By the establishment of different processes. If you change the SOP by which a proposed regulation becomes Law then you can introduce barriers to - for example - proposed regulation that exceeds its budget, utilizes a budget already earmarked for a different purpose, lacks transparency, or violates an aspect of the Constitution.

I think that this is the logical fist step: obey the existing Constitution. The problem is that you might have to change that very document in order to enact such an overwhelming and politically unpopular SOP.

Jan

Folks; There is nothing new with the concept of a con-con, except for Levin's recent book promoting such a concept. For an analysis of the dangers of a con-con:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/bo...

The Birchers have been fighting this trojan horse for 40 years and successfully. There is much history here that everyone should be aware of:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...

The far better alternative is out there with the Tenth Amendment Center and the argument for Nullification. It has already worked in past and recent American history.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...

More on Nullification:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/...

With this topic, it is time well spent to read through all of this carefully!

The key question to ask is how many avenues are open to those who oppose America's descent into a socialist dictatorship before resorting to armed insurrection?

Voting has failed - more than 90% of politicians who run for re-election do so successfully. We no longer can vote them out.

Petitioning the government for redress of grievances? Sorry, the 546 numnuggets and their 3 million employees are no longer listening to us.

A revolution would destroy millions of lives and alter America forever, not necessarily for the better. Therefore, an Article V convention is a worthwhile endeavor and I thank John and Mark for their efforts.

The greatest problem with a Constitutional convention is that those who wish to write a collectivist form of government into law will make every effort to determine the outcome and they will probably succeed. The greatest threat to liberty is when people do not appreciate what liberty means.

Read all you want about the Liberty Amendments
http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page...
but to be enacted, either we do it with Congress and two-thirds of the states or we do it without Congress and three-fourths of the states. Silver bullets are for the Lone Ranger. Like learning geometry, there is no Royal Road. Nothing worthwhile is easy.

As for Levin, when you are through learning, you are through; so he may well be on a long road of enlightenment. He did work as chief of staff for Edwin Meese. That should be a warning that he wants a government just big enough to fit in your bedroom.

[And it is LEVIN, the easy spelling, from the plural of LEVI a household of ancient Jewish priests. (Nothin' personal, just sayin'... and I am the first to admit that I know _how_ to mount a horse, but never understood _why_ you must mount from the left. We all know what we know. Now you know: Levin.) "He pronounces his name with the stress on the second syllable, leVIN." -- Wikipedia.]

I have suffered "the wolves of democracy" while working with engineers. You get that with _any_ group decision. Even working with one other person - heck, being married - if you argue "my way or the highway" it is you out on the highway. Yet, we have huge corporations larger than most governments, membership in those being voluntary. If you want to work with someone, you do. As for the sheep, just get the wolves to argue over who gets the best portions and when and they might never come to a decision or just turn on each other. If the sheep is a _ram_, he is not without resources of his own, which is why it takes more than one wolf. The analogy is that planfully competent individuals can and do protect themselves.

I hear you there. I think so too. I just found it odd the combination of Mark Levin and John Aglialoro but it say that John is putting it together.

I agree with you, but according to the artile John Aglialoro is putting it together.

A constitution convention by the states reminds me of the definition of democracy - two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

We can't figure out how to enforce the one we've got, how is changing it going to make a difference?

I would too. I thought Mark Levin was against open borders. I am apprehensive because any idiot in state government can appoint delegates.

Liberty Amendments. I've heard Mark Lavine talk about and it seems much safer that a Constitutional Convention. I'd be interested in hearing more.

I saw it on a Tea Partiers Facebook page.