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


Selene

Recommended Posts

I hold in my hands a brand new hard cover edition of the above book...and I will be reporting on it as I embed myself in it's brilliant prose.

Along with Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia and Men in Black, they form a corpus of work that sets it apart from any other set of books discussing our Constitutional Republic, it's current status as an impotent founding document and a call to use Article V of the Constitution to go around the Statist Congress, the Statist Dictatorial Executive branch and the Statist Judicial branch and restore our Constitutional Republic..

$16.19 at Walmarts[thank you Sam]

1 mile away down Rt. 22, a Barnes & Nobel selling the exact same book for $26.95

Decisions...decisions...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am not familiar with the Liberty Amendments plural, only with the Liberty Amendment singular:

Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.

Nine states have already endorsed it. Is this what Levin has in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I got this book, too. Here's the Amazon link (and I'm not even an associate anymore because of screwed up Illinois state law, which Amazon refuses to do business with):

The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic

I agree with you that Mark Levin is doing the best foundational work around for overhauling and restoring the Constitution to the original intent of a small federal government framework. He gets the ideas into the mainstream.

FF - I don't believe I've welcomed you to OL, yet. So welcome.

You will find good descriptions of the book in the reader's comments at Amazon.

MIchael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that that Levin simply took Randy Barnet's idea from four years ago and repackaged it for sale to his radio audience.

Perhaps the next Constitutional convention will approve an amendment to abolish involuntary servitude, so that no man or woman is ever subject to the military draft again.

What's that? We already have such an amendment? And the Supreme Court does not enforce it?

Well then, we need to make them promise to uphold it, make them take an oath like say, "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

That should make limited government work. If a justice breaks his oath he can't get into the Kingdom of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF,

I don't know that much about the relationship between Levin and Barnet to comment if they have influenced each other, but I do know that Levin has been preaching the substance of what he wrote in The Liberty Amendments for years. I notice the date on Barnet's article is 2009.

There might have been some input, but I don't see how this is a repackaging. It's not like one guy says we need to amend the constitution with pro-freedom measures and suddenly the dude has a copyright on the idea. In the places I read and inhabit, this idea has been kicking around a loooooooooong time.

Seriously, you never heard of this stuff before Barnet?

Levin took his own deep level of scholarship and his moral convictions and made them mainstream--like he has been doing all his career.

As to the rest of your post, I don't understand your point.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnet proposed using the Article V "Con-con" method of amendments in 2009; Levin admits to only recently coming around to endorsing that method.

Barnet has 10 amendments, Levin 11.

Barnet's proposal includes limiting the power to tax and spend; limiting use of the Commerce Clause; limiting the terms for Congress and the Supreme Court; preserving private property and commerce.

Ditto Levin's.

As to my point about the 13th Amendment, no document, not even a hallowed scrap of parchment, has the inherent power to bind officials to read it correctly or follow its strictures. in his A Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun explains:

A written constitution certainly has many and considerable advantages; but it is a great mistake to suppose, that the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers. Being the party in possession of the government, they will, from the same constitution of man which makes government necessary to protect society, be in favor of the powers granted by the constitution, and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them. As the major and dominant party, they will have no need of these restrictions for their protection. The ballot box, of itself, would be ample protection to them. Needing no other, they would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints — and endeavor to elude them, with the view of increasing their power and influence.

The minor, or weaker party, on the contrary, would take the opposite direction — and regard them as essential to their protection against the dominant party. And, hence, they would endeavor to defend and enlarge the restrictions, and to limit and contract the powers. But where there are no means by which they could compel the major party to observe the restrictions, the only resort left them would be, a strict construction of the constitution, that is, a construction which would confine these powers to the narrowest limits which the meaning of the words used in the grant would admit.

To this the major party would oppose a liberal construction — one which would give to the words of the grant the broadest meaning of which they were susceptible. It would then be construction against construction; the one to contract, and the other to enlarge the powers of the government to the utmost. But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal interpretation of the major, when the one would have all the powers of the government to carry its construction into effect — and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction? In a contest so unequal, the result would not be doubtful. The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered. At first, they might command some respect, and do something to stay the march of encroachment; but they would, in the progress of the contest, be regarded as mere abstractionists; and, indeed, deservedly, if they should indulge the folly of supposing that the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution. For when these, of themselves, shall exert sufficient influence to stay the hand of power, then government will be no longer necessary to protect society, nor constitutions needed to prevent government from abusing its powers. The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution, either by the undermining process of construction — where its meaning would admit of possible doubt — or by substituting in practice what is called party-usage, in place of its provisions — or, finally, when no other contrivance would subserve the purpose, by openly and boldly setting them aside. By the one or the other, the restrictions would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.

Now let us apply this to the 13th Amendment.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The logical consequence of this amendment should be that no man, unless convicted of a crime, would ever be made another's slave. However, the actual consequence is that slavery is prohibited everywhere--except where it is not prohibited. The Constitution is the law of the land--except where it is not the law of the land.

During Worldf War I, draftees rightfully challenged conscription on the grounds that being forced to serve in the military, a form of involuntary servitude, is unconstitutional. Yet in Butler v Perry (240 US 328 [1916]), the Supreme Court ruled:

[The 13th Amendment] introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

In other words, the Supreme Court, being a product of the parties that favored the power of the government to make war without limitation, "opposed the restrictions intended to limit them," even though those restrictions were as plain as day and part of the very document the members of the Court swore to uphold.

Those who brought suit against the government could reasonably object that the phrase "no slavery . . . shall exist within the United States" means exactly that. It should apply to everyone, plantation owners and generals alike. But what good does the ability to read plain English do for the losing side? To repeat Calhoun:

. . . of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal construction of the major, when the one would have all the power of the government to carry its construction into effect and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction?

For this reason those who advocate for smaller government should place little faith in the power of parchment--even with brand new amendments written in the clearest prose--to restrain flesh and blood politicians.

void-where-prohibited.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick Google showed that Barnett and Levin debated each other in 2012 (not on this subject though). As a scholar Levin surely is aware of Barnett'sn his work in his subject of interest. I bet he acknowledges it in his book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick Google showed that Barnett and Levin debated each other in 2012 (not on this subject though). As a scholar Levin surely is aware of Barnett'sn his work in his subject of interest. I bet he acknowledges it in his book.

Well, well...look at that, Chapter 7, footnote 4:

Randy E. Barnett, "The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause," 68 University of Chicago Law Review 101, 104 (Winter 2001) (emphasis in original).

Mr. FF:

There is an old homily that explains that "I never met a critic who built a bridge!"

So my simple question is, what have you done, in reality, to restore our Constitutional Republic?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I did not see FF's comment as critical of the ideas expressed in the book. "If you're so smart why aren't you rich" is a discussion tactic not worthy of you.

Maybe there are warring groups of Barnett and Levin fans I am unaware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick Google showed that Barnett and Levin debated each other in 2012 (not on this subject though). As a scholar Levin surely is aware of Barnett'sn his work in his subject of interest. I bet he acknowledges it in his book.

Well, well...look at that, Chapter 7, footnote 4:

Randy E. Barnett, "The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause," 68 University of Chicago Law Review 101, 104 (Winter 2001) (emphasis in original).

Mr. FF:

There is an old homily that explains that "I never met a critic who built a bridge!"

So my simple question is, what have you done, in reality, to restore our Constitutional Republic?

A...

How does Levin's acknowledgement of Barnet's scholarship on the Commerce Clause equate to giving him credit for the idea of using Article V to adopt several new Constitutional amendments?

You can find the referenced Barnet essay here. It has nothing to do with his "Bill of Federalism."

As to your personal question, I've been active at both the national and local level in numerous efforts to expand individual freedom, including the National Committee to Legalize Gold (1974), the Committee Against Registration for the Draft (1980), and Bureaucrash (2002). Over the past forty years I've donated thousands of dollars to pro-freedom organizations, think tanks, magazines and websites.

I shouldn't have to point out--expecially to members of this forum--that the truthfulness of a statement has nothing to do with the ideological credentials of the speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does Levin's acknowledgement of Barnet's scholarship on the Commerce Clause equate to giving him credit for the idea of using Article V to adopt several new Constitutional amendments?

You can find the referenced Barnet essay here. It has nothing to do with his "Bill of Federalism."

As to your personal question, I've been active at both the national and local level in numerous efforts to expand individual freedom, including the National Committee to Legalize Gold (1974), the Committee Against Registration for the Draft (1980), and Bureaucrash (2002). Over the past forty years I've donated thousands of dollars to pro-freedom organizations, think tanks, magazines and websites.

I shouldn't have to point out--expecially to members of this forum--that the truthfulness of a statement has nothing to do with the ideological credentials of the person making it.

How does Levin's acknowledgement of Barnet's scholarship on the Commerce Clause equate to giving him credit for the idea of using Article V to adopt several new Constitutional amendments?

It doesn't. It was just some human banter between friends.

As to your personal question, I've been active at both the national and local level in numerous efforts to expand individual freedom, including the National Committee to Legalize Gold (1974), the Committee Against Registration for the Draft (1980), and Bureaucrash (2002). Over the past forty years I've donated thousands of dollars to pro-freedom organizations, think tanks, magazines and websites.

Thank you. That answers one question that I had.

I shouldn't have to point out--expecially to members of this forum--that the truthfulness of a statement has nothing to do with the ideological credentials of the person making it.

Very nicely done. You say what you wanted to say while denying the need to say it. Excellent rhetorical trope.

Another classic one is when, in a public debate, the orator explains that he could tell you about the "situation" that candidate X got entwined in over there in the state of __________, a few years ago, but that is not the issue before us today....

It's kinda like an intellectual three card Monte games.

Well done.

A....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shouldn't have to point out--expecially to members of this forum--that the truthfulness of a statement has nothing to do with the ideological credentials of the person making it.

Very nicely done. You say what you wanted to say while denying the need to say it. Excellent rhetorical trope.

I didn't deny the need to say it. Rather I called attention to the irony of having to make such a statement in this setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trope 1 is indeed excellent. Volunteering information after pointing out that it was improper for your interlocutor to ask for it, always makes a good impression on the jury.

I certainly don't mind sharing information about my past as both a critic of and contributor to the building of bridges, and, just to be clear, I never said it was "improper" to ask me about it.

I wanted only to point out whatever I have done or not done to advance liberty is not relevant to any criticism I may have of Mr. Mark Levin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No FF, it was I who said it was improper, speaking as the "jury" here as I have no knowledge of American constitutional law and will certainly never read this book. The focus seemed to switch quickly here from

"how do we increase liberty ? How practicable are Levin's ideas, and how well does he support them?" to...something else. Which is partly why I enjoy OL, and I hope you will like it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

We have all heard the criticism of Lincoln for having suspended habeas corpus. NQR evidently did some research and quotes Lincoln's presentation to the Congress in which he attempts to justify his action with a constitutional argument. The comparison with Obama's lame is telling.

<<<"

  • By
  • NICHOLAS QUINN ROSENKRANZ

The Obama administration announced last month via blog post that the president was unilaterally suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate—notwithstanding the clear command of the law. President Obama's comments about it on Aug. 9—claiming that "the normal thing [he] would prefer to do" is seek a "change to the law"—then added insult to constitutional injury. It also offers a sharp contrast with a different president who also suspended the law.

On April 27, 1861, President Lincoln unilaterally authorized his commanding general to suspend the writ of habeas corpus so that he could detain dangerous rebels in the early days of the Civil War. Lincoln's order was constitutionally questionable. The Constitution provides that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

A rebellion was in progress, so suspension was permissible. But the Constitution doesn't specify who can suspend the writ in such circumstances. Since the Suspension Clause appears in Article I of the Constitution, which is predominantly about the powers of Congress, there is a strong argument that only Congress can suspend the habeas writ.

Lincoln's order was legally dubious, but what he did next showed remarkable constitutional rectitude. On July 4, 1861, he delivered a solemn message to Congress, in which he did everything possible to square his action with the Constitution. In this message, he set forth the best possible constitutional arguments that he had unilateral power to suspend the writ. These arguments may have been wrong, but they were serious, and they were presented seriously, in good faith.

Getty Images

Lincoln also made a powerful argument about the necessity of his action. Even if he was wrong, and only Congress had the power to suspend the writ, surely the circumstances had to be considered: Congress was in recess and the South was in open rebellion. "The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution, in nearly one-third of the states," Lincoln said to Congress.

Should Lincoln have refrained from suspending habeas, if doing so meant that the republic would fall? As he put it: "[A]re all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

Lincoln also invited Congress to ratify his actions: "Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and, if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress." On Aug, 6, 1861, Congress did indeed retroactively ratify "all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President . . . respecting the army and navy of the United States." And later, on March 3, 1863, Congress expressly authorized the president to suspend the writ.

Scholars have debated whether Lincoln exceeded his power by suspending the writ and whether Congress's retroactive ratification cured any constitutional infirmity. Whatever one's answer, this is a case of a president—himself a constitutional lawyer—trying, under impossible circumstances, to be as faithful to the Constitution as possible.

Contrast all of this with President Obama's announcement that he is unilaterally suspending part of the Affordable Care Act. Like Lincoln, Mr. Obama is a constitutional lawyer. And like Lincoln's action, Mr. Obama's was a unilateral executive suspension of the law. But in every other way, the president's behavior could not have been more different from Lincoln's.

First, Lincoln's action was at least arguably constitutional, while Mr. Obama's is not. The Constitution has a provision for suspending habeas. It has no general provision for executive suspension of laws. English kings used to suspend laws, but the Framers rejected that practice: The president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Second, Lincoln volunteered an articulate constitutional defense of his action. Mr. Obama seemed annoyed when the New York Times dared to ask him the constitutional question. When the reporter asked whether he had consulted with lawyers about the legality of the mandate's delay, he declined to answer.

As for Republican congressmen who had the temerity to question his authority, Mr. Obama said only: "I'm not concerned about their opinions—very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers." Mr. Obama made no mention of Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin—a Democrat, a lawyer and one of the authors of ObamaCare—who said: "This was the law. How can they change the law?"

Third, Lincoln offered a brilliant and compelling argument about the necessity of his action, given that the republic was in imminent danger. Mr. Obama's official version of the constitutional-necessity argument was nothing more than a breezy blog post attributed to an assistant secretary for tax policy. The title? "Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner."

Fourth, and most strikingly, Lincoln promptly looked to Congress to ratify his unilateral action. Congress agreed with Lincoln, and the president welcomed and signed new legislation. President Obama says only that he wishes he could follow the same course. Last week, he said he would like to "simply call up the Speaker" of the House to request a "change to the law" that would achieve his desired delay.

In fact, as the president knows, he doesn't even need to pick up the phone: On July 17, the House of Representatives passed the Authority for Mandate Delay Act (with 229 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting in favor). This would authorize President Obama's desired suspension of the law, just as Congress ratified Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

But unlike Lincoln, President Obama doesn't welcome this congressional ratification. He has called the House bill that fixes the constitutional problem he created "unnecessary," and he threatened to veto it. Why? Because the House also passed a companion bill that would delay the individual mandate too. For political reasons, the president doesn't want to be in the inconvenient position of signing one bill that would give companies a reprieve from ObamaCare, while vetoing another that would grant individuals the same delay. The Democratic-controlled Senate will quietly kill the House bill and save Mr. Obama the awkwardness of having to veto it.

Faced with military exigencies, Lincoln did everything possible to enlist Congress's support—and thus to follow the Constitution. Mr. Obama, faced with mere political and bureaucratic inconveniences, spurned Congress's support and flouted the Constitution.">>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to understand you.

I suggest an immediate intervention before you become a mind numbed socialist! STAT

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