Leftists Are Pushing to Amend the Constitution With a Convention of States


states convention

Radio talk show host Mark Levin and others are pushing for a constitutional convention (a convention of the states) to bring us back to our constitutional roots. Levin’s book on the subject suggests the situation is desperate. Thirty-four states have signed on to the movement. Progressives also want a Convention of States and there are fears they could hijack this one.

American Center for Law and Justice Executive Director Jordan Sekulow believes religious liberty is adequately protected by the present Constitution though he hasn’t commented on the Convention itself.

“The wisdom of our Founding Fathers is still very apparent today. The U.S. Constitution clearly protects the religious freedom of our citizens. In this country, we are free to believe and worship as we chose. In our view, there’s no reason to amend the Constitution,” Sekulow said.

Conservatives want to hold a Con-Con on select issues which they say will protect from a runaway Convention.

At least three Obama administration advisers and officials, including regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, want a “progressive constitution” by the year 2020. Leftists have been pushing for this since FDR. They would look at a Convention of States as a means to an opportunity if they can hijack it.

Soros, Holder, Podesta, Sunstein, Obama have looked for ways to rewrite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

A 2005 conference sponsored by Soros’ Open Society and Podesta’s Center for American Progress at Yale Law School kick-started the movement. Also involved in the development of the conference was the ACS, an anti-Federalist group.

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote in a 2009 New York Times Magazine piece about so-called liberal justice: “If this new understanding of legal liberalism can be traced back to a single moment, it was in April 2005, when the American Constitution Society and other progressive groups sponsored a conference at Yale Law School called ‘The Constitution in 2020.’”

The purpose of the conference was to reformulate the constitution and Bill of Rights in accordance with the Progressive (Marxist – Socialist) vision.

Former Czar Sunstein explained what a Progressive (Socialist-Marxist) Bill of Rights would look like. People would have a constitutional right to “useful jobs” in farms and industries. [This would require nationalization of farms and industries.] The government would prevent “unfair competition.” Their idea of unfair competition is any competition except that which is granted by the government.

In Sunstein’s book of 2004, “The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever,” he saw his imperatives as constitutive commitments. It mimics the UN’s Socialist Declaration of Human Rights.

Another reason to be concerned about the movement started by Mark Levin is that it has been infiltrated by Progressive ideas even before it began.

Some of the groups pushing for their own Con-Con (Convention of States) are George Soros groups. Could they usurp a convention through the delegates? Proponents say no.

The American Constitution Society (ACS) is the main organization behind the Con-Con movement to ensure a more “progressive” constitution, having received more than $2,201,500 from Soros’ Open Society since 2002. The funders for ACS are the Barbra Steisand Foundation, the Sandler Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. Eric H Holder Jr. is a board member,  Janet Reno is a Board of Advisor member.

The Soros-backed Wolf PAC is pushing for a convention, claiming the goal is to take big money out of politics. Other Soros groups pushing for the Con-Con are Alliance for Democracy, Center for Media and Democracy, Code Pink, Independent Progressive Politics Network, Progressive Democrats of America, Sierra Club, Occupy Wall Street, The Young Turks, and Vermont for Single Payer, WND reported in 2014.

They would try to usurp any Convention of States and demand compromise.

State legislators cannot choose the delegates and once underway, a Con-Con cannot control them. Another problem is delegates control the outcome. In 2012, there were more Muslim delegates at the Democratic National Convention than Montana, Utah, and Oklahoma put together though they are 1% of the population. Their sponsors are the terror-tied organization CAIR.

Two-thirds of the states have to approve Amendments to the Constitution and that is the fail-safe but in 1787 that was changed from 100% of the states for approval to two-thirds by Article V of the Constitution. What is to stop our Congress from using this as precedent?

Chief Justice Warren Burger said, ”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 its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.”

While there are many reasons to believe the Con-Con can be controlled, there are as many or more to believe it can’t be. The most overriding one is that the Progressives want a Con-Con also and have the ability to hijack it because they act lawlessly and covertly. A Con-Con could be a new weakness to exploit. Do we really need to amend the Constitution or protect it better? Nullification might be a safer route.

What do you think?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 years ago

Please visit the wiki on the “history” of the progressive movement.

please be careful about the use of “progressive” which was “hijacked” by the extreme left. to hide their agendas within a larger more respected movement. Think about it, it was republicans running the progressive movement in the 1900 especially towards the end. But any party could join because it was about core issues fixing “corruption” that was harmful to “the people”.

Progressive is anti-corruption especially regarding corporations and government.

If you want to refer to the “progressives” pushing “anti gun” or for example. Please use something to express a hijacked progressive movement. The anti gun movement is “almost entirely corrupt” due to its trying to destroy the second by any means necessary. Including hijacking the progressive movement. Going after gun manufacturers for crimes of individuals that had no link to the manufacturers, in any way, what so ever. Like Orlando they will try to sue the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle, as a means to do an end-run on the second amendment by means of “putting out of business by litigation” for crimes not related to business. Or Using taxpayers funding within the CDC to forge “FALSE gun studies” in order to legitimize the anti gun bills. CDC suppose to be neutral.

My concern is That these are the tactics that will be used in the CON CON by the “Hijacked portion of the progressive movement.” Like tea party(libertarians) and republicans. NOT by real progressives, like myself.

But as a true progressive I DO NOT want what they are pushing. I do not mind some form of capitalism so long as it does not harm the people and society and the earth. Remember “anti corruption” Acts harmful to others. One mans freedom ends at the next man’s face. That is where I draw the line. As the Republic Constitution dictates.

As progressive. All I want is to fix the things that have weakened the constitution. Like citizens united, patriot act and related national security laws that overturn the bill of rights. . I am very much “pro gun” So long as it is protected under the definition of the constitution of the original definition of “militia”((people self taught on how to handle and maintain firearms(trappers, hunters, Farmers etc)), . I ABSOLUTELY do NOT want to mess with the second amendment, Unless the courts pervert the second, like they did with “citizens united” and “free speech”. Without the second, none of the other rights are defensible

6 years ago
Reply to  M Dowling

I was referring to the progressive movement, that was focusing on separation of corrupt corporate marriage to government corruption and the rights of citizens to be free of discrimination. Similar to when church and state ruled the lands prior to the separation of church and state. . That is NOT communism.

Have you forgotten the use of government military used on the “miners” trying to exercise their rights to not be killed by their employers?? where the government to Got “involved” depending on who’s perspective you view involved.??
I was suggesting the wiki because of the “history section”. then you cross reference it with other sources, I was mearly giving a starting point. Here is another article discussing the Ludlow massacre. “US Workers Were Once Massacred Fighting for the Protections Being Rolled Back Today” from a current perspective.

6 years ago
Reply to  corey

the problem with loose organizations like progressive and occupy wall street, is lack of “mission statement and goals”. to ensure that the movement is not hijacked by extremist, looking to hide themselves in a larger more respected organization.

If they had been set up more like the NRA-ILA with its clearly defined mission statement and goals, Then they would not have been hijacked by extremists. Because the extremist views would have fallen outside the mission statement and goals. And would not have been allowed to participate on that platform, <<< that is not a communist view.

Point of this, that I am trying to get across is that your using blanket statement to lump the whole loose organization in with the extremist left, pushing as you put it communism. While as a progressive myself, I DO NOT SUPPORT. USSR version of communism, because I see it as just as corrupt and the current capitalist version of American society. Because of that, I Object to both.
I prefer somewhere in the middle. Especially to keep organization in check who would harm (for example kill direct or indirectly) and exploit other people for their own "extreme" gain. In other words keep you from killing your neighbor or doing harm that is NOT in your self defense.(pro second amendment as example, regulating corporation, to keep them from causing harm, when they demonstrated their capacity to do harm, regulate banks due to their causing of the 2008 collapse.) That is not communism.

If you think it is, then your using a very loose definition of communism as a blanket statement, to which I am trying to get you folks to stop doing, because its hurting your own mission by making you less credible, by demonstration of irrationality of "all or nothing" thinking.

life is NOT black and white.
Its all gray.

6 years ago
Reply to  corey

PS the true progressive “anti-corruption” example ((“overturn citizens united” (“legalized bribery”) killing the TPP and other secret corporate grabs for power, through trade agreement platform.)) Is just as worried as the extreme leftist hijacking the con-con as you are. Extreme left is just as corrupt as the extreme right. Examples of their side perspective: extreme left-bloomberg. extreme right-Koch brothers. All three are the worst kind of corruption.

Judyann Joyner
Judyann Joyner
6 years ago

We are sorely in need of changes but primarily because Progressives have been allowed to TAINT our Constitution, be used in ways our Founders never intended. What’s more, the Establishment Republicans have done NOTHING to stop the nefarious intent of Progressives. eGOP seems to have NO problem attacking their own people but, when it comes to standing up against truly destructive policies of the Left, they all become mute eunuchs.
Those who don’t think every election is vital, think again. From local school boards to judges’ seats on upward, each and every election is VITAL.
It’s a damned shame we should even NEED to seek amendments for issues such as forcing all laws to be applied equally, INCLUDING those who make these laws then exempt themselves….deplorable.

Or that it should even be required to say Sharia Law has NO place in this country, stands in absolute opposition to every tenet of our Constitution.

Or that, in the interest of stopping RAMPANT corruption in Congress, no congressman or senator should be allowed to stay ad nauseam while amassing huge numbers of people they are “indebted to.”

These current times simply do not allow for Armchair Patriots. We must ALL make an all out, concerted effort to take our country back from the hands of those who either seek to destroy us from within, or those who know it, see it but refuse to stop it so intent are they to hang on to their own little piece of the “power pie.”