Daniel Horowitz author at Conservative Review calls for a Convention of States

Jul 2015
This evening [4/15/18] on Life, Liberty and Levin, Daniel Horowitz, an author at Conservative Review, asserted we need a “Convention of States”. Mr. Levin quickly chimed in, giving his approval. But don’t expect Mr. Horowitz, or Mr. Levin for that matter, to address the many unanswered questions and dangers which arise should the Legislatures of two thirds of the States make application for an Article V convention as mentioned in our Federal Constitution.

Whether knowing or unknowing, Daniel Horowitz is promoting an idea which would open the door for the enemies of our Constitution to re-write its provisions, the violation of which is the basis of Daniel wanting a Convention. So, why on earth would Daniel want a convention to re-write our Constitution when the fault is not found in our existing Constitution, but in a failure to enforce its provisions and the legislative intent behind those provisions?

I’m having a difficult time understanding why Mr. Horowitz has fallen for the dangerous idea of calling a convention to re-write our Constitution when he has not fallen for the Republican concocted and fraudulent Balanced Budget Amendment which would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis, in addition to allowing taxes to be raised by a simple majority vote. How has Mr. Horowitz seen through the rope-a-dope BBA cooked up by Republican swamp creatures, and not realized that calling a convention under Article V at this point in time is a Pandora’s Box which every conservative and freedom loving person in America should recoil from?

I’m hoping Mr. Horowitz will take the time to actually research the work of a number of constitutional conservatives, e.g., the late Conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly, who was one of its most outspoken opponents, and carefully laid out a number of reasons for opposing it. But for now, perhaps Mr. Horowitz will consider James Madison’s fears to calling a convention under Article V when he was asked:

”… 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


Chief Justice, Warren Burger, stated in 1988, “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.’ “
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person