the overwhelming Jewish participation in changing our traditions and values.
The frog in the boiling pot - I'm glad you brought that up. That is exactly how satan has gained his foothold into God's true Church (of people), over the centuries. If you will do some research into how this whole "christ-mass" festivity came to be, you will begin to understand just how unGodly and antichrist it truly is - and just how good satan is at his deception.
God's true followers have stopped reading His Word - most of us haven't the first clue as to what HE says about this - or anything, to be honest. We get our Biblical "knowledge" in Walmart standing there reading the front of "christmas" cards. And then just continue on down that wide path, defending "santa" (a pagan and false "god") - partaking in the "easter" pagan day of worship ("Ishtar" is the correct spelling - and she's the pagan "goddess" of fertility) - dress up our children so they resemble satan's minions on "hallows' eve" - and then we want to throw our hands up in praise to God Almighty. I got news for us - God is going to spew us straight out of His mouth along with all of our man made traditions.
We love our children - so why do we, day in and day out, shovel them straight into satan's mouth - we don't even make him lift a finger to destroy their lit'l souls.
We are not commanded to remember (or even know) Jesus' so called "birthday". But we ARE commanded to remember His death on the Cross - His death is the ONLY way any of us will ever see Heaven.
They should compromise. Take it down on the 26th.
9 times out of 10 there really are no people complaining. #10 is usually an ACLU person who moves there to establish residency and then files the lawsuit.
And you're correct - if the judge does the wrong thing, ignore him. Obama and Holder do.
The judge orders it, the police execute it.
Well, MY reading of the Constitution says, "Freedom OF religion" and not "Freedom FROM religion". Ya don't lika da scenery, justa walks rite on by. No one says ya gots ta stop and look at it. Laws-a-mighty, just get a brain cell or two to rattle around in dat empty skull!!!!!!!!!
Isn’t there some kind of statute of limitations on stuff like this? If it’s been a tradition for 50 years, and somebody just NOW noticed it, shouldn’t that be a sign that it’s not establishing religion, but rather celebrating it?
I mean, if you stabbed somebody 50 years ago, and they just now got around to accusing you of the crime, you can’t be prosecuted for it. Are they really trying to file a lawsuit against a decision made 50 years ago?
Shouldn't they have filed this lawsuit 50 years ago, when it was decided upon?
Your comment is yet another example of Christian arrogance and disrespect for others. It is Christians who are acting like bullies. Your call to "ignore what the judge rules" proves that.
And I want to know what religion is being shown?? Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Lutheran, etc???? The establishment cause just says Congress cannot form a religion (like Henry the 8th did so he could divorce his wife). And the 1st Amendment states Freedom OF Religion, NOT from.
December 4, 2014 at 7:22pm
I doubt seriously the man went and asked the officer to arrest him so, yes, the officer did choose to confront him. Officers make those decisions every day. Which cars to stop for speeding and which not to, etc.
December 4, 2014 at 3:00pm
The officer is responsible because he CHOSE to confront the guy. He could have done nothing but by making the CHOICE to confront he then takes responsibility for the outcome. You can bet if that were you or I we would be held accountable for OUR actions.
This was a non-violent offense and the situation should not have escalated to the point that it did. It’s evident the cop lost control of the situation and felt the need to force his authority on the man. That is the biggest problem with LE today, it’s all about submission. when sometimes it would be better to just walk away as long as no one is being harmed.
The office in question did not choose to confront the man, the man was in question and resisted arrest. Had he not resisted, he would be alive.
I doubt seriously the man went and asked the officer to arrest him so, yes, the officer did choose to confront him. Officers make those decisions every day. Which cars to stop for speeding and which not to, etc.
You do realize that cops enforce laws. They are called out to tell neighbors to shut up their dogs, to tell neighbors to rake their leaves somewhere else. They are called out because a 10 year old doesn't want to go to school and the parents want to "scare" them. The store owner that paid taxes on his goods sure as hell didn't want some creep outside his store selling cigarettes to people, effectively not paying any taxes on his income or having the right permits. It is not about submission. Look at some stats, Lordchamp. Literally millions of interactions with the public and you think it is about power? Get a grip, if police wanted to, they could write a million tickets a day. It is about trying to keep everyone from doing harm to others. 99Percent of the population gets this. Only people like you in the one percent don't.
He was SENT out there, to address this particular issue. They didn't go looking for it. Also, what do you want the police to do? Walk away? There is a law in NY that says you cannot resist a ILLEGAL arrest. That is what the courts are for. You have no right to resist--- period. The person being arrested doesn't get to decide it is the police, like it or not. They told him he was under arrest. At that point, HE dictated what happened next, not the police. This had nothing to do with "force his authority" it has to do with the fact they were sent to address and issue, which they did. Sorry he is dead, but the fact is, it didn't have to happen, he dictated what happened next.
 December 4, 2014 at 2:47pm
This bothers me on many levels.
To begin with I’m a middle aged white male born and raised in the South.
To say this is racist is ridiculous. Everything is not about race unless you CHOOSE to make it so.
Next, I agree with Glenn, this cop should be charged with manslaughter. Why? Because he CHOSE to arrest this guy over selling cigarettes. CIGARETTES for goodness sake. Have we really stooped that low as to have to cost someone their life over selling cigarettes?
When I was a kid I did some stupid things as most of us do. Some were “illegal” but not harmful. Police then, if they caught you, would warn/scare you, then chuckle about it when they left you. Knowing that you were not a criminal and didn’t truly mean any harm.
Why could they not have just told this guy, look, you need to stop this or we’re going to have to take you in. It’s not like he was putting anyone’s life in danger. So how really were the police “protecting” the public in this instance?
They weren’t and that is the main point of this case. It was all about power and causing the submission of this man and the rest of us.
I was raised to respect police but that respect is gone, ZERO. I see too many breaking the same laws they expect me to obey.
Then, of course, we have a pResident that gives us a good example to follow too. We can pick and choose which laws to follow just like he does.
The protesters are right to protest they are just doing it for the wrong reasons. It’s not racism, it’s no rule of law.