Newsmax’s Chris Salcedo has Mark Meckler on to promote a Constitutional Convention

Politics
1

On Monday, 1/27/2025, Chris Salcedo had Mark Meckler (President and co-founder of Convention of States Action) as a guest to promote a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) for proposing amendments to our federal Constitution.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Meckler has insulted and disparage those who disagree with him, even though they have a number of legitimate concerns and many unanswered questions with regard to calling a second Constitutional Convention.

Mr. Meckler recently testified before the NORTH DAKOTA SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SCR 4003 - JANUARY 22, 2025 LINK and stated the following:

“I know that you frequently receive advice from self-described “scholars” who predict all sorts of horrible outcomes from an Article V Convention. They have no actual scholarly qualifications, and their reasons for opposing Article V are totally based on irrational fears. Their ramblings are completely at odds with the collective wisdom of the nation’s top, peer reviewed, professors and scholars.”

Perhaps Mr. Meckler is unaware that James Madison, popularly referred to as the “Father of the Constitution”, warned against the calling of a second Convention. He wrote:

” If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; 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. See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788

And let us not forget the Conservative Icon, Phyllis Schlafly, while alive, and the late Howard Phillips, often referred to as “The Conservative’s Conservative”, both opposed the calling a second Con Con as being a very dangerous idea.

I too, as far back as the late 1980s, became suspicious of those calling for a Con Con supposedly “to write a balanced budget amendment” (which today is again being given as an excuse for calling a convention) because the very advocates calling for a convention supported various balanced budget amendments, each of which curiously had the same defects. If adopted, each of their proposed amendments would not only make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, but each of their amendments would allow Congress to continue to add to the national debt, year after year. Not one of those claiming to want stop Congress from adding to the national debt year after year, expounded upon or proposed our Founder’s remedy (found in a number of our Constitution’s State Ratification documents) which has been promoted for decades as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and is the only proposal, to the best of my knowledge, which would actually and effectively stop Congress from adding to the national debt year after year.

Mr. Meckler also asserts: “As for convention delegations disregarding the limitations placed on them by their state legislatures, that is also nonsense. Every law student learns that pursuant to the principles of basic agency law, an agent cannot simply disregard the instructions and limitations of his or her principal.”

In his haste to convene a convention and quell concerns over the calling a second Convention, Mr. Meckler finds it quite easy to disregard former Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, Warren Burger, wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, and warned:

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “

The truth of the matter is, Delegates sent to the Convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording, forbid the Articles of Confederation to be altered unless agreed to by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did, ignoring the requirement of unanimous consent by the various states.

The Delegates also ignored the command ”for the sole and express purpose”

So as it turns out, Mr. Meckler has been providing inaccurate information in order to obtain support for calling a second Convention, has insulted and disparage those who disagree with him even though they have a number of legitimate concerns, and Mr. Meckler even, by innuendo and inaccurate statements in his presentation before the NORTH DAKOTA SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, asserted those who express concerns over the calling of a second convention are supposedly limited to “. . . the radical left . . . ” in order to deflect from actually discussing the expressed dangers and consequences of opening the door to a second Convention.

I think Mr. Meckler, if sincere in wanting to effectively stop Congress from adding to the national debt year after year, which he notes is now over 36 Trillion dollars, and appears to be a primary concern of his, perhaps Mr. Meckler ought to support our Founder’s remedy, currently promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

2

There was no such “command” by Congress that said for the sole and express purpose. Congress had no such authority under the Articles of Confederation. In fact it said “in the opinion of Congress” The delegates did not ignore the Articles either. A convention can only propose amendments that the states then consider for ratification and only if 3/4 of the states ratify does any amendment become part of the Constitution so it is a false premise to say you can’t stop a convention once it starts-that is a non issue since it has only the power to propose. Congress sets no rules or limits as the Constitution gives control over a convention to the state legislatures not to Congress. An Article V convention is an interstate convention not a Constitutional Convention either. And in the letter to Turberville, Madison was talking about NY wanting to start over and call a new Constitutional Convention not an Article V convention. On the day the letter was written the new Constitution had been fully ratified, but not yet enacted so an Article V convention could not have called. It was months later before Article V legally operated. Note that the letter clearly states “a general convention.”

1 Like
3

I saw Chis Salcedo’s guest Mark Meckler since I tape his show each day and I know that Mark Levin supports a Convention of States as a way to vote on amendments to protect us from corrupt Democrats in DC who subvert the Constitution every chance, they get so we need to tighten security of our liberties. I’ve never heard it referred to as Con Con only COS!

If it’s good enough for Mark Levin and other patriots like Chris and our host Sean it’s good enough for me.

1 Like
4

“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.” ___ LINK

5

Speaking of Mark Levin…
My greatest wish is that he ends up on SCOTUS especially if he replaces the Wise Latina. :wink:

6

.

George Lee Turberville, who was communicating with Madison, was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates From: 1785 – 1789. James Madison, also of Virginia, was a member of the General Assembly of Virginia (1784-1786).

Tuberville was seeking Madison’s advice concerning Virginia’s desire for an Article V convention for the purpose of adopting a bill of rights as set forth in Virginia’s Ratification of the Constitution on June 26th, 1788:

“Subsequent Amendments agreed to in Convention as necessary to the proposed Constitution of Government for the United States, recommended to the consideration of the Congress which shall first assemble under the said Constitution to be acted upon according to the mode prescribed in the fifth article thereof:
Videlicet; That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable Rights of the People in some such manner as the following. . . “

JWK

7

That would be wonderful, but I don’t think it would ever happen as he would never tolerate the dumb idiotic Dem questions in confirmation hearings, he would end up telling them to shut up you dummies and walk out!

FYI… one of my favorite Mark Levin books is Men in Black about the history of the Supreme Court.

1 Like
8

One of the biggest problems today is not a defect in our existing constitution, but rather, a failure and refusal to enforce it, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

Tyrannical judges and Justices, who now exercise judicial power while wearing their black robe, ought to also be wearing an identifying black hood.

But keep in mind our founders did in fact provide a tool and remedy, which our swamp creatures in Congress refuse to use . . . IMPEACHMENT

What good is a constitution, old or a new one created, if those entrusted to enforce it, are allowed to use their office of public trust to defeat and subjugate it?

1 Like
9

Mark Meckler in 2021 doing media talk shows to promote convening a Convention

.
As you can see, Mark uses identity politics to defend his call for a convention instead of addressing legitimate concerns . . . consequences and dangers of calling a convention, e.g.:

  1. there is no way to control an Article V convention once convened;

  2. Congress and our Supreme Court [THE SWAMP ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

  3. every swamp snake on earth with self-interests such as George Soros and the Chinese Communist Party would be attracted to finding a way to get their man into the convention as a delegate [NOTE: this is exactly what James Madison warned against]:

  1. an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention; [NOTE: the Delegates to the Convention of 1787 ignored the limit placed on the Convention [revising the Articles of Confederation] and created and entirely new Constitution:

  1. the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission; [NOTE; the convention of 1787 provided the new government they were creating with authority to assume the various state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War.

  2. adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to enforce the text of our existing constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

. . .etc

10

Swamp snakes would dominate constitutional convention

.

image
image1536×2048 300 KB

11

Confirmation that Mark Meckler’s call for an Article V Convention is premature by lacking particulars

.
.

See Is There a Constitutional Convention in our Future?

The above linked article confirms, if Mark Meckler got his way and a constitutional convention is called under Article V, a Pandora’s Box would be opened igniting a contentious and vicious political partisan war to decide the setting of rules e.g., “. . . how would each state be represented in the Convention, who would control the process of setting the agenda, what would be the procedure for counting the votes, and what would happen if the voters in each state reject the changes as is required by Article Five?” And the above are only a few of the unanswered questions, which Mark Meckler suspiciously avoids to provide answers to.

Instead of stepping up and providing answers to legitimate questions which certainly ought to be answered before opening the door to a convention, Mr. Meckler smugly and arrogantly dismissed such inquires as follows, when he addressed the NORTH DAKOTA SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:

“I know that you frequently receive advice from self-described “scholars” who predict all sorts of horrible outcomes from an Article V Convention. They have no actual scholarly qualifications, and their reasons for opposing Article V are totally based on irrational fears. Their ramblings are completely at odds with the collective wisdom of the nation’s top, peer reviewed, professors and scholars.”

Mr. Meckler’s demeanor and narcissistic pretentions, while sitting in judgement of others, is more than enough to conclude he is not the fountain of all knowledge which he pretends to be by innuendo.

Seems to me Mr. Meckler has adopted Nancy Pelosi’s thinking . . . we have to get the Convention going to know what will happen.

JWK

What good is a constitution, old or a new one created, if those entrusted to enforce it, are allowed to use their office of public trust to defeat and subjugate it?

1 Like
12

What is suspicious about Mark Meckler’s desire to convene a convention under Article 5 is, he is unwilling to provide answers to legitimate questions which arise should a convention be called, and which certainly ought to be answered before opening the door to a convention.

Meckler has something in common with Nancy Pelosi’s thinking . . . we need to get a constitutional convention going, so we can discover the rules which would govern it.

And that is in addition to the obvious political partisan warfare and uprising which would occur, if one were to be called.

.

13

Well, the Democrat swamp creatures didn’t have a problem with impeachment, did they? They impeached Trump on a whim twice and they will do it again if given the chance. Dems have literally cheapened everything that our founders gave us in our Constitution which includes 2 methods of making amendments, a Congressional Convention and a Convention of States.

So far we have 19 of the 34 states needed to convene a convention so due to my advanced age it probably won’t happen in my lifetime, but I hope for the future of the country that it does at some point . JMO

14

And the Republican swamp creatures, who are elected by the people, always seem to go spineless, or maybe they are really in cahoots with the Democrat Leadership. While they form alliances in the shadows to hold on to power, the people who they allegedly represent are at each other’s throats because of the pain and suffering inflicted upon them

none of which is permitted by the terms and conditions of our existing constitution which is the only thing which now slows down their subjugation of the people.

The problem, Roxiebelle, is not found in a defect in our existing constitution, in fact, almost every suffering we now experience is linked to a direct violation of the terms and conditions of the miracle given to us by our Founders.

Why on earth are there so many who now suffer and are victims of direct violations of our existing constitution, so willing to open the doors to a convention during which time all that is now illegal and violates our Constitution will be on the table to be made constitutional by the very evil doers who now work in harmony to subvert our existing Constitution?

Open the doors to a convention and every swamp snake in our country will find a way into it, to make their existing treachery legal and constitutional. See: The Constitution of the New States of America

Madison warned us about a second convention, and from my perspective was accurate in his warning:

”… an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; 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.” See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788

15

The entire bill of rights would be at risk, not to mention 17 additional amendments. Budget and spending concerns could become a minor issue in the scheme of things. Our only saving grace would be the difficulty in getting enough states to ratify anything too radical. But do we really want to go there and take the chance?

16

Keep in mind that Mark Meckler, who is a major player behind the push for a convention, disparages and demeans those who dare to ask legitimate questions which ought to be answered and resolved before convening a convention.

For example, how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Article V is silent on this. Does each State get an equal number of delegates, or will each state’s number of delegates be determined by the rule of apportionment? If each state’s number of delegates is determined by the rule of apportionment then some states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention and could steamroll their agenda through the convention and then force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed to effectuate their rewrite of our Constitution.

Of course, Article V does say that three fourths of the states are necessary for ratification, but as I pointed out before, during the convention of 1787 which was called when the Articles of Confederation were in effect and required a unanimous consent for any alterations to be made to the Articles, the Convention there ignored the unanimous consent requirement and provided that a mere nine states could effectuate the new Constitution they created.

What I’m pointed out is, there are countless questions which arise if a convention is convened, and one must ask, who will be in charge of answering those questions other than our existing federal government, i.e., Congress and our existing Supreme Court who have shown they do not adhere to our existing Constitution and its documented legislative intent, and is the very cause of most of our sufferings.

Do we really want to give Mark Meckler’s kind, who is a narcissistic self-anointed fountain of all knowledge, the opportunity to convene a convention and make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional, and tighten their iron fist around our necks?

JWK

“We often give enemies the means of our own destruction.” – Aesop.

17

I’m with Mark Levin on this one.

18

I know you are. Perhaps you can get him to address some of the many questions which present themselves should an Article Convention be called. I tried many years ago without success, and as you must know, I am one of the very few who actually supports and defends the text of our written constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

I think it’s foolish to embrace Nancy Pelosi’s recommendation to this matter . . . we have to get a convention going to learn its particulars and how it will be run.

BTW, since Mark and I both agree a balanced budget amendment is necessary, try finding out if he supports the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which is carrying out our Founders stated procedure for dealing with a shortfall funded by Congress’s borrowing.

19

Roxiebelle, here is Mark Levin expressing his own thoughts.

.

.

Mr. Levin wants more than a balanced budget amendment. He says we need to control spending, which I am in full agreement with. But our existing Constitution already limits spending to the list of particulars found beneath Article 1, Section 8 Clause 1, for which Congress, by the terms of our constitution, was granted power to lay and collect taxes.

I cannot understand the logic of wanting to “control the bureaucracy”, and “spending”,( which is already controlled by the terms of our existing constitution), by wanting to amend the constitution which is not being followed. Is that not what Mr. Levin is advocating?

Mr. Levin correctly points out we need to “control the debt”. Indeed, Congress adds to the debt, year, after year, after year. Was our Founders thinking not clear regarding debt?

image
image900×423 43.4 KB

image
image900×424 61.2 KB

And what procedure is found in a number of our State Ratification Documents to deal with a deficiency caused by Congress’s borrowing? Let us take a look, e.g., at the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

And there you have it, Roxiebelle, our Founder’s remedy, which began being promoted while Mr. Levin was part of Ronald Reagan’s Administration (currently being promoted as the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment) . . . a remedy which is far different than calling a convention to rewrite our constitution because our constitution’s current terms and provisions are not being enforced and adhere to.

Please, Roxiebelle, don’t get me wrong. I like Mr. Levin, especially his God given fiery gift of gab ___ a gift which I believe would go a long way to convince the American people to demand the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment become part of our Constitution which, unlike every other BBA, would effectively stop Congress from adding to our national debt, year after year and create, if adopted, a very real moment of accountability when Congress borrows to meet its expenses which then requires each State’s Congressional Delegation to return home with a bill in hand for their State to pay out of its own State Treasury, and their State Legislature and Governor, quickly learn, there is no free lunch coming from Washington.

Our Constitution is a miracle, created by the hand of God through those who met in Philadelphia in 1787. Let us not be so eager to open the door to a convention and provide “ . . . a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric . . . ” as warned by James Madison SOURCE

JWK

“We often give enemies the means of our own destruction.” – Aesop.

20

Trump getting it done without the danger of a constitutional convention.

Just for the record, I certainly agree with “The Great one” as Sean Hannity often refers to Mark Levin SOURCE that Donald Trump has the potential to be the most conservative president in American history SOURCE.

And note that President Trump is getting many things done, to restore America’s greatness, without the danger of a constitutional convention being called.

The fact is, our existing Constitution already provides the necessary tools to make America great again, and Trump is certainly using them, which includes the authority to levy tariffs at our borders edge.

image

JWK