The Liberty Amendments

[Quantum Windbag]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin,

Mark Levin is not a scholar.

I already told you.

Why don't you ask to have this embarrassing thread taken down?

What makes him not a scholar? Is it the fact that he didn't go to a hazlnut approved school?

 

[eagle1462010]

I listen to Mark from time to time and he's a very educated man.

I agree with a lot of what he says, but not all of it.

The Amendment Process is a way for Americans to say "ENOUGH TO OUR GOVERNMENT", bypass them and put them back in their place to serving us instead of their back pockets.

1. I believe term limits could be amended if pushed. I believe enough Americans would agree that we don't need LIFELONG POLITICIANS IN OFFICE. So I don't think this would be a hard sale to make.

2. I believe that we need a Balanced Budget Amendment but I'd give it lower chances on passing as many are on the Gov't dole and would rebel against it as they wouldn't want their Federal Dollars cut. Even though it makes sense to the logical, the masses would probably vote it down as they want their Federal Dollars.

It would still be worth the attempt.

3. I believe Obamacare could be overturned via an Amendment. It would be another hard sell, but I think those against it are already at 60%. So we'd have to convince another 15% to join.

The main problem will be that those getting Free Care via the program wouldn't want to lose it, so it would be a hard sell.


I agree with the Amendment process. I think we come way past the time to FACE THE GOVERNMENT and say ENOUGH. So would someone please get the ball rolling? Starting with the Term Limits.

 

[regent]

I listen to Mark from time to time and he's a very educated man.

I agree with a lot of what he says, but not all of it.

The Amendment Process is a way for Americans to say "ENOUGH TO OUR GOVERNMENT", bypass them and put them back in their place to serving us instead of their back pockets.

1. I believe term limits could be amended if pushed. I believe enough Americans would agree that we don't need LIFELONG POLITICIANS IN OFFICE. So I don't think this would be a hard sale to make.

2. I believe that we need a Balanced Budget Amendment but I'd give it lower chances on passing as many are on the Gov't dole and would rebel against it as they wouldn't want their Federal Dollars cut. Even though it makes sense to the logical, the masses would probably vote it down as they want their Federal Dollars.

It would still be worth the attempt.

3. I believe Obamacare could be overturned via an Amendment. It would be another hard sell, but I think those against it are already at 60%. So we'd have to convince another 15% to join.

The main problem will be that those getting Free Care via the program wouldn't want to lose it, so it would be a hard sell.


I agree with the Amendment process. I think we come way past the time to FACE THE GOVERNMENT and say ENOUGH. So would someone please get the ball rolling? Starting with the Term Limits.

People don't vote on Constitutional amendments. If they did we would have all sorts of amendments catering to the special interests. California must have about 600 amendments by now, even to the size of fruit trees that can be taxed.
If Republicans can't kill Obama-care at this time they've lost it. These first social bills are a compromise between those for and those against, but as time goes by Obama-care will be improved, and in say 100 years it will be the law that should have been passed in the first place. Social Security is still in the process of being ironed out.
Compromise laws that are bad, are the price we pay for living in a democracy.

 

[eagle1462010]

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

 

[eagle1462010]

Just because it has never been used, doesn't mean it could be done.

Which is what Mark is saying.

This path would bypass Congress.

 

[The T]

The only I foresee here is the federal government sending in troops to disperse and disrupt the convention for "national security - classified."

That's when the 2nd Amendment is activated.

This is actually one of the ways in which the 2nd Amendment may be implemented - legally.

Another one is enough states start nullifying federal laws through their Tenth Amendment, or counties/towns do the same through their Ninth Amendment. If the feds send in troops to suppress Ninth and Tenth Amendments rights, you'll see a 2nd Amendment showdown - legally.

I'd love to see local sheriffs throw FEDS in jail for trespass.

 

[Pheonixops]

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.

Here's what I THINK is the article he is referring to:
"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."

So basically it would have to be ratified by 3/4th's of the several states? Do you think that can really happen and on what particular issues?

I think it would have to still go through the Congress or at least the Senate because of that last line I put in bold type. Maybe I am wrong, but i really don't see it happening any time soon. Here's another thin i was reading:
"As a legislative branch of government, a legislature generally performs state duties for a state in the same way that the United States Congress performs national duties at the national level. Generally, the same system of checks and balances that exists at the Federal level also exists between the state legislature, the state executive officer (governor) and the state judiciary, though the degree to which this is so varies from one state to the next.

During a legislative session, the legislature considers matters introduced by its members or submitted by the governor. Businesses and other special interest organizations often lobby the legislature to obtain beneficial legislation, defeat unfavorably perceived measures, or influence other legislative action. A legislature also approves the state's operating and capital budgets, which may begin as a legislative proposal or a submission by the governor.

Under the terms of Article V of the U.S. Constitution, state lawmakers retain the power to ratify Constitutional amendments which have been proposed by the Congress and they also retain the ability to apply to the Congress for a national convention to directly propose Constitutional amendments to the states for ratification. Under Article II, state legislatures choose the manner of appointing the state's presidential electors. Formerly, state legislatures appointed the U.S. Senators from their respective states until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 required the direct election of Senators by county's voters."

 

[Pheonixops]

Here's a map from the election from 2012:
2012 Election Results Map by State - Live Voting Updates - POLITICO.com

Do you and Levin think that you could get over 35 states to agree to ratify Constitutional amendments or amend the Constitution with all of or most of those items you listed?

 

[Pheonixops]

Yep. Progressives like Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, etc....just to draw up the last few decades.

The problem is that everyone else has been coralled into the two party illusion and those two parties are the flip sides of the same coin. You probably think I should have voted for Romney, the corporatist. While others would have said (should he have lost) that I should have voted for Obama the corporatist. Meanwhile the wheels on the bus go round and round....and NOTHING ever changes. It never will either. This system is a broken failure.

Our Congress is now controlled by two "ruling class" parties, who serve their own self interests. Neither party is interested in change or delegating more of their power back to the people. Republicans have become as infiltrated by Big Government Progressives as the Democrats, and you are right... flip sides of the same coin.

This is precisely why Levin argues it is time for a radical move on the part of the people. A grassroots effort to Amend the Constitution at the State level, and restore our Constitutional construct. Congress is not going to fix itself, the President is not going to fix himself, the SCOTUS is not going to fix itself. They are all serving their own perpetuating self interests, and disregarding the people. We keep hoping for a President who will change things, or a Congress that will do so, or then... even a SCOTUS who will intervene to uphold Constitutionality, and it just isn't happening, and it's not going to. Federal government is out of control, it has gone rogue. Our Founders were smart enough to give us the mechanism to correct just this sort of thing, without resorting to violence.

Who did Levin support or vote for in the last election; Obama, Romney, Johnson, "other"?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I never watch Hannity but did so tonight.. Mark Levin and a group of Conservatives were on discussing the Liberty Amendments.. It was so incredibly informative and a must see..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Yep. Progressives like Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, etc....just to draw up the last few decades.

The problem is that everyone else has been coralled into the two party illusion and those two parties are the flip sides of the same coin. You probably think I should have voted for Romney, the corporatist. While others would have said (should he have lost) that I should have voted for Obama the corporatist. Meanwhile the wheels on the bus go round and round....and NOTHING ever changes. It never will either. This system is a broken failure.

Our Congress is now controlled by two "ruling class" parties, who serve their own self interests. Neither party is interested in change or delegating more of their power back to the people. Republicans have become as infiltrated by Big Government Progressives as the Democrats, and you are right... flip sides of the same coin.

This is precisely why Levin argues it is time for a radical move on the part of the people. A grassroots effort to Amend the Constitution at the State level, and restore our Constitutional construct. Congress is not going to fix itself, the President is not going to fix himself, the SCOTUS is not going to fix itself. They are all serving their own perpetuating self interests, and disregarding the people. We keep hoping for a President who will change things, or a Congress that will do so, or then... even a SCOTUS who will intervene to uphold Constitutionality, and it just isn't happening, and it's not going to. Federal government is out of control, it has gone rogue. Our Founders were smart enough to give us the mechanism to correct just this sort of thing, without resorting to violence.

Who did Levin support or vote for in the last election; Obama, Romney, Johnson, "other"?

Who cares and what does it matter? Why do you libruls care so much about who Conservatives vote for?! Its' really none of your damn business.. The day you have a fraction of the class and intellect in that warped mindset and person of yours is the day you can criticize Mark Levin.. you're a RACE PIMP.. you created it, you made your bed.. enjoy it.

 

[regent]

The method of proposing Amendments that the author supports would probably mean a full scale Constitutional overhaul or complete revision of the Constitution. I doubt that would fare well with the people.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The method of proposing Amendments that the author supports would probably mean a full scale Constitutional overhaul or complete revision of the Constitution. I doubt that would fare well with the people.

What doesn't "fare" well with the people is this tyrannical runaway corrupt government. I can't imagine the Founders whining incessantly about the ratification of the amendment process. Where's the roll your eyes smiley?

 

[BobPlumb]

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.

If number 10 is done first, then the remaining ammendments will be easier.

 

[regent]

The method of proposing Amendments that the author supports would probably mean a full scale Constitutional overhaul or complete revision of the Constitution. I doubt that would fare well with the people.

What doesn't "fare" well with the people is this tyrannical runaway corrupt government. I can't imagine the Founders whining incessantly about the ratification of the amendment process. Where's the roll your eyes smiley?

There is a reason that the method under discussion has never been used, and in all probability may never be used, is that it would create some chaos. Are we ready to rewrite the Constitution, because a few conservatives are upset? If people are so upset as you portray them to be why did they elect Obama the first time and then the second?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The method of proposing Amendments that the author supports would probably mean a full scale Constitutional overhaul or complete revision of the Constitution. I doubt that would fare well with the people.

What doesn't "fare" well with the people is this tyrannical runaway corrupt government. I can't imagine the Founders whining incessantly about the ratification of the amendment process. Where's the roll your eyes smiley?

There is a reason that the method under discussion has never been used, and in all probability may never be used, is that it would create some chaos. Are we ready to rewrite the Constitution, because a few conservatives are upset? If people are so upset as you portray them to be why did they elect Obama the first time and then the second?

As we're just now beginning to see, Odumbo went to the extreme to corrupt the voting process from legalizing ILLEGALS with the stroke of a pen, bypassing Congress, to using the IRS to shut down civil discourse and the ability to raise funds for the primary, election.. corrupt voting machines, voter intimidation and the list goes on. Just about everyone I know agrees that the last election was corrupt.. except you KOOKS. We have mid-terms coming up.. so we shall see.

 

[regent]

What doesn't "fare" well with the people is this tyrannical runaway corrupt government. I can't imagine the Founders whining incessantly about the ratification of the amendment process. Where's the roll your eyes smiley?

There is a reason that the method under discussion has never been used, and in all probability may never be used, is that it would create some chaos. Are we ready to rewrite the Constitution, because a few conservatives are upset? If people are so upset as you portray them to be why did they elect Obama the first time and then the second?

As we're just now beginning to see, Odumbo went to the extreme to corrupt the voting process from legalizing ILLEGALS with the stroke of a pen, bypassing Congress, to using the IRS to shut down civil discourse and the ability to raise funds for the primary, election.. corrupt voting machines, voter intimidation and the list goes on. Just about everyone I know agrees that the last election was corrupt.. except you KOOKS. We have mid-terms coming up.. so we shall see.

Of course, that's it.

 

[Pheonixops]

Our Congress is now controlled by two "ruling class" parties, who serve their own self interests. Neither party is interested in change or delegating more of their power back to the people. Republicans have become as infiltrated by Big Government Progressives as the Democrats, and you are right... flip sides of the same coin.

This is precisely why Levin argues it is time for a radical move on the part of the people. A grassroots effort to Amend the Constitution at the State level, and restore our Constitutional construct. Congress is not going to fix itself, the President is not going to fix himself, the SCOTUS is not going to fix itself. They are all serving their own perpetuating self interests, and disregarding the people. We keep hoping for a President who will change things, or a Congress that will do so, or then... even a SCOTUS who will intervene to uphold Constitutionality, and it just isn't happening, and it's not going to. Federal government is out of control, it has gone rogue. Our Founders were smart enough to give us the mechanism to correct just this sort of thing, without resorting to violence.

Who did Levin support or vote for in the last election; Obama, Romney, Johnson, "other"?

Who cares and what does it matter? Why do you libruls care so much about who Conservatives vote for?! Its' really none of your damn business.. The day you have a fraction of the class and intellect in that warped mindset and person of yours is the day you can criticize Mark Levin.. you're a RACE PIMP.. you created it, you made your bed.. enjoy it.

It matters because past performance usually predicts future performance. I don't really care who any of you people vote for, , I just find it funny when a bunch of republican hacks talk about "liberty", limited government, "conservatism", yet will ostracize people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, and will ultimately support a statist like Romney.



You sound like someone who has an overload of World Nut Daily, if anyone has a "warped mindset" (amongst other things), it would be YOU.

 

[Boss]

The method of proposing Amendments that the author supports would probably mean a full scale Constitutional overhaul or complete revision of the Constitution. I doubt that would fare well with the people.

There is a reason that the method under discussion has never been used, and in all probability may never be used, is that it would create some chaos. Are we ready to rewrite the Constitution, because a few conservatives are upset? If people are so upset as you portray them to be why did they elect Obama the first time and then the second?

Not so. The method is strictly limited to amendments to the Constitution. In fact, it is formally called a Convention for Amending the Constitution. The Constitution itself, can't be rewritten.

Also, the method has been used before, the most recent attempt was with ERA, but failed to get the required 2/3rd of States on board. No one is saying this would be easy, it would be very difficult, but don't let the recent election results fool you. We elect presidents through the Electoral College, which means large states like California and New York (strong Obama states) get far more votes than others. With this situation, each state counts as one state. I think there are currently 27 states with Republican legislatures, so that would be just 6 states shy of the needed 2/3rd to call the convention. Now, a state can call for the convention with a simple majority vote, they don't need a supermajority. You're now talking about a few state legislators flipping, and that is very doable.

Don't write this off as impossible just yet. I know a LOT of people who voted for Obama and believed in the Democrats, who are very disappointed. I also know a LOT of people who simply didn't vote at all, because they are so disgusted with BOTH parties and the political power structure in Washington. This is a chance to change all that.

 

[Boss]

Here's a map from the election from 2012:
2012 Election Results Map by State - Live Voting Updates - POLITICO.com

Do you and Levin think that you could get over 35 states to agree to ratify Constitutional amendments or amend the Constitution with all of or most of those items you listed?

I don't know... We may have to do a Civil War and kill off a shitload of Progressives first, and then we'll be able to... what do you think?

Again, the President is elected by Electoral votes, this is completely different. Each state has virtually the same power and weight, and 2/3rds are needed to call a convention. There are a few more red states than blue states... the blue ones have more electoral votes, but that doesn't matter here.