The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic...by Mark R. Levin


Selene

Recommended Posts

At the risk of drifting a little off topic i want to mention that the Wall Street Journal today Sat-Sun August 17-18, 2013 has a wonderful OPINION piece entitled "Obama Suspends the Law." What Would Lincoln Say?" by Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a professor of law at Georgetown and a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the CATO Institute.

This is not off topic at all.

The vital point shown in Obama's actions is that a President does not require any legal defense at all for his policies--much less a valid Constitutional defense. As long as he is President and has the might of the nation's armed forces at his command, the Constitution will mean whatever he "chooses it to mean — neither more nor less."

Do well-intentioned drafters of new amendments such as Levin and Barnet really believe that elegant lines of ink on paper will stop a Lincoln or an Obama from imposing their will upon the nation?

Again FF, assuming your analysis is 100% correct...what do you propose in terms of action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The vital point shown in Obama's actions is that a President does not require any legal defense at all for his policies--much less a valid Constitutional defense. As long as he is President and has the might of the nation's armed forces at his command, the Constitution will mean whatever he "chooses it to mean — neither more nor less."

Do well-intentioned drafters of new amendments such as Levin and Barnet really believe that elegant lines of ink on paper will stop a Lincoln or an Obama from imposing their will upon the nation?

Again FF, assuming your analysis is 100% correct...what do you propose in terms of action?

Nullification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nullification?

This is neo-Confederate stuff.

I'm not on board with it.

And even if I were, the only way in reality--meaning with the situation as it exists right now--to achieve that is through armed revolt. And even then, it's just not doable.

If it were something worth fighting for, that might be different, but I don't give a crap about nullification and neither do most people. So how can that come about in reality?

Hell, the left at least understood if it wanted a shot, it needed to infiltrate the education system, indoctrinate the kids and wait until they got older, then make their move. Between the left and the neo-Confederates, neither of which I support, the left is more professional.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

It is a mistake to associate nullification with "neo-Confederate stuff."

Tom Woods wrote Nullification and asserts that it is the best way to deal with unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, rather than hoping that electing the right people to office at this time.

http://tinyurl.com/n4hlvmz

to make my point regarding the neo-confederate comment of yours, please realize that nullification was used to nullify the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act.

Horrible as it is to our senses today there were fugitive slave acts as early as 1793 to enable slave owners to secure their property rights as guaranteed in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slave_act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slave#Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

<<<"Many states tried to nullify the new slave act or prevent capture of escaped slaves by setting up new laws to protect their rights. This is shown in many forms of law, but one most notable is the Massachusetts Liberty Act. This Act was passed in order to keep escaped slaves from being returned to their masters by stopping the abduction of Federal Marshals or bounty hunters.[2] Also in the previously mentioned Supreme Court Case Ableman v. Booth, the actions that spurred the accused was the attempt of Wisconsin to rule The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 Unconstitutional.[3]">>>

Here is a picture at the last link above which is evocative of the plight of an enslaved man and his loved ones striving for their freedom.
Eastman Johnson - "A Ride for Liberty - The Fugitive Slaves" - Brooklyn Museum
So Michael you see that nulllfication was used in many states some of which even passed legislation enabling the arrest and conviction of those who acted on the Fugitive Slave Act on charges of kidnapping or the like.
I have a copy of Tom Wood's Nullification and find it to be an excellent one to recommend as it illuminates the many issues associated with the Founder's vision of a limited central government and the remedy for our time in dealing with unconstitutional laws which are so numerous and which are causing the bankruptcy we now face.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gulch,

I was responding to this quote from the link to The 1911 Classic Encyclopedia on Nullification that was posted:

As later perfected by John C. Calhoun (q.v.), the theory of nullification required a practice as follows. A state aggrieved by a law of the Federal congress might, in constituent convention, suspend the operation of the objectionable law, and report its action to the other states. If three-fourths of them should decide that the law in question was not unconstitutional, then in effect it became ratified (see United States Constitution, art. v.). The dissatisfied state must then submit or must draw out of the union by the act of secession (see Secession, and Confederate States). This theory of the right of nullification was considered by those who held it to be in accord with the principles laid down in the Constitution.

Whenever I see the word "nullification" appear in some quarters, the word "secession" is right behind. Just like here. And if it arrives, off we go in mutual mental masturbation mode. Lots of blah blah blah and dogs barking as the caravan passes by once again and the government gets bigger.

The truth is you have to make a stand. When you disagree with the federal government and have intent to do something about it, you either want to fix the government and make it smaller, focused on individual rights, etc., or you want to dismantle it altogether. You can't do both. I fall into the first category.

I'll look into Woods. Thanks for the recommendation. His approach sounds a lot more nuanced.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gulch,

I was responding to this quote from the link to The 1911 Classic Encyclopedia on Nullification that was posted:

As later perfected by John C. Calhoun (q.v.), the theory of nullification required a practice as follows. A state aggrieved by a law of the Federal congress might, in constituent convention, suspend the operation of the objectionable law, and report its action to the other states. If three-fourths of them should decide that the law in question was not unconstitutional, then in effect it became ratified (see United States Constitution, art. v.). The dissatisfied state must then submit or must draw out of the union by the act of secession (see Secession, and Confederate States). This theory of the right of nullification was considered by those who held it to be in accord with the principles laid down in the Constitution.

Whenever I see the word "nullification" appear in some quarters, the word "secession" is right behind. Just like here. And if it arrives, off we go in mutual mental masturbation mode. Lots of blah blah blah and dogs barking as the caravan passes by once again and the government gets bigger.

The truth is you have to make a stand. When you disagree with the federal government and have intent to do something about it, you either want to fix the government and make it smaller, focused on individual rights, etc., or you want to dismantle it altogether. You can't do both. I fall into the first category.

I'll look into Woods. Thanks for the recommendation. His approach sounds a lot more nuanced.

Michael

Here's what Ayn Rand said about secession: "If a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country—it has the right to do so."

Dictionary.com defines "revolution" as "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed."

By this measure, our own American Revolution of 1775–83 was not a revolution inasmuch as it did not involve the "thorough replacement" of the British Crown.

Instead we can more properly refer to it as a war of secession, "secede" being defined as "to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc."

Thus any criticism you may have of secession must also apply to the events of 1775–83. Did the Founders only have a choice between 1. "fixing" the government of Great Britain and making it "smaller, focused on individual rights, etc.," or 2. dismantling it altogether?

Obviously not.

If we condemn all secession, we would have to include:

Portugal's secession from Spain, 1640

Belgium's secession from the Netherlands, 1830

Nicaragua's secession from the Federal Republic of Central America, 1838

Norway's secession from Sweden, 1905

Austria's secession from Nazi Germany, 1945

Lithuania's secession from the Soviet Union, 1990

For the most part these secessionist movements did not involve armed revolt or the shedding of blood.

Is American nullification or secession "doable" at the present? We shall see. There may be enough states, businesses and individuals whose non-cooperation with the Affordable Health Care Act will make it a dead letter within months of its taking effect.

Certainly the widespread public resistance to Prohibition can be held up as an exemplar of nullification by the masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF,

I have no problem with civil disobedience and all the rest against a dictatorship. (I do it myself.) I do have a problem with one group of people wanting to secede, not because they want to "establish a free country," as Ayn Rand said, but because they want to keep certain people enslaved like they did in the South during the Civil War.

I see no legitimate right in that.

None at all.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF,

I have no problem with civil disobedience and all the rest against a dictatorship. (I do it myself.) I do have a problem with one group of people wanting to secede, not because they want to "establish a free country," as Ayn Rand said, but because they want to keep certain people enslaved like they did in the South during the Civil War.

I see no legitimate right in that.

None at all.

Michael

Given the context of this thread (Levin's proposed amendments to limit federal power through term limits, spending limits, overriding the Supreme Court, the power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote, etc.), I do not see how a concern about preserving (or reviving) slavery is pertinent.

Yes, secession could be used to effect bad forms of government--but that is no less true of constitutions and amendments thereof. The original Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation it usurped, recognized the institution of slavery. And during the history of the republic, while one form or slavery was outlawed, another form was implemented. I need only point to the change made in 1913 that gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes."

If we should be frightened of a process by which a state would withdraw in order to, say, execute women who have abortions, shouldn't we be frightened of the amendment process which could accomplish the very same thing?

If you are determined that no rights ever be curtailed, I wonder if you now intend to read Levin's book with some measure of skepticism. According to one post on the Amazon link you provided, Levin favors allowing the overriding of Supreme Court decisions with Congressional supermajorities.

How well would that have worked in Powell v. Alabama or Brown v. Board of Education or Griswold v. Connecticut or

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke or Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the context of this thread (Levin's proposed amendments to limit federal power through term limits, spending limits, overriding the Supreme Court, the power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote, etc.), I do not see how a concern about preserving (or reviving) slavery is pertinent.

FF,

I think like a marketer nowadays and I'm pretty attentive to agendas. (That includes propagandist.) That's the pertinence.

One of the best descriptions I have found for explaining this mindset is the idea virus as explained by Douglas Rushkoff in Media Virus. He concentrated on pop culture and high-tech media qua media, but the principle works just the same in any field. You basically need three components:

1. The message you wish to spread covertly;

2. The wrapper to enclose the message; and

3. The syringe, i.e., the delivery mechanism.

The problem in discussing things with people who spread idea viruses is that they always go for deniability (or claim their opponents are harping on irrelevant matters) by arguing about the wrapper and pretending the message doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what your message is (I haven't read enough of your stuff to arrive at a conclusion), but I've seen enough to know it's definitely not the wrapper.

No one I know of would explain modern application of nullification by referring to a 1919 encyclopedia that emphasized Calhoun's "perfection" of the theory, for example, unless they had a further message to add they knew would not fly if spoken out loud.

As to the nature of government itself and your many questions, I derive my own view from observable human nature and induce the principles from that. I do not start with ignoring human nature, setting abstract principles in stone and deducing social systems from them.

So if I actually bone up on some of those court cases, etc., you link to and ask about, I believe my lens on analyzing them would be far different than yours as I have a view of human nature I am pretty sure you do not share.

For one, I am a strong admirer of the system of checks and balances. It solved a lot that no other system on earth I have seen has solved. But that's because I believe to bully and/or abuse power is one of the fundamental choices and temptations all humans face every day of their lives. There is no on-off switch for it. It's an inherent part of human nature.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Marketing] I was listening to Mark Levin's show on the way home Friday. A guy called in and mentioned someone (don't remember the name, can't take notes while driving) who was not a signer but a contributor at the constitutional convention. He had an idea about a citizen jury who would have the power to veto supreme court decisions. I thought it was an interesting idea and would have liked to hear more, perhaps the pros and cons from Levin, he being a constitutional expert. Levin hadn't heard of the guy, dismissed the idea as irrelevant and cut the guy off, rather rudely in my opinion. I get the impression Mark is a "not invented here" kind of guy and arrogant doesn't begin to describe him. I think if the idea of a constitutional congress flies he won't be at the forefront. He would piss too many people off. Just my impression, I haven't read his book yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF,

I think like a marketer nowadays and I'm pretty attentive to agendas. (That includes propagandist.) That's the pertinence.

One of the best descriptions I have found for explaining this mindset is the idea virus as explained by Douglas Rushkoff in Media Virus. He concentrated on pop culture and high-tech media qua media, but the principle works just the same in any field. You basically need three components:

1. The message you wish to spread covertly;

2. The wrapper to enclose the message; and

3. The syringe, i.e., the delivery mechanism.

The problem in discussing things with people who spread idea viruses is that they always go for deniability (or claim their opponents are harping on irrelevant matters) by arguing about the wrapper and pretending the message doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what your message is (I haven't read enough of your stuff to arrive at a conclusion), but I've seen enough to know it's definitely not the wrapper.

Frankly, I have only a vague idea of what you're driving at. So let's move on.

No one I know of would explain modern application of nullification by referring to a 1919 encyclopedia that emphasized Calhoun's "perfection" of the theory, for example, unless they had a further message to add they knew would not fly if spoken out loud.

Calhoun was and remains the most prominent theorist of nullification. To discuss the subject without a nod to his original contribution in A Disquisition on Government would border on plagiarism.

Perhaps the point you wish to make is that Calhoun was also a defender of slavery. No one denies that. But as I observed previously on this forum, ideas must be judged separately from the reputation of the speaker.

So, to take an example, Ayn Rand repeatedly ackowledged her admiration of The Declaration of Independence, a document penned largely by Thomas Jefferson. She wrote, inter alia,

"It is in this context—from the perspective of the bloody millennia of mankind's history—that I want you to look at the birth of a miracle: the United States of America. If it is ever proper for men to kneel, we should kneel when we read the Declaration of Independence."

In embracing the most notable work of Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder until his death and an opponent of manumission laws, has Rand automatically allied herself with the institution of slavery?

And what of Aristotle, whom Rand regarded "as the cultural barometer of Western history. Whenever his influence dominated the scene, it paved the way for one of history’s brilliant eras; whenever it fell, so did mankind." Yet Aristotle wrote,

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

Despite these words, could anyone reasonably argue that Rand's admiration for the Greek philosopher was a "syringe, i.e., the delivery mechanism" for her covert admiration of slavery?

You may disagree with the nullification arguments of Calhoun and others since him, but to dismiss them out of hand as a covert message for something else, is to commit what Rand called the Fallacy of Package-Dealing.

As to the nature of government itself and your many questions, I derive my own view from observable human nature and induce the principles from that. I do not start with ignoring human nature, setting abstract principles in stone and deducing social systems from them.

So if I actually bone up on some of those court cases, etc., you link to and ask about, I believe my lens on analyzing them would be far different than yours as I have a view of human nature I am pretty sure you do not share.

For one, I am a strong admirer of the system of checks and balances. It solved a lot that no other system on earth I have seen has solved. But that's because I believe to bully and/or abuse power is one of the fundamental choices and temptations all humans face every day of their lives. There is no on-off switch for it. It's an inherent part of human nature.

Michael

If you are in fact "a strong admirer of checks and balances," what harm could there be in adding additional obstacles to the exercise of federal power? What better way to stop the outright socialism of Obamacare than to support the act of nullifying it at the state level?

Furthermore, what would lead you to believe that I do not share your view that "to bully and/or abuse power is one of the fundamental choices and temptations all humans face"? In fact, I see checks and balances, nullification and secession as just a few of the means civilized people must employ to save themselves from the bullies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may disagree with the nullification arguments of Calhoun and others since him, but to dismiss them out of hand as a covert message for something else, is to commit what Rand called the Fallacy of Package-Dealing.

FF,

This is a great example of discussing the wrapper and not the message. I never said Calhoun (or others since him) argued his case as a covert message for something else. Calhoun is clear enough.

I thought I was clear that you had the covert message (which I said I was unaware of so far), not Calhoun. If I wasn't clear, let me say it again with the correct emphasis: "I'm not sure what YOUR message is (I haven't read enough of your stuff to arrive at a conclusion), but I've seen enough to know it's definitely not the wrapper."

Your statement actually is a fallacy of plain old garden-variety mis-attribution. Maybe with some misdirection thrown in for good measure.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm telling you, he is a philosophical three card Monte dealer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key question is who is his/her shill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may disagree with the nullification arguments of Calhoun and others since him, but to dismiss them out of hand as a covert message for something else, is to commit what Rand called the Fallacy of Package-Dealing.

FF,

This is a great example of discussing the wrapper and not the message. I never said Calhoun (or others since him) argued his case as a covert message for something else. Calhoun is clear enough.

* * *

Your statement actually is a fallacy of plain old garden-variety mis-attribution. Maybe with some misdirection thrown in for good measure.

I apologize for any mis-attribution, but I had only vague references to "wrappers" and "syringes" to deal with.

In Post #36 you wrote, "No one I know of would explain modern application of nullification by referring to a 1919 encyclopedia that emphasized Calhoun's 'perfection' of the theory, for example, unless they had a further message to add they knew would not fly if spoken out loud."

Now, since you you were unwilling to divulge what "further message" I supposedly had in mind, I was left to guess at it. I guessed that it might have been the slavery issue.

If I am wrong, then you can clear things up nicely by stating explicitly what "further message" you were referring to.

You don't like mis-attribution. Nor do I. In all fairness then, I should be told what message I'm being accused of furthering.

I thought I was clear that you had the covert message (which I said I was unaware of so far), not Calhoun. If I wasn't clear, let me say it again with the correct emphasis: "I'm not sure what YOUR message is (I haven't read enough of your stuff to arrive at a conclusion), but I've seen enough to know it's definitely not the wrapper."

Michael

Your use of the word "definitely" in the sentence "I'm not sure what YOUR message is (I haven't read enough of your stuff to arrive at a conclusion), but I've seen enough to know it's definitely not the wrapper," implies certainty.

Certainty depends on evidence.

What then is the evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jefferson was trapped as a slaveholder by economic and cultural inertia and debt. More than anyone the English Stuarts were responsible for slaveholding and trade in the Americas in spite of William and Mary (post The Restoration) and John Locke. That Great Britain outlawed the slave trade in the early 19th C. didn't stop it from buying Southern cotton or almost going to war with the United States on behalf of the South during the War of Southern Succession.

--Brant

Thomas Paine may have been the principal author of the Declaration of Independence--I don't know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm telling you, he is a philosophical three card Monte dealer...

Just say "disingenuous." I'm not sayin' it, BTW.

--Brant

You

Thomas Paine may have been the principal author of the Declaration of Independence--I don't know

I know that was the position taken by the late Andrew Galambos. I do not know what the basis of his claim is, for when it comes to scholarship, I am a reader, not a listener.

Correct me if I am wrong, you appear to have a fascination with the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka NAZI Party, why would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Paine may have been the principal author of the Declaration of Independence--I don't know

I know that was the position taken by the late Andrew Galambos. I do not know what the basis of his claim is, for when it comes to scholarship, I am a reader, not a listener.

Correct me if I am wrong, you appear to have a fascination with the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka NAZI Party, why would that be?

I wasn't aware that I had. What makes you think that? I don't even recall having discussed the Nazi Party on this site.

Perhaps somehow you associate three-card Monte, that game I'm supposed to be expert at, with the Nazi Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that I had. What makes you think that? I don't even recall having discussed the Nazi Party on this site.

Perhaps somehow you associate three-card Monte, that game I'm supposed to be expert at, with the Nazi Party.

Perhaps...

I apologize.

I make mistakes all the time, apparently you are one of the lucky ones, you do not make mistakes.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now