"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no state, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

--Article 5 of the US Constitution  

  

I think there may be some people who will be upset with the opinion I am about to render. There is a lot of email traffic concerning the new book by Mark Levin called The Liberty Amendments. To be perfectly honest, I haven't read it yet. I am currently reading "Charters of Freedom" (which is the federalist papers essentially)"Radical in Chief," (which is one of the most frightening books I have ever read) The American Patriots Bible and "The Tyranny of Clichés" by Jonah Goldberg. I tend to read little bits at a time as I generally get bored of reading the same book. I have read Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" and "Ameritopia," and to be honest he has been one of my favorite talk show hosts. It has been a tight race between him and Savage, but Michael lost me when he was in favor of finding George Zimmerman guilty because there was a round chambered in his legally concealed handgun. Being prepared to defend one's life does not equate to looking for a reason to do so. I have much love for Rush too, but that is because of the humorous way he adores himself.

Anyhow, back to the point. Many people seem to be upset with Mark Levin for holding the belief that the nation is due for a Constitutional Convention. The truth is Mark isn't calling for a constitutional convention (Tom Coburn is). Honestly I am in full agreement with those who oppose such a convention at this time because constitutional conservatives are in no way organized enough to hold off a radical minority hell bent on radically transforming the nation. In fact, they have been pretty successful in doing that without a Constitutional Convention, why on earth give them the opportunity to do it legitimately? What Mark is calling for is the other constitutionally authorized process of adding amendments to the constitution. By way of the states which is clearly described in the text of Article V, (As highlighted above)

I am not going to pretend to be an expert in any of this, but what I would like to do is offer an opinion on what this second method of adding amendments might actually entail and what the pros and cons are of doing so. Understand that my interpretation of this may be way off the mark; I am only making an educated guess, and if anybody is qualified to do that…..Well it certainly isn't me, but here I go.

If I understand this correctly, a true Constitutional Convention is called by Congress, and what Mark Levin is suggesting is a convention to propose amendments by two thirds of the several states "legislatures." It seems to me that if it is the state legislatures calling for this "proposal" convention then it would give a lot of participation to the people of the several states as well because the state legislatures are in closer contact with their constituents. If that's the case, then it is surely a better way to add amendments than to have an actual convention when liberal democrats hold the majority in the senate. Granted it would still have to be ratified by a majority of the states if done in that manner but I am sure many of you would agree that going down that road right now would be foolish. I don't think what Mark is suggesting is that bad of an idea; however, I am not sure it is a good idea now.

Let's face it folks, the left is superior to us back wooded, bitter clinging rednecks when it comes to organizing a movement. If we were to attempt this method of adding amendments to the constitution; in order to avoid adding an amendment that repeals another (namely the second) we would have a lot of work to do because the left will organize an attempt to do just that. We would have to do a tremendous amount of grass roots organizing to ensure that millions knew what was at stake and what it was we were trying to accomplish. You know as well as I do that the left will fear monger and lead the gullible to believe we are leading an effort to take away their daughters puppy dog. I would wait until constitutional conservatives held the majority in the legislatures of the several states and that we held governorships in at least two thirds of the two thirds. A failure to do this could be disastrous, and it could lead to the loss of liberties that we miraculously still enjoy today. Just because there is a second, legitimate way to add amendments to the constitution doesn't mean the left won't be there to exploit our efforts. On the other hand, I believe that a vast majority of Americans has had it up to their "red necks" with this lawless administration and an effort to add amendments could be very beneficial. We just have to be absolutely certain it is something we can maintain control of.

I just wanted to add my two cents to the conversation because I have a lot of respect for Mark Levin and I see many people, including some of my friends and contacts, really coming down hard on him for this idea. It seems like they may be a little misinformed, but the truth is so could I, so if you have any information that adds to my understanding of this situation don't be afraid to share it.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.