David Horowitz: Why Conservatives Need to Amend the Constitution Now



When you look at the raw data, one can assume the ability to successfully navigate a States lead Article V convention.


Of course the normal fear of what comes out of a constitutional convention is rational. The constitution as we know it could be officially declared dead by a very few amendments. Officially the ā€˜redā€™ states have this locked up.

The other fear is that while the ā€˜red statesā€™ look good on paper, I am wondering if what we see playing out in Washington in and among republicans could not occur at a convention where either nothing occurs or, heaven forbid, enough ā€˜red stateā€™ delegations side with blue states over some very regressive amendments.

Horowitz is right. If their ever was a time to pull law back in line with anything that looks like original intent, it would be nowā€¦ And we definitely need some clearly written amendments to remove the ambiguity used for so long by the left to make the constitution the paper of irrelevance that it is now when mirrored against our current lawsā€¦

I do support the Convention of States Project ā€¦ albeit with wringing handsā€¦


I agree, as it only takes 13 states to block anything it will be very hard to accomplish positive change and impossible to make negative change, ie repeal 1st or 2nd amendment. It is not a constitutional convention by definition, only suggestions come from the convention which must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states.


I know that we wouldnā€™t see anything that would do the kind of harm you speak about but I am not so sure that their arenā€™t enough people convinced that e pluribus unum IS the national motto and enough socialist minded republicans to decide the we should make it official instead of arguing about the nuances of the ā€˜General Welfareā€™ clause and a further distortion of the commerce clause.


Actually when they did the simulated convention in 2016 they further defined the Commerce and Welfare clauses as were written, repealed the 16th and 17th amendents, term limits and gave the states the power to use 3/5 majority to override regulations.

  • Impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,
  • Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and/or
  • Set term limits on federal officials and members of Congress.

I didnā€™t know what to expect when I clicked on your link but Iā€™m a little surprised to admit that I actually agree with this, but probably for reasons that neither of you would agree.


I would like to hear your reasoning but I have a feeling that you fiscal restraints and limit of power would deal almost exclusively with defenseā€¦ Am I wrong?


I have long considered many of these proposals as legitimate and properā€¦ I have argued for several specifically the roll back of the 17th amendment and commerce clause abuses. But I still havenā€™t worked out how you managed to smoothly administrate these changesā€¦

I wonder just how you manage to roll back the largess of the many national programs once you limit the of scope of national authority to administer them. We have, after all, walked a long way down the path of a United State of America. As we have seen with recent tax reform, states over years have found ways to reduce their budgets by supplementing it with the national tax base. This trend runs through education, many interior programs, energy and on and on. Cutting those strings would create a lot disruption and no doubt the fiscal condition of some states would drive them to bankruptcy.


I think it likely will require a major collapse and set things right in the rebuildā€¦ Or go full blown socialism. I think we are facing a world wide crisis.


Setting things ā€˜rightā€™ is one terrifying propositionā€¦ It will of course do wonders for the pressures created by the over abundance of human beings. Any kind of ā€˜peacefulā€™ reset will come with some major authoritarian stringsā€¦


Politicians may want full blown socialism but I donā€™t think market makers will support it. Capitalism isnā€™t going anywhere anytime soon.


Already happening in deep blue states, and inner cities in most red states, not the mention the complete take-over of academia. ā€œCommunismā€ now doesnt show up on the flag, but in schools where it seeps into young peopleā€™ minds by plucking at their heartstrings. Also, schools in california already teach that Lincoln was a Democrat.



At the end of the day, the ā€˜market makersā€™ generally fancy themselves a place at the ā€˜controllersā€™ tableā€¦ all the same to them as long as they are the favored class. Everyone else will find themselves with a equal distribution of cakeā€¦ and a choice of one of two state approved deodorantsā€¦

Canā€™t actually say that I have seen much capitalism of lateā€¦ People fancy the US as capitalist but with capitalist finding favor with their preferred legislator and governmentā€™s mitts in most everything, I donā€™t think so. Some people actually believe that China is more capitalistā€¦ maybe soā€¦ but I seriously doubt it.


I agree, we havenā€™t had free market capitalism here for a long time.


Typical conservatives trying to grab and consolidate power so the less fortunate and minority communities of America donā€™t have a voice.


The constitution protects the minority. Tyranny is what takes their voice.


Even the late Earl Warren didnt understand Article V, so I dont think you would.