The Liberty Amendments

[Boss]

Dont worry liberals and so-called libertarians we who love this country will do all the hard work in spite of your bitching.

It's sadly true.. I can't believe some of these people who claim to be Libertarians and have not even read the book yet are trashing the foundation of liberty, what this Union has been held solidly knitted together by-- freedom.. At least Mark Levin is doing something about it.. I haven't heard any of them suggesting something different?? I'm still waiting. I've yet to see a good argument against the Liberty Amendments. Mark backs up each with historical precedence which is relevant to the argument being put forth in this thread. He's not introduced ANYTHING that the Founders didn't themselves already proclaim and enact, BOLDLY.

Oh... we need to vote for Gary Johnson, or the next nutball kook job they throw up, who will get only 2% of the vote! THAT is their solution! I actually contemplate whether we should just go ahead and legalize pot and heroin, and take that issue away from these clowns, and maybe they will be so stoned and geeked out of their minds, they won't bother to vote?

 

[thanatos144]

Dont worry liberals and so-called libertarians we who love this country will do all the hard work in spite of your bitching.

It's sadly true.. I can't believe some of these people who claim to be Libertarians and have not even read the book yet are trashing the foundation of liberty, what this Union has been held solidly knitted together by-- freedom.. At least Mark Levin is doing something about it.. I haven't heard any of them suggesting something different?? I'm still waiting. I've yet to see a good argument against the Liberty Amendments. Mark backs up each with historical precedence which is relevant to the argument being put forth in this thread. He's not introduced ANYTHING that the Founders didn't themselves already proclaim and enact, BOLDLY.

Oh... we need to vote for Gary Johnson, or the next nutball kook job they throw up, who will get only 2% of the vote! THAT is their solution! I actually contemplate whether we should just go ahead and legalize pot and heroin, and take that issue away from these clowns, and maybe they will be so stoned and geeked out of their minds, they won't bother to vote?

I don't see how that would make a difference they don't vote now mostly because they are to stoned to know where the polls are

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I wonder if anything the Founder's said hold significant meaning today?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
-- Samuel Adams (1722–1803)

Wake up and hear the words of our Fathers.. liberals have so perverted our history that true Federalism is no longer taught.. They would have you believe Jefferson was a big government liberal.. It's all lies and propaganda.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
-- Thomas Jefferson

And yet we have 9 unelected robes deciding law for an entire nation.. Most often one vote based on ideology overrides the Constitution, common sense, freedom..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush [September 23, 1800]

Haven't liberals swore Jefferson was an atheist? More perversion and propaganda.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

OMG Liberals must be pissing themselves right about how.. Liberals would have despised Jefferson.. He HATED everything they are, everything they stand for.. Absolutely hated it!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

You mean Obama phones aren't a right? Health care?? Welfare?! But but but.. liberals spew....

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

**** What we have today------> the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated."
--Thomas Jefferson

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
-- James Madison in The Federalist

Madison would be the moral enemy of liberals today.. they idol worship their god Obama..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

"I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
-- Ben Franklin

Can you imagine someone like Carb debating Ben Franklin? The Progressive propaganda machine never sleeps.. they have convinced Americans that patriotism is a bygone and in a world economy, world system it's wrong for Americans to believe in American exceptionalism.

 

[Boss]

Lady, they will say you are just spewing nonsense from angry old white men. Since FDR and New Dealism, things have completely changed. He was the original 'radical transformationalist' and aside from a few brief moments (8 years under Reagan in my lifetime) the Progressives have ruled the roost. Chipping away at Constitutional Republicanism, separating us from our liberty and freedom, and destroying our free market, free enterprise system in the process.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Lady, they will say you are just spewing nonsense from angry old white men. Since FDR and New Dealism, things have completely changed. He was the original 'radical transformationalist' and aside from a few brief moments (8 years under Reagan in my lifetime) the Progressives have ruled the roost. Chipping away at Constitutional Republicanism, separating us from our liberty and freedom, and destroying our free market, free enterprise system in the process.

You're right because I've heard that actual line of crap oozed from some libs. We have strayed so far away from our original Union that it's nearly impossible to make an argument otherwise. What I can't understand is why this book and it's real premise not being constantly spoken about, debated.. discussed here? Have even we, who consider ourselves politically in tune become lazy in defending liberty that a few words on a forum makes us believe we've actually done something?

 

[OKTexas]

But after his careful study of Article V and especially the record of the Founding Fathers’ debate on it (George Mason, James Madison et al), he argues we’ve all been missing something critical.

Namely –

Article V was specifically designed to cover the situation we face today — an over-reaching federal government. The Founders knew that such a government, once entrenched, would never vote for amendments that would reduce its own hold on power. So they deliberately included a separate amendment process in Article V that keeps Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court out of the loop.

The time for that Article V process has clearly come, says Levin. It’s been there all along, clearly explained in the historical record, yet we’ve somehow disregarded it.
How would it work? Consider the following simple, hypothetical amendment to the Constitution:

The debt of the United States shall not be increased except by three-fourths majority vote of both the House and Senate, nor may federal expenditures exceed 20 percent of gross domestic product except by three-fourths consent of the several state legislatures.

The merits of this particular amendment and wording aside, if 38 state legislatures were to ratify this amendment, it would be fully effective immediately as a formal amendment to the Constitution. No permission from Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court need be sought, none is required, and there is no appeal. The state legislatures are the ultimate authority — by design. This may come as a shock those who’ve always presumed Washington rules us all.

http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/07/11/mark-levin-constitution-article-v-and-the-liberty-amendments/

This is exactly why I've been advocating an Article 5 conventions for years, the biggest problem is we have professional politicians at the state level also and most aspire to hold federal office, do you really think they will intentionally reduce the power they want for themselves? I've written my state reps and governor on this subject many times and have yet to get a response.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

But after his careful study of Article V and especially the record of the Founding Fathers’ debate on it (George Mason, James Madison et al), he argues we’ve all been missing something critical.

Namely –

Article V was specifically designed to cover the situation we face today — an over-reaching federal government. The Founders knew that such a government, once entrenched, would never vote for amendments that would reduce its own hold on power. So they deliberately included a separate amendment process in Article V that keeps Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court out of the loop.

The time for that Article V process has clearly come, says Levin. It’s been there all along, clearly explained in the historical record, yet we’ve somehow disregarded it.
How would it work? Consider the following simple, hypothetical amendment to the Constitution:

The debt of the United States shall not be increased except by three-fourths majority vote of both the House and Senate, nor may federal expenditures exceed 20 percent of gross domestic product except by three-fourths consent of the several state legislatures.

The merits of this particular amendment and wording aside, if 38 state legislatures were to ratify this amendment, it would be fully effective immediately as a formal amendment to the Constitution. No permission from Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court need be sought, none is required, and there is no appeal. The state legislatures are the ultimate authority — by design. This may come as a shock those who’ve always presumed Washington rules us all.

http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/07/11/mark-levin-constitution-article-v-and-the-liberty-amendments/

This is exactly why I've been advocating an Article 5 conventions for years, the biggest problem is we have professional politicians at the state level also and most aspire to hold federal office, do you really think they will intentionally reduce the power they want for themselves? I've written my state reps and governor on this subject many times and have yet to get a response.

The majority will not, you're correct.. Mark is correct .. This has to start on the local level and will be a slow process.. Indoctrinating and becoming a Statist voter has taken time also.. There is no short cut or easy way on the path to restoring the Constitutional Republic.. I'm sure the Founders felt overwhelmed when faced with the entire British army and a new unestablished nation to defend.. What we face is as crucial but we have it much easier- NOW.. that can all change with the stroke of a pen and martial law.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

**Latest article- TODAY- From the well respected, "American Thinker."

Articles: What Has Mark Levin Wrought?

 

[Boss]

Lady, they will say you are just spewing nonsense from angry old white men. Since FDR and New Dealism, things have completely changed. He was the original 'radical transformationalist' and aside from a few brief moments (8 years under Reagan in my lifetime) the Progressives have ruled the roost. Chipping away at Constitutional Republicanism, separating us from our liberty and freedom, and destroying our free market, free enterprise system in the process.

You're right because I've heard that actual line of crap oozed from some libs. We have strayed so far away from our original Union that it's nearly impossible to make an argument otherwise. What I can't understand is why this book and it's real premise not being constantly spoken about, debated.. discussed here? Have even we, who consider ourselves politically in tune become lazy in defending liberty that a few words on a forum makes us believe we've actually done something?

What this is serving to do, is reveal the true patriots and constitutional freedom fighters and expose the progressive rats hiding out as "libertarians" and faux conservatives. Most of the people here are ideologues, and most of them actually LIKE Big Government, because they see it as a means to advance their ideological agenda.

I said the moment I heard Levin speak of this, "let the fear mongering begin!" but I didn't expect the charge to be led by so-called libertarians and moderate conservatives. These people have revealed their true colors, as far as I'm concerned, and should now be marginalized for the frauds they are.

 

[Boss]

But after his careful study of Article V and especially the record of the Founding Fathers’ debate on it (George Mason, James Madison et al), he argues we’ve all been missing something critical.

Namely –

Article V was specifically designed to cover the situation we face today — an over-reaching federal government. The Founders knew that such a government, once entrenched, would never vote for amendments that would reduce its own hold on power. So they deliberately included a separate amendment process in Article V that keeps Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court out of the loop.

The time for that Article V process has clearly come, says Levin. It’s been there all along, clearly explained in the historical record, yet we’ve somehow disregarded it.
How would it work? Consider the following simple, hypothetical amendment to the Constitution:

The debt of the United States shall not be increased except by three-fourths majority vote of both the House and Senate, nor may federal expenditures exceed 20 percent of gross domestic product except by three-fourths consent of the several state legislatures.

The merits of this particular amendment and wording aside, if 38 state legislatures were to ratify this amendment, it would be fully effective immediately as a formal amendment to the Constitution. No permission from Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court need be sought, none is required, and there is no appeal. The state legislatures are the ultimate authority — by design. This may come as a shock those who’ve always presumed Washington rules us all.

http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/07/11/mark-levin-constitution-article-v-and-the-liberty-amendments/

This is exactly why I've been advocating an Article 5 conventions for years, the biggest problem is we have professional politicians at the state level also and most aspire to hold federal office, do you really think they will intentionally reduce the power they want for themselves? I've written my state reps and governor on this subject many times and have yet to get a response.

The cavalry has arrived, sir. This book will spark a national debate, and people will begin to do as you have, and lobby their state legislatures. I don't agree that most state office holders are seeking a federal office, I think most of them are content to remain where they are, serving their constituencies. It's mostly governors who want to aspire to higher power in federal government, and the governors have nothing to do with this. These amendments would give tremendous authority back to the states, and release them from the burden of excessive federal mandates.

Recently, I was listening to an interview with someone in state government, explaining why his state continued to run deficits in spite of many cuts they had made in state programs. He said, the problem is not with what the state funds through state revenues, it's the federal mandates piled onto the state, which they have no choice but to comply with. The 17th Amendment effectively eliminated the state's representation in Washington. No one is looking out for their interests, and subsequently, they become the whipping boys.

When one or two concerned citizens lobby for something like this, it kinda goes in one ear and out the other, because there is nothing they can do, but when thousands demand it, and start replacing butts in seats with people who promise to deliver, the sentiment changes quickly.

 

[Boss]

The majority will not, you're correct.. Mark is correct .. This has to start on the local level and will be a slow process.. Indoctrinating and becoming a Statist voter has taken time also.. There is no short cut or easy way on the path to restoring the Constitutional Republic.. I'm sure the Founders felt overwhelmed when faced with the entire British army and a new unestablished nation to defend.. What we face is as crucial but we have it much easier- NOW.. that can all change with the stroke of a pen and martial law.

It was interesting what Mark had to say in the Hannity interview, about getting the Constitution ratified. Several states were very difficult to persuade, including Virginia, home of so many founding fathers. Sam Adams, who you quote in your sig line, was opposed to the Constitution out of the very fears that we would become what we have become! It took a long time, and a lot of tireless hours, speaking and advocating, writing and publishing, convincing those who were uncertain. Today, we take this for granted that it was something inevitable that just happened, we teach it in schools as if it was a foregone conclusion that everyone supported. Far, far from it.

 

[Votto]

as long as we're doing fine, as long as nobody is going without a whole lot, as long as people aren't hungry in the streets..... There's not going to be any problems.

.