The Liberty Amendments

[Boss]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

It was to address just such a situation as we find ourselves in today. We have an out of control Federal Leviathan, a Congress that is comprised of two parties serving their own interests and power, a President who brazenly defies the Constitution as he pleases, a SCOTUS who literally rewrites the Constitution as it pleases, and We The People have seemingly lost ALL control over our country. The Progressives have waged a 100 year war on our Constitutional constructs, and we find ourselves in a post-Constitutional era, where there is literally no more Constitutionality and no power of the States or people.

From interviews Levin has done, I have pieced together the basics of his 10 proposed Amendments:

1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.
3. Term Limits for SCOTUS
Capped at 12 years.
4. 3/5ths of States or Congress can override SCOTUS decisions
Limiting the scope and power of SCOTUS rulings.
5. Limit Federal Spending
A balanced budget amendment.
6. Limit Federal Taxation
Congress is never going to do this on their own.
7. Limit Federal Bureaucracy
Eliminating the "4th branch" of government for good.
8. Promote Free Enterprise
Self explanatory.
9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.

Levin says none of this is 'written in stone' and the states would have to ratify with 3/4, just as with the Congressional process. Because of that rigid criteria, he doesn't feel there is an undesirable downside, like special interests becoming involved to add all kinds of unwanted crap. There is also no danger in the entire Constitution being rewritten, because even though the process is called a "constitutional convention" it is limited to amendments only.

This process bypasses Congress completely. They would serve as administers of what the states ratify, and have no say in the makeup of delegates which are appointed by the states. Critics say it would be an "uphill battle" to accomplish this... Levin answers with the question: "What battle isn't uphill?"

I have read the first chapter of the book, I am waiting for my Amazon order to arrive, so I can read more details, but this sounds very promising. The chapter I have read, lays out the case the Founding Fathers made for establishing Article V, and the reasoning behind it. Madison, Mason, and Hamilton, all agreed, the Constitution needed some mechanism for the people to use to re-establish the social contract, short of violent revolt, should Federal government go rogue. We are at that precipice, the time is now.

Let us take these points one at a time and see if we can figure out if they are about liberty, or something else.

1. Term limits always sound good to me. The response to the idea is almost visceral, which is why I am extremely suspicious of them, especially when I realize I don't have any data to back up that feeling. For example, California has term limits, yet the government still sucks. Despite the fact that I believe with every fiber of my being that term limits are a good idea, they don't seem to really accomplish anything other than putting a fancy bandage on a bigger problem.
2. I here this all the time, and don't understand why people think it is a good idea. Prior to the 17th Amendment most of the states had switched to direct elections of their Senators, and it was pretty obvious every state would do so eventually, If we repealed the 17th all that would happen is nothing, because nothing in the Constitution required any state to do something magical to selecting a Senator.
3. I can't even begin to think of a reason anyone would want to limit the terms of sitting judges. I don't particularly lioke the way it works right now, but at least I can expect some consistency from the court in its rulings, If we appointed a different judge every few months the court would cycle through popular movements, and the government would end up with all sorts of stupid rulings that ignore the constitutional limits on government.
4. Does this mean that if a bunch of idiots get together and decide that I shouldn't have free speech, and the court disagrees, they win anyway? It takes a particularly spiteful person that hates liberty to his core to propose something like this. And this is coming from a guy that would love to see a way for rulings he thinks are wrong to be overturned more quickly than they currently are.
5. Limit it to what? It is stupid to propose something like this without being specific. currently federal spending is limited to whatever Congress decides to spend, does this transfer that control to someone else, or put an arbitrary cap on spending that doesn't consider circumstances that we cannot foresee?
6. Limit it how? To what? Anyone that doesn't believe that the system we have now is screwed up is an idiot, but taxes are already self limiting, putting an amendment in the Constitution that ignores this reality is stupid.
7. Limit it to what? what if we really need to hire more people to deal with something unforeseen?
8. No.
9. Secure them for whom?
10. Damn, he wants an amendment to do something that they can already do. Amazing.

It seems to me that, as a constitutional scholar, Levin makes a good talk radio host. The man is obviously biased and arrogant, which makes him think he has all the answers. The best thing to do with people like this is shoot them so they cannot infect others.

Spoken like a true PSEUDO-Libertarian!

 

[OKTexas]

There have been more than adequate requests by the states for a convention, congress refuses to do their duty and call one. There is nothing in Article 5 that there is a shelf life on the request and they remain valid until a conventions is called. Check out the partial list of request made by the states in the following link.

http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm

Congress does not have to call one. Article V states it very clearly, the states can do this on their own, without permission from Congress.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

If you read Article 5 it only gives congress the power to call a convention, it also says they SHALL call a convention when adequates states apply to do so, it's not optional. The states need to go to court and force congress to do its duty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

It was to address just such a situation as we find ourselves in today. We have an out of control Federal Leviathan, a Congress that is comprised of two parties serving their own interests and power, a President who brazenly defies the Constitution as he pleases, a SCOTUS who literally rewrites the Constitution as it pleases, and We The People have seemingly lost ALL control over our country. The Progressives have waged a 100 year war on our Constitutional constructs, and we find ourselves in a post-Constitutional era, where there is literally no more Constitutionality and no power of the States or people.

From interviews Levin has done, I have pieced together the basics of his 10 proposed Amendments:

1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.
3. Term Limits for SCOTUS
Capped at 12 years.
4. 3/5ths of States or Congress can override SCOTUS decisions
Limiting the scope and power of SCOTUS rulings.
5. Limit Federal Spending
A balanced budget amendment.
6. Limit Federal Taxation
Congress is never going to do this on their own.
7. Limit Federal Bureaucracy
Eliminating the "4th branch" of government for good.
8. Promote Free Enterprise
Self explanatory.
9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.

Levin says none of this is 'written in stone' and the states would have to ratify with 3/4, just as with the Congressional process. Because of that rigid criteria, he doesn't feel there is an undesirable downside, like special interests becoming involved to add all kinds of unwanted crap. There is also no danger in the entire Constitution being rewritten, because even though the process is called a "constitutional convention" it is limited to amendments only.

This process bypasses Congress completely. They would serve as administers of what the states ratify, and have no say in the makeup of delegates which are appointed by the states. Critics say it would be an "uphill battle" to accomplish this... Levin answers with the question: "What battle isn't uphill?"

I have read the first chapter of the book, I am waiting for my Amazon order to arrive, so I can read more details, but this sounds very promising. The chapter I have read, lays out the case the Founding Fathers made for establishing Article V, and the reasoning behind it. Madison, Mason, and Hamilton, all agreed, the Constitution needed some mechanism for the people to use to re-establish the social contract, short of violent revolt, should Federal government go rogue. We are at that precipice, the time is now.

Let us take these points one at a time and see if we can figure out if they are about liberty, or something else.

1. Term limits always sound good to me. The response to the idea is almost visceral, which is why I am extremely suspicious of them, especially when I realize I don't have any data to back up that feeling. For example, California has term limits, yet the government still sucks. Despite the fact that I believe with every fiber of my being that term limits are a good idea, they don't seem to really accomplish anything other than putting a fancy bandage on a bigger problem.
2. I here this all the time, and don't understand why people think it is a good idea. Prior to the 17th Amendment most of the states had switched to direct elections of their Senators, and it was pretty obvious every state would do so eventually, If we repealed the 17th all that would happen is nothing, because nothing in the Constitution required any state to do something magical to selecting a Senator.
3. I can't even begin to think of a reason anyone would want to limit the terms of sitting judges. I don't particularly lioke the way it works right now, but at least I can expect some consistency from the court in its rulings, If we appointed a different judge every few months the court would cycle through popular movements, and the government would end up with all sorts of stupid rulings that ignore the constitutional limits on government.
4. Does this mean that if a bunch of idiots get together and decide that I shouldn't have free speech, and the court disagrees, they win anyway? It takes a particularly spiteful person that hates liberty to his core to propose something like this. And this is coming from a guy that would love to see a way for rulings he thinks are wrong to be overturned more quickly than they currently are.
5. Limit it to what? It is stupid to propose something like this without being specific. currently federal spending is limited to whatever Congress decides to spend, does this transfer that control to someone else, or put an arbitrary cap on spending that doesn't consider circumstances that we cannot foresee?
6. Limit it how? To what? Anyone that doesn't believe that the system we have now is screwed up is an idiot, but taxes are already self limiting, putting an amendment in the Constitution that ignores this reality is stupid.
7. Limit it to what? what if we really need to hire more people to deal with something unforeseen?
8. No.
9. Secure them for whom?
10. Damn, he wants an amendment to do something that they can already do. Amazing.

It seems to me that, as a constitutional scholar, Levin makes a good talk radio host. The man is obviously biased and arrogant, which makes him think he has all the answers. The best thing to do with people like this is shoot them so they cannot infect others.

Spoken like a true PSEUDO-Libertarian!

Let me guess, that was supposed to upset me. Unlike you, I do not define myself by the opinion of others, so you can call me anything you want.

I will, however, point out that Levin calls himself a conservative, not a libertarian, and hates the idea of other people being able to decide for themselves what they do with their lives.


By the way, did you notice that I replied to each of the points you thought Levine has with arguments about why I don't like them, and all you came back with was an insult?

 

[Contumacious]

I will, however, point out that Levin calls himself a conservative, not a libertarian, and hates the idea of other people being able to decide for themselves what they do with their lives.


?

That is true.

Of course, it doesn't mean that the issues that he proposes are consequently, wrong.

.

 

[Boss]

Term limits always sound good to me. The response to the idea is almost visceral, which is why I am extremely suspicious of them, especially when I realize I don't have any data to back up that feeling. For example, California has term limits, yet the government still sucks. Despite the fact that I believe with every fiber of my being that term limits are a good idea, they don't seem to really accomplish anything other than putting a fancy bandage on a bigger problem.

California is a STATE, not the Congress.

I here this all the time, and don't understand why people think it is a good idea. Prior to the 17th Amendment most of the states had switched to direct elections of their Senators, and it was pretty obvious every state would do so eventually, If we repealed the 17th all that would happen is nothing, because nothing in the Constitution required any state to do something magical to selecting a Senator.

It's a good idea because it returns some authority and power back to the state where it belongs. As it stands now, the states simply have no advocate in our federal governmental system. No one is representing their interests, the Senators don't give two shits about the concerns of the state they represent. As a result, the Congress simply continues to pass burdens and regulations on to the states, who are powerless to stop it.

I can't even begin to think of a reason anyone would want to limit the terms of sitting judges. I don't particularly lioke the way it works right now, but at least I can expect some consistency from the court in its rulings, If we appointed a different judge every few months the court would cycle through popular movements, and the government would end up with all sorts of stupid rulings that ignore the constitutional limits on government.

The reason is, because one man in a black robe should not have the authority to make societal changes that will affect the nation for generations to come, simply because of 'luck of the draw' and being appointed by a particular president. No one has said "appoint a judge every few months" ...the amendment Levin proposes, calls for 12-year terms. That's plenty of time for a judge to serve on the court, in my opinion.

Does this mean that if a bunch of idiots get together and decide that I shouldn't have free speech, and the court disagrees, they win anyway? It takes a particularly spiteful person that hates liberty to his core to propose something like this. And this is coming from a guy that would love to see a way for rulings he thinks are wrong to be overturned more quickly than they currently are.

No, it means that if 3/5 of Congress or 3/5 of the states disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, we have a recourse. It's still a supermajority... not a few wackos who get together.

Limit it to what? It is stupid to propose something like this without being specific. currently federal spending is limited to whatever Congress decides to spend, does this transfer that control to someone else, or put an arbitrary cap on spending that doesn't consider circumstances that we cannot foresee?

Again, I am piecing together these amendments from interviews Levin has done, and haven't read the details in his book. From my understanding, he has laid out a very specific plan for how Congress will appropriate spending and deal with unforeseen circumstances, but these are in the book, which I haven't yet read. He does say that this and the chapter on taxation, are the longest in the book, because they entail much more detail than the other amendments.

Limit it how? To what? Anyone that doesn't believe that the system we have now is screwed up is an idiot, but taxes are already self limiting, putting an amendment in the Constitution that ignores this reality is stupid.

Self limiting? How do you figure? When has Congress limited itself on how much it can tax you? Again, the specific details Levin proposes, are in the book. I haven't read the proposals yet, but I'll be glad to discuss this further whenever I have. In the past, Levin has spoken in favor or both the Fair Tax and Flat Tax, so I don't really know how he addresses this.

Limit it to what? what if we really need to hire more people to deal with something unforeseen?

To what is in the Constitution, I presume. Article II Section 8. We currently have thousands and thousands of federal government agencies, who are usurping your liberties and freedoms every day, who are run by bureaucrats appointed by the president or his czars, and unaccountable to anyone. This was NOT what the Founding Fathers EVER intended. It needs to stop.

No.

Yep. Sorry you are opposed to free market capitalism... move to Russia!

Secure them for whom?

Private property owners.... Like the fact that YOU OWN the data from your cell phone activity.

Damn, he wants an amendment to do something that they can already do. Amazing.

No, it currently requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. 2/3 is less than 3/4.

 

[Boss]

There have been more than adequate requests by the states for a convention, congress refuses to do their duty and call one. There is nothing in Article 5 that there is a shelf life on the request and they remain valid until a conventions is called. Check out the partial list of request made by the states in the following link.

http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm

Congress does not have to call one. Article V states it very clearly, the states can do this on their own, without permission from Congress.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

If you read Article 5 it only gives congress the power to call a convention, it also says they SHALL call a convention when adequates states apply to do so, it's not optional. The states need to go to court and force congress to do its duty.

No, you are incorrect. The word "OR" is very important in the sentence. Look, Mark Levin was studying the Constitution when you were still shitting yellow in your diapers, I don't think he has misinterpreted Article V.

 

[Boss]

If you read Article 5 it only gives congress the power to call a convention..

...or by conventions in three fourths thereof.

What does that say?

 

[OKTexas]

Congress does not have to call one. Article V states it very clearly, the states can do this on their own, without permission from Congress.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

If you read Article 5 it only gives congress the power to call a convention, it also says they SHALL call a convention when adequates states apply to do so, it's not optional. The states need to go to court and force congress to do its duty.

No, you are incorrect. The word "OR" is very important in the sentence. Look, Mark Levin was studying the Constitution when you were still shitting yellow in your diapers, I don't think he has misinterpreted Article V.

For your information sonny I am older than Levin and your evident lack of reading comprehension leaves you lacking on the subject. Article 5 clearly states that Congress shall call a convention. You might want to have your english teacher explain it to you.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let us take these points one at a time and see if we can figure out if they are about liberty, or something else.

1. Term limits always sound good to me. The response to the idea is almost visceral, which is why I am extremely suspicious of them, especially when I realize I don't have any data to back up that feeling. For example, California has term limits, yet the government still sucks. Despite the fact that I believe with every fiber of my being that term limits are a good idea, they don't seem to really accomplish anything other than putting a fancy bandage on a bigger problem.
2. I here this all the time, and don't understand why people think it is a good idea. Prior to the 17th Amendment most of the states had switched to direct elections of their Senators, and it was pretty obvious every state would do so eventually, If we repealed the 17th all that would happen is nothing, because nothing in the Constitution required any state to do something magical to selecting a Senator.
3. I can't even begin to think of a reason anyone would want to limit the terms of sitting judges. I don't particularly lioke the way it works right now, but at least I can expect some consistency from the court in its rulings, If we appointed a different judge every few months the court would cycle through popular movements, and the government would end up with all sorts of stupid rulings that ignore the constitutional limits on government.
4. Does this mean that if a bunch of idiots get together and decide that I shouldn't have free speech, and the court disagrees, they win anyway? It takes a particularly spiteful person that hates liberty to his core to propose something like this. And this is coming from a guy that would love to see a way for rulings he thinks are wrong to be overturned more quickly than they currently are.
5. Limit it to what? It is stupid to propose something like this without being specific. currently federal spending is limited to whatever Congress decides to spend, does this transfer that control to someone else, or put an arbitrary cap on spending that doesn't consider circumstances that we cannot foresee?
6. Limit it how? To what? Anyone that doesn't believe that the system we have now is screwed up is an idiot, but taxes are already self limiting, putting an amendment in the Constitution that ignores this reality is stupid.
7. Limit it to what? what if we really need to hire more people to deal with something unforeseen?
8. No.
9. Secure them for whom?
10. Damn, he wants an amendment to do something that they can already do. Amazing.

It seems to me that, as a constitutional scholar, Levin makes a good talk radio host. The man is obviously biased and arrogant, which makes him think he has all the answers. The best thing to do with people like this is shoot them so they cannot infect others.

Spoken like a true PSEUDO-Libertarian!

Not even going to bother to address one of his points?

 

[Avatar4321]

No, you are incorrect. The word "OR" is very important in the sentence. Look, Mark Levin was studying the Constitution when you were still shitting yellow in your diapers, I don't think he has misinterpreted Article V.

That's a pretty faulty appeal to authority. Who cares how long Mark has been studying the Constitution. That doesn't necessarily make his interpretation correct.

Obama was teaching the Constitution and we know he doesn't know jack about it.

 

[OKTexas]

If you read Article 5 it only gives congress the power to call a convention..

...or by conventions in three fourths thereof.

What does that say?

That's for ratification, not calling a convention, two different subjects. Like I said have your english teacher explaint it to you.

BTW you brought up a good subject in the op, too bad your not compentent to actually sepak to it.

 

[Boss]

Let us take these points one at a time and see if we can figure out if they are about liberty, or something else.

1. Term limits always sound good to me. The response to the idea is almost visceral, which is why I am extremely suspicious of them, especially when I realize I don't have any data to back up that feeling. For example, California has term limits, yet the government still sucks. Despite the fact that I believe with every fiber of my being that term limits are a good idea, they don't seem to really accomplish anything other than putting a fancy bandage on a bigger problem.
2. I here this all the time, and don't understand why people think it is a good idea. Prior to the 17th Amendment most of the states had switched to direct elections of their Senators, and it was pretty obvious every state would do so eventually, If we repealed the 17th all that would happen is nothing, because nothing in the Constitution required any state to do something magical to selecting a Senator.
3. I can't even begin to think of a reason anyone would want to limit the terms of sitting judges. I don't particularly lioke the way it works right now, but at least I can expect some consistency from the court in its rulings, If we appointed a different judge every few months the court would cycle through popular movements, and the government would end up with all sorts of stupid rulings that ignore the constitutional limits on government.
4. Does this mean that if a bunch of idiots get together and decide that I shouldn't have free speech, and the court disagrees, they win anyway? It takes a particularly spiteful person that hates liberty to his core to propose something like this. And this is coming from a guy that would love to see a way for rulings he thinks are wrong to be overturned more quickly than they currently are.
5. Limit it to what? It is stupid to propose something like this without being specific. currently federal spending is limited to whatever Congress decides to spend, does this transfer that control to someone else, or put an arbitrary cap on spending that doesn't consider circumstances that we cannot foresee?
6. Limit it how? To what? Anyone that doesn't believe that the system we have now is screwed up is an idiot, but taxes are already self limiting, putting an amendment in the Constitution that ignores this reality is stupid.
7. Limit it to what? what if we really need to hire more people to deal with something unforeseen?
8. No.
9. Secure them for whom?
10. Damn, he wants an amendment to do something that they can already do. Amazing.

It seems to me that, as a constitutional scholar, Levin makes a good talk radio host. The man is obviously biased and arrogant, which makes him think he has all the answers. The best thing to do with people like this is shoot them so they cannot infect others.

Spoken like a true PSEUDO-Libertarian!

Not even going to bother to address one of his points?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7690504-post65.html

 

[Boss]

If you read Article 5 it only gives congress the power to call a convention..

...or by conventions in three fourths thereof.

What does that say?

That's for ratification, not calling a convention, two different subjects. Like I said have your english teacher explaint it to you.

BTW you brought up a good subject in the op, too bad your not compentent to actually sepak to it.

I guess I need an English teacher to explain why it says "conventions" instead of "ratification" because it clearly says "or by conventions in thee fourths thereof" and not ratification.

The States can convene their own constitutional conventions, and then ratify the amendments without any action from Congress whatsoever.

I have listened to Levin explain it, and I am not a constitutional scholar like him, so I can't do it justice, but he says the founders specifically put this alternative way to amend into the Article V, in case the government simply wanted to ignore our requests. In other words, they fully realized this might happen, and put forth a mechanism by which we can bypass Congress and amend the constitution, without ANY input from them.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

No one in this thread has thoroughly read the book and yet are experts on it.. Reminds me of LIBRULS.. Sad.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

How many of you "Constitutional Experts" in this fucking thread have served in the Reagan Administration? Oh none??? Well how many of you are NY Times best selling authors?? Again, not one of you?! Oh yes, I see how I should listen to some of you dumb-asses over reading for myself. (The Liberty Amendments)

 

[Boss]

Clarification on a key issue. I was incorrect in my earlier statements about state-by-state conventions. Here is an excerpt from an interview by Levin with CNSNews, explaining the "role" of Congress in this process:

Jeffrey: So, specifically what you’re calling for is that state legislatures around the country, using their power under Article V of the Constitution, pass resolutions calling for a convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Levin: And they’re proposing amendments to the Constitution, to all the states. So three-fourths still have to ratify. This will take time. We have a lot of blue states, who are perfectly happy with an all-powerful centralized government, with governors and legislators that kind of enjoy that. We are going to have a lot of Republicans who are not going to want to fight this because they tend to be weak status-quo type Republicans. So, we’re going to have to focus on state representatives and state senators. And a lot of these states that are blue now, they’re going to collapse. They can’t print money. You see what happened in Detroit. This is just the beginning.

So the left, the statists, have been at this for a century, from the income tax to the elimination of the way the senators were picked, the progressive movement. We conservatives are always looking for quick fixes. You know, if we can’t fix something in 15 minutes, then we give up. I’m saying we have to be as resolute, if not more so, than the left, and begin this process now.

Jeffrey: So, these resolutions to call for this national convention for amendments could be approved by a simple majority of state legislatures?

Levin: That’s correct.

Jeffrey: Would the governors be involved?

Levin: Congress isn’t involved either. Under the Constitution, Congress’s job is ministerial, like a part-time Obamacare employee, where they basically collect the resolutions of the states, they turn it into the archivist of the United States, and if there’s two-thirds, then the states can go ahead and meet. If Congress tries to interfere, as was stated in the Federalist papers by none other than Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the advocates for more centralized government, Congress has no role. If Congress tries to obstruct it or prevent it, the states should meet in any event.

- See more at: Mark Levin: States Should Call Convention to Propose Amending Constitution | CNS News

 

[regent]

How many of you "Constitutional Experts" in this fucking thread have served in the Reagan Administration? Oh none??? Well how many of you are NY Times best selling authors?? Again, not one of you?! Oh yes, I see how I should listen to some of you dumb-asses over reading for myself. (The Liberty Amendments)

Have any amendments been proposed by the state legislature method become amendments? Not a one, the idea is pie in the sky but probably sells books.
Since the framers never intended there to be political parties and made no provisions for them in the Constitution, has Levin slated political parties to go? And what of the Marbury decision would that go by the wayside?
How many progressive changes to the Constitution been put back to the pre-era?
Pie in the sky, not gonna happen during our lifetime.
The big question is how many books will the idea sell?

 

[Contumacious]

Have any amendments been proposed by the state legislature method become amendments? Not a one, the idea is pie in the sky but probably sells books.
?

Creation of the amendment process

One of the main reasons for the 1787 Convention was that the Articles of Confederation required the unanimous consent of all 13 states for the national government to take action. This system had proved unworkable, and the newly-written Constitution sought to address this problem.

The first proposal for a method of amending the Constitution offered in the Constitutional Convention, contained in the Virginia Plan, sought to circumvent the national legislature, stating that "the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required."[8] In response, Alexander Hamilton privately circulated a proposal that gave the power to propose amendments to the national legislature, and the power to ratify the amendments to the states.[9]

After some debate, James Madison removed reference to the convention amendment process, giving the national legislature sole authority to propose amendments whenever it thought necessary or when two-thirds of the states applied to the national legislature.[10]

Several delegates voiced opposition to the idea of the national legislature retaining sole power to propose constitutional amendments.[11] George Mason argued from the floor of the Convention that it "would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account." Mason added that, "no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive."[12] In response to these concerns, the Convention unanimously voted to add the language allowing states to apply to Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.[11]

.

 

[The T]

No one in this thread has thoroughly read the book and yet are experts on it.. Reminds me of LIBRULS.. Sad.

If they listen to Mark (on at 6pm EST)...he's been talking about it for the past few weeks, and now it's out? He's at liberty to really speak about it.

What I like about his books? He gives you copius footnotes so you may go investigate it for yourself. Mark speaks of history of this Republic...and why it's being destroyed...and more of import? WHY it must be saved, and how to do it to the chagrin of the leftists destroying it before our eyes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Term limits always sound good to me. The response to the idea is almost visceral, which is why I am extremely suspicious of them, especially when I realize I don't have any data to back up that feeling. For example, California has term limits, yet the government still sucks. Despite the fact that I believe with every fiber of my being that term limits are a good idea, they don't seem to really accomplish anything other than putting a fancy bandage on a bigger problem.

California is a STATE, not the Congress.

Which proves that term limits will work how, exactly? Or is this something else everyone just knows?

I here this all the time, and don't understand why people think it is a good idea. Prior to the 17th Amendment most of the states had switched to direct elections of their Senators, and it was pretty obvious every state would do so eventually, If we repealed the 17th all that would happen is nothing, because nothing in the Constitution required any state to do something magical to selecting a Senator.

It's a good idea because it returns some authority and power back to the state where it belongs. As it stands now, the states simply have no advocate in our federal governmental system. No one is representing their interests, the Senators don't give two shits about the concerns of the state they represent. As a result, the Congress simply continues to pass burdens and regulations on to the states, who are powerless to stop it.

Good for you, an attempt to defend your position.

Some history for you. The way that states selected Senators was so riddled with corruption that 33 states had switched to direct primaries, and were actually agitating for a Constitutional Convention. congress was so afraid of what would happen that they went along with the popular demand to change the Constitution. You might want to pretend you are smarter than the people who went through this, and posture to yourself that it reduced the power of the states, but it was actually something the sates wanted because they saw it as a way to have some real say in how they were represented in the Senate.

But, by all means, feel free to ignore history, because you already stated you are smarter than everyone who disagrees with you.

The reason is, because one man in a black robe should not have the authority to make societal changes that will affect the nation for generations to come, simply because of 'luck of the draw' and being appointed by a particular president. No one has said "appoint a judge every few months" ...the amendment Levin proposes, calls for 12-year terms. That's plenty of time for a judge to serve on the court, in my opinion.

I get it now, you want to be in charge, and you hate that other people tell you what to do. And this, somehow, makes you a libertarian.

Tell me something, oh great one, if we have 9 men serving a 12 year term do you propose changing all the judges at the same time, or staggering it somehow? Since Levin supports staggering it, and you quoted him, my assumption was you were aware of that. Forgive me for attributing some intelligence to you in your posting, I will endeavor not to make that mistake again.

No, it means that if 3/5 of Congress or 3/5 of the states disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, we have a recourse. It's still a supermajority... not a few wackos who get together.

I did not say a few whackos, I said a bunch of idiots. You are one of the idiots that I am concerned about, since you seem to think you can force newspapers not to publish something just because you don't want them too.

Again, I am piecing together these amendments from interviews Levin has done, and haven't read the details in his book. From my understanding, he has laid out a very specific plan for how Congress will appropriate spending and deal with unforeseen circumstances, but these are in the book, which I haven't yet read. He does say that this and the chapter on taxation, are the longest in the book, because they entail much more detail than the other amendments.

From my understanding, the man is an idiot. I doubt he thought of half the things that need to be covered.

Self limiting? How do you figure? When has Congress limited itself on how much it can tax you? Again, the specific details Levin proposes, are in the book. I haven't read the proposals yet, but I'll be glad to discuss this further whenever I have. In the past, Levin has spoken in favor or both the Fair Tax and Flat Tax, so I don't really know how he addresses this.

Where did I say Congress limited taxes, I said they were self limiting. It is called the Laffer curve, you should look it up sometime, you might learn something.

To what is in the Constitution, I presume. Article II Section 8. We currently have thousands and thousands of federal government agencies, who are usurping your liberties and freedoms every day, who are run by bureaucrats appointed by the president or his czars, and unaccountable to anyone. This was NOT what the Founding Fathers EVER intended. It needs to stop.

Presidential czars exist outside the bureaucracy, and whoever they hire loses his job when they do. I hate them myself, but you should get the facts straight if you want to jabber about them it makes you look informed.

When did you start caring about what the Founding Fathers intended? Can I point out that the Founding Fathers actually passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which usurped more rights than Obama in his wildest dreams ever thought of taking away?

I want to reduce the size of government, but simply putting a cap on bureaucracy is not the way to do it.

Yep. Sorry you are opposed to free market capitalism... move to Russia!

I am not opposed to the free market, which is why I oppose the government being involved in it. Only a complete idiot can think the government could be involved in anything and it still be free. you just argued that the very existence of the government usurps our liberty, yet you want more government.

Secure them for whom?

Private property owners.... Like the fact that YOU OWN the data from your cell phone activity.

I secure everything I care about on my cell phone because I don't expect the government to care.

You also did not answer my question. If you want to build a shopping center, and I don't want to sell your property, does the government secure your right to build a shopping center or my right not to sell my property?

Damn, he wants an amendment to do something that they can already do. Amazing.

No, it currently requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. 2/3 is less than 3/4.

Damn, you can't read either.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.