Saturday, 10 May 2014

Why Is Mark Levin Keeping Quiet About Vermont’s Article V Resolution?

Written by 

Advocates of an Article V constitutional convention crow about every state legislative body that passes a resolution calling for such a convention. Chief among these cheerleaders is “conservative” talk-show host/entertainer Mark Levin.

During his daily radio show, Levin regularly reports on the success of states in signing on to the Article V roster. Curiously, however, there is one recent resolution that Levin has failed to flog.

On May 2, the state legislature of Vermont approved a measure making application “for Congress To Call A Convention For Proposing Amendments To The U.s. [sic] Constitution.”

Even a quick peek at the Vermont resolution reveals why Levin has uncharacteristically kept mum about it.

Vermont’s call for a convention purports to limit that meeting to being conducted “for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America that would limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process, including, inter alia, by overturning the Citizens United decision.”

Surely even those self-professed “conservatives” in the Article V camp can see the folly of such language. In fact, it is likely that if they were at liberty to give their opinion without offending those bankrolling this movement, many of them would push hard to shove resolutions such as this one off of the Article V bandwagon.

In fact, some of those monied shot-callers may have been behind the alterations to the text that appear in the final version of the Vermont resolution.

As originally drafted, the proposal read as follows:

That the General Assembly, pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, hereby petitions the U.S. Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and be it further 

Resolved: That not intending to condition this petition, Vermont requests that its specific concerns notwithstanding, the agenda of the convention be limited to those matters enumerated by at least 10 of the states calling for the convention.

Noticeably different, but not different enough to remove the fatal flaws.

There are so many potential loopholes in the Vermont measure’s language, each one large enough to allow radical “repairs” to our Constitution to squeeze through. (I have written elsewhere on the enormous and critical distinction between repairing the Constitution and restoring it.)

The John Birch Society has for decades been on the front line of the battle to prevent the Constitution from being opened up to the tinkering of con-con delegates that could be at best, inept, and at worst, purposefully aiming to alter our form of government and replace the current Constitution with something more “progressive” or “democratic.”

On its website devoted to providing educational resources regarding the movement to call a constitutional convention, The John Birch Society explains its position:

Many view a con-con as a quick way to pass amendments they think will stop the big-government juggernaut. Why would politicians suddenly start following an amended Constitution after ignoring and violating the Constitution for so long? The remedy so desperately needed to return our country to good government is to enforce the Constitution, not amend it.

Another disturbing aspect of the Vermont con-con resolution that might explain Levin’s silence is the way it leaves the gates of the Constitution wide open for radical leftists to get their adherents admitted to the convention like some sort of Trojan Horse.

As The New American first reported earlier this year, within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.

Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con. 

On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “convention of the states” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:”

To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.

In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will "inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks."

The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and one would imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the “world’s largest online news network.”

For those Article V advocates unfamiliar with the Young Turks, but curious about the journalistic efforts of their fellow con-con collaborators, they should take a few minutes and watch some of their “news” reports. Warning: So much of it is vulgar, vile, and downright unwatchable.

Beyond the puerile content produced by this group, it is certain that conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills so the Young Turks can pump out their videos: George Soros.

Dan Gainor reports:

In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization "is a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets." The list is predictable — everything from Alternet to the Young Turks.

George Soros — the financier of global fascism —  is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen. 

What will those in Wolf-Pac do if they are able to get “their amendment” proposed and accepted by an Article V convention? 

“Celebrate the fact that we had the courage and persistance [sic] to accomplish something truly amazing and historic together.”

Anything a group with this anti-constitutional agenda would do to our Constitution would certainly be historic — in the worst way.

Finally, perhaps the most likely excuse for Levin’s deafening silence on the Vermont measure is the conflict of interest that would be exposed were he to familiarize his followers with the philosophical pretext laid out in the language of the Vermont resolution. 

The resolution claims that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case “has resulted in the corrupting influence of powerful economic forces, which have supplanted the will of the people by undermining our ability to choose our political leadership, write our own laws, and determine the fate of our State.”

Setting aside the trite misunderstanding of the First Amendment displayed in that provision, the very mention of Citizens United in a derogatory way puts Levin in a difficult position vis à vis the Vermont measure.

Consider this news item published on the Citizens United website on March 7:

Conservative radio host Mark Levin accepted the first annual Citizens United Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday afternoon before a standing-room-only crowd of hundreds of conservative activists.

Admittedly, it would be hard for Levin to shake his fist at Citizens United with one hand and accept an award from that very organization with the other.

Apart from the uncomfortable conflicts of interest, the language of the Vermont con-con resolution provides a lesson for just the sort of serious damage that could be done should a convention be called and amendments be approved that leave this Republic unrecognizable to those who framed it and sacrificed all to secure its liberty.

Constitutionalists savvy to the serious dangers posed by an Article V constitutional convention are encouraged to seek out representatives of The John Birch Society for more information on this critical contemporary issue.

 Photo of Mark Levin: AP Images

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

No constitutional convention

Related articles:

Nullification vs. Constitutional Convention: How to Save Our Republic

Article V: Con-Con or Nothing Is the Cry of This Cause Célèbre

Article V Group Ignores States' Complicity in Federal Power Grab

Article V Convention: Dangerous Precedent, Dangerous Loyalties

Convention of States and Article V: Tearing Up the Talking Points

Compact for America Proposal Could Increase Federal Power

Convention of the States: Wrong on History, Nullification

Convention of the States: Scholars Ignore History

Repair vs. Restore: Why Constitution Doesn’t Need Article V Fix

In Defense of Con-Con, Meckler Chooses Ridicule Over Rebuttal

Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media