On Saturday, September 17th a friend forwarded a link to a podcast where the host played audio of Glen beck withdrawing his support for an Article V, convention of states.
In this audio clip Glenn says that our Constitution is a divinely inspired document, and that it should not be compromised by the secularists of today’s America, (paraphrased.)
Let me say first that I fully agree with this assessment, but I can’t understand how this could be justification for opposing the use of the single most important, “constitutional provision," for the protection our Constitution from revision by the despots of today.
What I find so disturbing about the general tenor of the audio is how drastically it differs from the that of Friday’s “Glenn Beck” radio show, or even the Monday 9/19/2022 episode, where he explained the reasons for this change to his radio audience, (which includes me. I have been a Glenn Beck show listener for over 20 years.)
In Friday’s show there were continual references to Glenn’s confidence in the American people, while in this Saturday clip, and Monday followup, he suggests that the Americans of today are unworthy to execute this important constitutional provision.
Page 12 of “The Liberty Amendments,” by Mark Levin it reads, in part,
“Unlike the modern Statist, who defies, ignores, or rewrites the Constitution for the purpose of evasion, I propose that we, the people, take a closer look at the Constitution for our preservation. 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. Article V sets forth the two processes for amending the Constitution, the second of which I have emphasized in italics: 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.
Importantly, in neither case does the Article V amendment process provide for a constitutional convention. It provides for two methods of amending the Constitution. The first method, where two-thirds of Congress passes a proposed amendment and then forwards it to the state legislatures for possible ratification by three-fourths of the states, has occurred on twenty-seven occasions. The second method, involving the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures for a Convention for proposing Amendments, which would thereafter also require a three-fourths ratification vote by the states, has been tried in the past but without success. Today it sits dormant.”
In the present case, whereas the USA is comprised of 50 states, in order to reach the 3/4 requirement for ratification, 39 states must agree. 39 states would actually represent 78% of the states. This far surpasses the 60 vote, “super-majority,” often required in Congress for other matters.
If I had reservations concerning the efficacy of a convention of states, the first place I would go is the Constitution itself.
“…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,”
This is THE article that provides for amending our constitution, not rewriting it. We currently have 27 amendments to our constitution. Every one of them were subject to the provisions in this article, as Levin noted above.
In the case of an errant amendment there is a simple fix, another amendment.
You may wonder how I can be so sure of this? Look at the 18th, and 21st amendments, the 18th established the prohibition of alcohol, and the 21st repealed the 18th. Pretty simple? There was no destruction of the American civil society, or the rule of law, rather the execution of the constitution as written and ratified in 1787.
If I needed further clarification, I would next consult “The Liberty Amendments,” and if I were Glenn Beck, I would call my friend, Mark levin, David Barton, or Mark Meckler, and discuss my concerns.
From what I’ve heard Glenn say, I believe that he is confusing the Article V convention of states, with a constitutional convention. These are as different as oil, and water.
I hope that these points can reach Glenn, and I hope he will further enlighten himself. I believe him to be a truth seeker, and a patriot.
If I were able to converse with Glenn I would ask him, “if your ultimate trust is in God, your political trust is in the US Constitution, and you trust the American people, (all positions that he has affirmed in the last few days,) how can you not trust the Lord to protect the people’s use of the Constitution to correct injustices that have arisen.”
God bless you, Dave