Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. — Benjamin Franklin, Founder


An Article V Convention will Become the ‘Convention for Social Justice’

January 15, 2014   ·   By   ·   1 Comments

From the cover of Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments"

From the cover of Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments”

(Against an Article V Convention, part 1)

There is a lot of talk in certain circles of the possibility of an upcoming Constitutional Convention.  The public push for this effort is being led by right-wing talkshow host, Mark Levin, who gets a lot right when it comes to the preservation of liberty and the Constitution.  In fact, I have to say he is the second-best host on conservative talk radio, primarily for the grounding of his arguments in a legal and historical understanding of the Constitution.

Where Mark Levin is wrong is that he only believes the Constitution limits government when it comes to leftist issues, or issues he doesn’t care about.  For example, despite his passionate attacks on political issues like Obamacare or illegal immigration, when the political class decided it was time to redefine marriage, Mr. Levin refused to utter a word on the subject until the Supreme Court rendered its state-sovereignty-destroying opinions on DOMA and Prop 8, and only on that day did he give it a brief 5-minute treatment that was not overly critical.  The next day, he happily took a call from an unrepentant homosexual who called himself a “conservative,” and received praise from Levin for having exemplary values.

While I credit Levin with calling out phony Republican politicians who are really leftists operating under the conservative brand, his inability or refusal to take a scripturally observant position on moral or religious issues is alarming.  Like most “Constitutionalists,” he forgets or ignores that the District Clause gives Congress the same power to legislate for the citizens of DC that State legislatures have for their own citizens.

Mark Levin is also wrong about an Article V Convention and its appropriateness to solve the problems with our national government.  Levin presents himself as opposed to the Statists, but accepts the big-government ideology that is typical of the right wing.  So long as a topic deals with warfare, policing the world, or stripping U.S. citizens of their privacy and due process rights, he supports such a power being exercised by Washington.  He even supports an unprincipled direct tax on the citizens of the several States, advocating an amendment which clearly grants the national government the authority to bypass State governments and act directly upon individuals outside federal jurisdiction.  This tax, though limited to a 15% top rate, benefits the wealthy & business owners while continuing to cripple individuals of modest means, and is therefore even more destructive than the 16th Amendment.

But Levin’s greatest error is in thinking that either his right-wing supporters or his left-wing opponents are idiots, assuming that with enough brow-beating or trickery, either group will accept a deal that is detrimental to their own interests.

All of the amendments Mark Levin proposes support conservative ideals.  I also believe conservative groups working with Mark Levin have amendments on the way as well.  We are told that a Convention of the States can be called for limited purposes, and only to consider certain subjects.  Can we truly expect today’s Progressives to agree to a meeting where only conservative issues are on the table?

According to JBS writer Larry Greenley, “the Article V convention advocates need to fool huge numbers of people into believing that the provision for Article V conventions was included in the Constitution only for making limited changes.”

My first instinct, like most I have talked to, is to oppose an Article V Convention because the Progressives have vastly more power than conservatives—not to mention Tea Partiers—in the country right now.  A thinkprogress article from 2006 by Judd Legum contemplated the religious right trying to use an Article V Convention to stop same-sex marriage.  It noted: “states such as Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon and Nevada are probably not ideal places to win such a fight, although not all would be unwinnable,”  and also that such a convention would give liberals the opportunity to write their own amendments.”

Progressives have already given this some thought, and if they agree to such a convention, they will do so with their own plans for socialism and bigger government already drawn up.  Since it is conservatives who are asking for the convention, Progressives will have the advantage—able to walk away at any time and void the whole effort if conservatives don’t give them what they want.  I also have to wonder if States that wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman should even be contemplating continuing in a union with States that do not.  Mark Levin doesn’t care about that issue, so it is one he is almost certain to concede to the left.

An Article V Convention is largely unlikely to happen.  Huffington Post writer John Celock notes that “Forty-nine of the 50 states have filed at least one resolution with Congress calling for a constitutional convention.  In order for a convention to be held, at least 34 states must pass a resolution on the same subject.”  If a groundswell of national sentiment emerges to overcome Congressional interference or opposition to a convention, the opportunity to write “Social Justice” into the Constitution will be irresistible to the left.  Progressives do not need such amendments with the way things are now, as the 14th Amendment and the General Welfare are easily misinterpreted to achieve redistributionist goals.

I disagree with Larry Greenley when he writes, “Our problem is not the Constitution.  Our problem is a federal government that is operating outside the confines of the Constitution.”  If the purpose of the Constitution is to restrain government and it fails to do so, then the problem IS the Constitution. There are ways to fix this, but an Article V Convention is merely working within the broken system, when the problem is not one of Amendments, but an understanding how federalism is supposed to work.

Learn more about your Constitution with Robert Broadus and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

Part 1: An Article V Convention will Become the ‘Convention for Social Justice’
Part 2: Picture Me Rollin’
Part 3: History Does Not Agree With the Article V Apologists

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Robert Broadus (aka Brutus) is a writer and course instructor for Institute on the Constitution, an educational outreach that presents the Founders’ American View of Law and Government. Broadus is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, and as Navy Veteran he is not a Republican or a Democrat — he is an Anti-Federalist. Broadus hosted the East-Coast Anti-Federalist radio show on Liberty Works Radio, and was a candidate for the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives from the state of Maryland. Robert has contributed to Fox News, AOL News, The New York Times, CBS, Rush Limbaugh Show, Washington Times, and more
Robert Broadus
View all articles by Robert Broadus
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

Readers Comments (1)

Sorry, comments are closed on this post.

Featured Articles


FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

Michael Peroutka

Back in January, 1944, just four years before Walt Kelly's Pogo first appeared, President Franklin Roosevelt, in his annual address to Congress, set the nation on a path that would destroy America as the founders envisioned it. The plan he declared to the nation in that speech was destined, if not designed, to make America its own enemy.


The Police State: Follow Orders or Resist?

John W. Whitehead

The perils of resisting the police state grow more costly with each passing day, especially if you hope to escape with your life and property intact. The thing you must remember is that we’ve entered an age of militarized police in which we’re no longer viewed as civilians but as enemy combatants.

Man in despair over bills

SOS: Speaking of Seniors - Helping a Portage Widow

Woodrow Wilcox

On October 6, 2014, a widow came to my office for help with medical bills. The woman is from Portage, Indiana. So far, the bills totaled almost $3,000. Her husband had passed away less than four weeks before our meeting and she was worried because she was getting medical bills regarding services during his last few days alive.

Supreme Court

In Defense of Marriage: Civil Disobedience on a Massive Scale

Guest Author

Yesterday's action by the Supreme Court only solidifies the idea that the powerful elites who dominate politics, media and culture do not care what the people think, expressed through the ballot box or their elected state legislators. And if "We the People's" votes do not count, then We live not in freedom but under tyranny.

Marijuana joint (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Study: Another Nail in the ‘Safe’ Marijuana Coffin

Bob Ellis

The evidence just continues to mount that marijuana is not the wonderful, benevolent plant that potheads claim it is. Not that there has been a dearth of that information in the past, since for years I have remarked on factual data about its dangers, including traffic deaths, mental health issues, psychosis, schizophrenia, other psychotic symptoms and other health dangers. Then, of course, there are the wonderful things pot use does for productivity and responsible use of the taxpayer's dollars.


"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964