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


Selene

Recommended Posts

Before Levin's Liberty Amendments stand any chance of passage in two thirds of the State legislatures and passage in three quarters of them as well, much must transpire.

Enough of the state legislators must be elected who have explicitly endorsed the concept in detail plus a few more for a cushion. In order for that to become the case, enough of the electorate must become enlightened regarding the necessity of passage of such amendments. That is a Sisyphusian chore in part because most of the intelligentsia in America are of the Statist point of view and want an even stronger central government and certainly not one that is limited as the more individualistically oriented Founders envisioned.

Short of discovering a gene for individualism to inject into viable fertilized ova or cloned in great numbers, alas we are obliged to educate humans one at a time via tedious process of recruitment on college campuses or in public high schools where they are compelled to attend.

Politics is the art of persuasion. Perhaps we can focus our efforts on finding a young celebrity who might inspire millions to read the books and join in the movement.

gg

Yes, it should be difficult. There are no "quick and simple" answers to untie and unring

Michael cited an article from 2013 about Senator Coburn and his support for the concept in Article V.

Now, the newly retired Senator:

Coburn, a legendary government-waste watchdog, announced this week that he has joined the effort by becoming a senior adviser for the group Convention of States Action, which wants states, not just Congress, to pass constitutional amendments. A primary goal is to get an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget, in which spending does not exceed revenue.

Article V of the Constitution says amendments can be ratified either by Congress or by states if two-thirds of them petition Congress to call a convention. Then, any amendment proposed at the convention must be ratified by three-fourth, or 38, states.

So far, the Alaska, Florida and Georgia legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention, and 25 more are considering one, according to the group.

“Our founders anticipated the federal government might get out of control,” Coburn said Tuesday. “And they gave us a constitutional mechanism to rein it in.”

Seems to be a great vehicle that our Founders handed us.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/15/state-effort-to-pass-constitutional-amendments-rein-in-washington-gets/

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Article V provides no restrictions on what sort of changes could be made to American government at a Constitutional Convention. Such an assembly would be limited only by the character and personality of its delegates. In 1787 the delegates to America's first Constitutional Convention included Benjamin Franklin, Elbridge Gerry, James Madison, George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and George Washington,

But even with those esteemed defenders of liberty present, the Constitutional Convention was a “runaway.” It was convened under the Articles of Confederation with its purpose only to propose amendments to the Articles. Yet it ended up drafting an entirely new form of government.

Thus, all we have to do now is find present day men and women with higher principles than the Founding Fathers.

They must be a dime a dozen in every state legislature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your wrote: Thus, all we have to do now is find present day men and women with higher principles than the Founding Fathers.

Who is "we" who does the finding and what assurance is there that such people would be chosen to restore or replace the constitution? If there were every a move to have a Constitutional Convention and it caught on in the popular mind, then rest assured that it would be hijacked by either the Liberal - Progressive or Republican Christian reactionaries. Sane libertarians would not have a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Doom and Gloom, kinda like Jerry and Dean, only they were funny.

So, your argument is that these special men who were at the original meeting to revise the Articles of Confederation "ran away" with the meeting to revise and turned it into a Constitutional Coup, correct?

If so, these ''...men..." "...with high [sic] principles ...the Founding Fathers...," created the Constitution with Article V which calls for a Convention of the States, not as you both miss state as a "Constitutional Convention", provided us, The People, with the vehicle to properly PROPOSE, amendments which would then be submitted to a vote.

Heinlein in the Moon Is A Harsh Mistress sets up a system wherein he posits a super majority to pass certain measures and a mini-minority that can block anything.

His premise was that a law that x % are opposed to should not be imposed on the "citizen."

In the 143 words of Article V, is the clear statement that either the States, or, Congress "...shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,..."

A is A. It is not a Constitutional Convention, and it is unseemly to refer to it that way.

Essentially, it utilizes the balancing concept of Federalism and the sweep of the concept of Comity.



The legal principle that political entities (such as states, nations, or courts from different jurisdictions) will mutually recognize each other’s legislative, executive, and judicial acts. The underlying notion is that different jurisdictions will reciprocate each other’s judgments out of deference, mutuality, and respect.

In Constitutional law, the Comity Clause refers to Article IV, § 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Privileges and Immunities Clause), which ensures that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Federalism is the other key "glue" that balances the powers and by that balance attempted to prevent the centralization of power.

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. The United States has a federal system of governance consisting of the national or federal government, and the government of the individual states.

The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government with power over issues of national concern, while the state governments, generally, have jurisdiction over issues of domestic concern. While the federal government can enact laws governing the entire country, its powers are enumerated, or limited; it only has the specific powers allotted to it in the Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, mint money, declare war, establish post offices, and punish piracies on the high seas. Any action by the federal government must fall within one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. For example, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution but has no power to regulate commerce that occurs only within a single state.

The amount of power exercised by the federal government is dependant upon how the various provisions of the Constitution are interpreted. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the powers of the federal government when it construed federal powers to include those “necessary and proper” to effect the legislation passed by Congress. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). This construction allows the federal government to exercise power ancillary to those specifically listed in the Constitution, provided the exercise of those powers does not conflict with another Constitutional provision. In contrast, state power is not limited to express grants of power. Under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, States have all powers that are not specifically granted to the federal government, or forbidden to them under the Constitution. For example, although the Constitution grants the federal government the power to tax, state governments are also able to levy taxes to support themselves, because that power is not forbidden to them by the Constitution. State governments manage matters of local concern, such as child protective services, public schools, and road maintenance and repair.

PBS explains it this way:

Federalism is one of the most important and innovative concepts in the U.S. Constitution, although the word never appears there. Federalism is the sharing of power between national and state governments. In America, the states existed first, and they struggled to create a national government. The U.S. Constitution is hardwired with the tensions of that struggle, and Americans still debate the proper role of the national government versus the states. Chief Justice John Marshall, the longest-serving leader of the Supreme Court, noted that this question “is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.”

Therefore, since these really "high principled" guys, by your own statement, came up with this Constitutional Republic paradigm, should we not use Article V?

At least, you both should refer to it accurately.

Ayn did say that words have meaning.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Doom and Gloom, kinda like Jerry and Dean, only they were funny.

So, your argument is that these special men who were at the original meeting to revise the Articles of Confederation "ran away" with the meeting to revise and turned it into a Constitutional Coup, correct?

In fact, it was a coup. As Carl Watner has written,

The Constitutional Convention was originally called to amend the Articles, not supersede or annul them. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were pledged to a perpetual union, and no provision had been made for dissolving their association - except that any changes in the Confederation had to be done by the unanimous agreement of all the States. Thus, there are only two ways to view the Constitutional Convention. Either the individual States had the right to secede (without the agreement of the other States) or else the Founding Fathers instigated a revolution to change the governing institutions of the country. In the latter case, they "assumed constituent powers, ordained a new constitution, and demanded a plebiscite thereon over the head of all existing legally organized powers. Had Julius [Caesar] or Napoleon committed these acts, they would have been pronounced a coup d'etat." The fact that the Articles of Confederation were still the fundamental law of the thirteen states was simply ignored by the members of the Constitutional Convention.

If so, these ''...men..." "...with high [sic] principles ...the Founding Fathers...," created the Constitution with Article V which calls for a Convention of the States, not as you both miss state as a "Constitutional Convention", provided us, The People, with the vehicle to properly PROPOSE, amendments which would then be submitted to a vote

Heinlein in the Moon Is A Harsh Mistress sets up a system wherein he posits a super majority to pass certain measures and a mini-minority that can block anything.

His premise was that a law that x % are opposed to should not be imposed on the "citizen."

In the 143 words of Article V, is the clear statement that either the States, or, Congress "...shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,..."

A is A. It is not a Constitutional Convention, and it is unseemly to refer to it that way.

Essentially, it utilizes the balancing concept of Federalism and the sweep of the concept of Comity.

There is no reason not to call a convention meeting for the express purpose of revising the Constitution, a "Constitutional convention." Article V does not specifically refer to an amending convention as a "Convention of the States."

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.

Historian Kevin Gutzman and Constitutional attorney Bruce Fein have both supported amendments through a convention and have both referred to the second option in Article V as a Constitutional convention.

Therefore, since these really "high principled" guys, by your own statement, came up with this Constitutional Republic paradigm, should we not use Article V?

At least, you both should refer to it accurately.

Ayn did say that words have meaning.

A...

The men who fought in the Revolution certainly had principles when it came to throwing off a foreign tyrant. Those principles were soon forgotten when the mood seized some of them to centralize power, establish a chief executive/commander-in-chief/military dictator, a lifetime judiciary, and a Congress with the power to tax and to pass any laws "necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers.

Yes, the "high principled guys" who authored Article V and its feature to amend through a convention also came up with Article I, which created Congress, a monster infamous for turning citizenship into servitude. Let's look only at the laws it has enacted within the past two years:

March 7, 2013: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–4

August 9, 2013: Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–23

August 9, 2013: Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–28

August 9, 2013: Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–29

November 27, 2013: Drug Quality and Security Act, Pub.L. 113–54

February 7, 2014: Agricultural Act of 2014, Pub.L. 113–79

March 21, 2014: Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, Pub.L. 113–89

April 3, 2014: Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, Pub.L. 113–94

May 9, 2014: Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA), Pub.L. 113–101

May 20, 2014: Kilah Davenport Child Protection Act, Pub.L. 113–104

June 10, 2014: Water Resources Reform and Development Act, Pub.L. 113–121

July 23, 2014: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Pub.L. 113–128

August 1, 2014: Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, Pub.L. 113–144

December 18, 2014: Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–242

December 18, 2014: Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act, Pub.L. 113–245

December 18, 2014: American Savings Promotion Act, Pub.L. 113–251

December 18, 2014: Credit Union Share Insurance Fund Parity Act, Pub.L. 113–252

December 18, 2014: EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 Pub.L. 113–263

December 18, 2014: Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014, Pub.L. 113–279

And we are supposed to expect today's politicians to lead us us into the Promised Land?

Such Levined bread is indigestible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, and no matter how you try to parse Article V, there is no authority within this document for the calling of a Constitutional Convention.

The authority in Article V is to call for a convention to PROPOSE amendments.

There are two (2) permissible paths in the document.

Due to the centralization of power in central government, specifically in Congress, that path is not being opted for.

This is a convention of the states to PROPOSE amendments which will then be voted on.

The rest of your post are irrelevant smoke screens.

This issue is Article V.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, and no matter how you try to parse Article V, there is no authority within this document for the calling of a Constitutional Convention.

The authority in Article V is to call for a convention to PROPOSE amendments.

There are two (2) permissible paths in the document.

Due to the centralization of power in central government, specifically in Congress, that path is not being opted for.

This is a convention of the states to PROPOSE amendments which will then be voted on.

The rest of your post are irrelevant smoke screens.

This issue is Article V.

A...

It would have exactly the same authority the original Constitutional convention had. Delegates met to revise the Articles of Confederation and then ended up proposing a new framework for government -- which afterwards states had to vote on.

It is hardly a smokescreen to point out the very real dangers posed by calling on present day politicians (overwhelming big government Republicrats and Demoplicans) to correct errors, weaknesses and omissions they might discover in a 228-year old document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hardly a smokescreen to point out the very real dangers posed by calling on present day politicians (overwhelming big government Republicrats and Demoplicans) to correct errors, weaknesses and omissions they might discover in a 228-year old document.

Of course it is a smokescreen.

We all agree, you included, that this exponentially expanding centralized state will end badly on it's current path.

You have attested to the corruption and Congresses insane legislation, ad naseum.

Therefore, we make this push now within the Constitution.

The alternative involves more risky paths.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hardly a smokescreen to point out the very real dangers posed by calling on present day politicians (overwhelming big government Republicrats and Demoplicans) to correct errors, weaknesses and omissions they might discover in a 228-year old document.

Of course it is a smokescreen.

We all agree, you included, that this exponentially expanding centralized state will end badly on it's current path.

You have attested to the corruption and Congresses insane legislation, ad naseum.

Therefore, we make this push now within the Constitution.

The alternative involves more risky paths.

A...

Definition of "smokescreen":

"2. An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions."
Apparently you regard as a subterfuge my concern about what politicians with a history of power aggrandizement might do to the present (albeit weak) Constitutional limitations on federal government. It is a concern that has been voiced by no less than a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Kindly submit what plans or intentions might I (or we) be attempting to conceal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your smokescreen is used to confuse and make one consider that you are hiding a plan.

In essence, you have nothing to hide.

Now, stick to the issue of Article V.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier you said, "Of course" my criticism was a smokescreen. "Of course" means "certainly or definitely."

But now you are unable to state what plans or intentions I supposedly wish to hide. Thus, you are quick to accuse, reluctant to substantiate.

I understand. Sometimes it is easier to discuss a critic's alleged secret agenda than to take on his argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoy your conversation with yourself.

I made my point here.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of Article 5 would be called a "Constitutional Convention" even if it weren't. The Central Government was young and weak under the Articles of Confederation so it was relatively easy to take out that current one and push in another. Good luck with a repeat of that. So go ahead and use article 5. (Good luck.) What it specifically refers to is what will legally work if anything at all comes out of the process. It won't be a new government or a radicalized restructuring of what the government is now doing. It's grass roots or no roots. But alternatively, an attempt to use Article 5 could be mighty educational. It would be fun to watch the "feminized" liberal civil libertarians fight with their "masculinized" communist brethren over the 1st Amendment--and lose, unless they could adduce conservative re-enforcements to arrive in time to prevail at Waterloo. Then the conservatives would have to try to put down their own fascists--and lose, for those liberals they saved won't come to their aid since the sheep don't help the sheep dogs when the wolves arrive.

--Brant

coming soon, at a theater near you

(something vaguely like this happened in Germany in the early 1930s)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the first wave in certain states will be will be thwarted by entrenched power groups, e.g., NY State where a Silver and his Republican cohort in the State Senate will certainly get a plurality of the "delegates" who will look to protect the status quo.

However, all that will do is increase the pressure to re-vote.

Additionally, some states will come up with a solid set of proposed amendments that will have broad appeal amongst folks who have had it with centralized government.

Now you will have some states which will then push for 3/4 of the states to ratify a particular Amendment.

I think you would be quite surprised at the outcomes.

Fear is the mind killer.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, I think it does matter what you call it.

The specific vehicle is in the document. No other process or name is.

The original meeting to change the Articles was usurped by elements within our rebellion who saw the advantages to a Union of the States which had national needs.

If we carefully propose amendments from each state legislature, we do not have all the states meeting to effectively create a new government.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of Article 5 would be called a "Constitutional Convention" even if it weren't. The Central Government was young and weak under the Articles of Confederation so it was relatively easy to take out that current one and push in another. Good luck with a repeat of that. So go ahead and use article 5. (Good luck.) What it specifically refers to is what will legally work if anything at all comes out of the process. It won't be a new government or a radicalized restructuring of what the government is now doing. It's grass roots or no roots. But alternatively, an attempt to use Article 5 could be mighty educational. It would be fun to watch the "feminized" liberal civil libertarians fight with their "masculinized" communist brethren over the 1st Amendment--and lose, unless they could adduce conservative re-enforcements to arrive in time to prevail at Waterloo. Then the conservatives would have to try to put down their own fascists--and lose, for those liberals they saved won't come to their aid since the sheep don't help the sheep dogs when the wolves arrive.

--Brant

coming soon, at a theater near you

(something vaguely like this happened in Germany in the early 1930s)

A gathering of delegates billed as a body to revise the Constitution would not have to establish an entire new government to be a runaway convention. Suppose, for example, states sent delegates for the express purpose of writing a balanced budget amendment. Nothing in the current Constitution would restrict those delegates to adopting only restrictions on deficit spending. They could also, if they wished, draft amendments to permit school prayer, prohibit the burning of the flag, and outlaw abortion. And the states could follow by ratifying one, two, all or none of the changes.

Most puzzling, however, is how conservative and libertarian proponents of an Article V convention evade the damage that the left could do through such a process. Do limited government types imagine that they could meet by themselves to rollback federal power, and not attract the involvement of Democrats, progressives, civil rights activists, the Occupy Movement and the We Are the 99% crowd? Why should we assume that the same corrupt forces that have ruled Washington for the past century would play no role in a convention of Constitution "reformers"?

In addition to, or instead of, a balanced budget amendment, we could get amendments to abolish the electoral college, remove the two-term limit on presidents, make D.C. the 51st state, strip Constitutional protections from corporations, provide access to medical care for all citizens, or guarantee a right to employment for all citizens.

Allow me to post the thoughts of a fellow Doom-and-Gloomer:

If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. --James Madison, Letter to George Lee Turberville

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, prayer is all we'll have left once the left takes its hammer and tongs to the remaining shreds of the Constitution.

It is not a prayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain.”

From Dune by Frank Hebert. That is one of my favorite mantras.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Well well...we all owe Mark Levin a debt of intellectual gratitude about Article V:

"..the Constitution itself is not broken. What is broken is our Nation’s willingness to obey the Constitution and to
hold our leaders accountable to it.

As explained in the following pages, all three branches of the federal government have wandered far from the roles that the Constitution sets out for them.

For various reasons, “We the People” have allowed all three branches of government to get away with it. And with each power grab the next somehow seems less objectionable.

When measured by how far we have strayed from the Constitution we originally agreed to, the government’s flagrant and repeated violations of the rule of law amount to a wholesale abdication of the Constitution’s design."

http://gov.texas.gov/files/press-office/Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf

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