The Year in Review


Darrell Castle was recently interviewed on “Home Front,” hosted by former Missouri State Representative, Cynthia Davis. Darrell and Cynthia review some of the major events and key issues of the past year including gay marriage, the proposed Convention of the States, the economy, the U.S. Supreme Court and much more. They also discuss where we may be going in 2014.

The regular “Castle Report” podcast continues its Christmas vacation today, but will return next week.

1 Comment

  1. Rich Loudenback

    January 13, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    Some states are currently discussing Con-Con’s in their legislatures right now as a result of Mark Levin’s trumpeting the message of his new book. It appears he is more interested in book sales than facts and reality.

    (Advocating A Constitutional Convention)
    Mark Levin’s book:
    ‘The Liberty Amendments’

    Is it possible that ‘Great American,’ best intentioned talk show host and author Mark Levin is naïve, mis-informed or too trusting? Or is he too caught up in book sales to pursue full understanding of Article V of our Constitution?

    I’m reminded of Chief Justice Roberts of our US Supreme Court who was believed to be not only a good traditionalist American but a staunch Constitutionalist ruling that Obamacare’s mandate is a tax instead of a penalty. The Conservative world that understands our Constitution was and remains shocked.

    Whereas most of Levin’s radio listeners consider him to be a feet-on-the-ground solid American conservative I felt the same kind of shock as I had at Roberts’ decision when I read that Mark Levin’s answer to most of our problems can be corrected with a Constitutional Convention. We don’t have a Constitution problem; we have an adherence and enforcement problem. Who is to believe the three branches would follow the law of NEW amendments?

    Of course, any traditional-thinking American agrees with all the issues Mark Levin mentions that are wrong with our government. His enthusiasm for fixing them is to be appreciated. Unfortunately, his fix is flawed. La La Land.

    There is no guaranty that 3/4 of the states will have a chance to ratify and that such a convention won’t be a runaway convention!!!

    Given the nature of the far left socialist and world global elitists’ extremely well organized ‘machine’ and its many manipulations a ‘Con Con’ probably would not go well for our constitutional republic. Our Constitution and America as we have known it will probably end.

    For every American who has read Levin’s book ‘The Liberty Amendments’ here is a reality check. If you’ve bought into this ‘Fix,’ for the love of God, your country and your grandchildren, please read the following:


    Idaho Falls, ID lawyer, and former Assistant Attorney General for the state of Idaho, the late George Detweiler wrote specifically for State Legislators’ consumption: Quote – “Convention advocates have touted the ratification process for Amendments as an adequate safety net for adoption of bad Amendments. They claim that there is no danger of a Constitutional Convention having the authority to change the Constitution. All it can do is to propose Amendments. It cannot enact them they assert. They place total reliance on a great safety net called ratification. Any Amendments proposed by a convention must go to the States for ratification, they have erroneously claimed. Remember the ratification process was not sufficient to stop the Runaway Convention which met in 1787.

    Fortunately, that convention gave us the superb document which we call The United States Constitution. But the delegates were called to meet in Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures such alterations and provisions therein. Yet it did not take the delegates long to assume upon themselves more powers than what they had been given to scrap the Articles of Confederation and to propose a totally different system of government.

    As they finished their work they faced a serious problem. The Articles of Confederation were still in full force and effect. Any Amendments to that document had to be ratified by the Congress as well as by each and every one of the Legislatures of the 13 states.

    The Founders knew the politics of their day. It was impossible. To overcome the problem they agreed to ignore the clear requirements of the law under which they operated. They re-wrote the rules so that the chances of approval were improved. They provided that 9 states were sufficient to put the new Constitution into effect and since the Founders anticipated resistance to ratification in the State Legislatures they further changed the rules of ratification so that it could be accomplished in Special Ratifying Conventions called only for that purpose.

    The new Constitution did not have to face hostile State Legislatures in order to be approved. While the new Constitution has provided the world’s best government, it was nevertheless adopted in complete disregard of the Rules of Ratification which were in effect.

    The point is simply this: the governing Rules of Ratification were totally ignored and disregarded once in our history. Who can say with a straight face that it can never happen again? A new convention could re-write the Rules for Ratification for a New Constitution just as it could re-write or eliminate any other part of the Constitution as we now know it.

    The late Richard B. Morris, Professor of History Americus, Columbia University, in his comprehensive history of the writing of our Constitution entitled ‘Witnesses At The Creation,’ wrote: ‘The delegates at the convention were sober realists. They knew that the greatest battles lay ahead. The convention had overstepped its instructions. It had scrapped the articles instead of amending them. Having defied Congress, the convention decided to pursue what amounted to a revolutionary course by declaring the ratification by nine states sufficient ‘for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

    In other words, the constitution was being submitted directly to the people through Ratifying Conventions. Not even Congress, which had summoned the convention, would be asked to approve its work. Still, Congress, after acrimonious debate, and without endorsement or disavowal, did submit the Constitution to State Legislatures, to be submitted in turn to conventions in accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution, providing that once 9 states had ratified the Constitution, it would go into effect between the affirming states.’


    Our Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, is not a failure. It works well when its provisions are observed and it needs no revision.

    Even under the current ratification procedures in Article V, if they are not changed by a newly sitting convention, a Legislature is not guaranteed to have a proposed Amendment come before it for ratification.

    Take the example of the 21st Amendment, which was adopted to repeal Prohibition. The last State completing ratification was Utah, a State whose political and religious demographics made it the least likely to approve the repeal of Prohibition. There is little likelihood that the Utah Legislature would have approved the repeal if it had been given an opportunity to vote on it. But the Utah Legislature never got to consider the Amendment.

    Congress proposed the 21st Amendment and provided that it would be ratified by conventions assembled in the States for that purpose. Congress wrote the rules and created a process for selecting the delegates to Ratifying Conventions in each State in such a way that the delegates’ selection process was biased to favor the repeal, so that even in Utah the Amendment was approved.

    It was all done in accord with Article V Constitutional Procedures. This could happen again if a convention is called today. – Unquote, George DeWeiler


    Good representatives doing good representing should see to it that all is well. What has happened?

    “What’s a guy to do?” we ask at the overwhelming effects of mostly government caused screw-ups. To start with, recognize that most problems stem from government meddling, micromanaging, and regulating in areas in which they have no right, expertise, or accountable, management skills.

    “Freedom is difficult to understand because it isn’t a presence but an absence – of governmental constraint,” stated former Secretary of the Treasury the late William Simon.

    It hasn’t been what Government did that made America great. It was what Government was prevented from doing in our Constitution that made the difference. America became great precisely because the stifling effect of too much government had been prevented. However, freedom in America was not totally restrained, Americans overwhelmingly chose to limit their actions to moral codes such as the biblical Ten Commandments. Personal morality and limited government; it’s the combination that characterized America and made it the envy of the world.

    It truly is ‘George Washington Time.’ We must hang in there and keep our objectives clear. Think of the years of Washington’s defeats, with a ragged, sometimes shoeless army slogging it out in miserable winter conditions, never giving up.

    We must start educating ourselves and as much of our centers of influence as possible about the reality of what America has been about: Freedom and Capitalism exuding from our wonderful Constitution. Our problems have all come from not adhering to it and not enforcing it. If we haven’t done too well lately following existing law, why again, would anybody believe results would be different with new Amendments?

    The Constitution of the United States is the bones of what has become the greatest country man has known created by wise men who had first-hand knowledge of real tyranny. Truly a new Con-Con would be a dream come true for the machinating socialist and world government advocates who wish to finish fundamentally changing America as we’ve known it for their own designs. Those that don’t understand their motives are either deluded or the deluding.

Comments are closed.

© 2018 The Castle Report

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑