[siabaa]

Recently ‘great’ people such as Levin and Rush have been pushing this Article V Constitutional Convention idea around.

After some searching I’ve only found their idea or cause mentioned in passing. Have the esteemed Faculty here at Liberty Classroom already addressed the ‘Con Con’ stuff?

My own feelings on it are more visceral than I would like so I would be interested in finding a more focused critique. It just seems to me that it is a convoluted and bureaucratic process that ultimately can cause more damage than any supposed good. Even if the Burger ‘machinery’ could ever start. Because of it’s difficulty to start, why not just nullify?

So, it just seems like an establishment red herring thrown out to keep the public, especially the right, begging for scraps at the U.S. Government table.

~Dan

At the behest of osgood401 I’m posting this in U.S. Constitutional History to get more exposure with the Faculty…

[Brion McClanahan]

Dan,

Dr. Gutzman is a firm proponent of an Article V Convention and has been for longer than Levin and others have been promoting the idea. It could work, particularly if it is regulated properly. Until then, and possibly forever because there is no guarantee a convention will be called, nullification is the best solution within the framework of the Union.

Here is what I said about it at the Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/17/mark-levins-fair-weather-federalism/

[gutzmank]

In writing a review of Mark Levin’s book, I provided a history of the recent movement for an amendments convention. Please read the review and follow the links in the review.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/do-we-need-a-new-constitutional-convention/

Nullification is not an adequate response to the problem. You can’t nullify undeclared wars, Fed money printing, absurd Supreme Court decisions, federal redefinition of “marriage,” or much else that the Federal Government does.

[siabaa]

Thanks professors,

I’m looking forward to studying up on this through the resources y’all have provided. I’ve finals this and next weeks but after that I’m going to jump into it.

My gut instinct appears to be wrong; at least as far as the convention goes.

However, I’m still wondering about the other part of my musings. Namely, do you believe the mainstream right are using this as a red herring or are they legitimently and sincerely wanting a return to limited government.

Either way I’ll have to get read up on this issue.

[Brion McClanahan]

Nathaniel Macon (I paraphrase): “Nullification is a bad idea. You should just secede.”

[gutzmank]

Since secession is impossible now, unlike in Speaker Macon’s time, the Compact for America initiative is our best option. Let me know what you think after you read my review of Levin’s book and the associated links.

Yes, I do have a hard time believing that anyone sincerely thinks that an open-ended drafting convention would yield any results at all, let alone good results.

[siabaa]

Professors,

I just finished reading over all those links… Quite a lot of information but at least it addressed some of the concerns I had with the convention. I did not realize that my objections had already been raised by other groups but apparently people have been thinking about how to fix the monster for a long time! My concerns were addressed by your review, ’38 states still have to ratify what comes out of it’, and the follow up concerns by the Compact for America (CFA).

I came across the idea from a friend of mine from school who seemed to be really excited about the process and could not answer any of my objections or questions. I’m more comfortable with the idea now but agree that a good deal of educating of the public would have to take place. If the vehicle of the CFA was in place and the public was aware and supportive I could see it making a difference.

Before this I was reliant on nullification only, but, I can see how the Buchanan ‘public choice theory’ just meant that I was at best slowing down the inevitable. Now I see nullification as a sort of a skirmish or battle to provide more time to put into place the things necessary to win. The winning strategy appears to be this CFA vehicle and Article V convention or secession. Either way requires a great deal of education, motivating, and dedication. The ‘con-con’ seems much more obtainable and far less bloody.

Dan

[gutzmank]

This week, the lower house of the Alaska Legislature passed the CFA legislation. It joined one house of the Arizona Legislature. Georgia’s legislature has passed the legislation and sent it to Gov. Deal for his signature. This thing is on a roll. If your state legislature isn’t one of those three, I urge you to follow up with your rep(‘s)/senator(s).

[johnweber]

I started researching the idea of a ConCon a couple of months ago.
I sure thought I read and watched videos of Professor Gutzman opposing
calling for a ConCon.
Also, since Dr. Woods wrote he book on Nullification, I am surprised to see
that Nullification is not more highly regarded here on this forum.
I have a lot to learn and will read the review to get caught up.
I sure appreciate both Professor Gutzman and Dr. Woods knowledge.
I will see you back here later after I study the review.

[gutzmank]

Gov. Deal of Georgia signed the Compact for America legislation the other day. 33 states to go.

[Author]

Posts