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

[Selene]

Of course, a legitimate concern, not yet addressed on this forum, is what might happen once a convention were in session. Levin seems to think that a runaway convention is improbable because, well, because the Constitution won't permit it.

I'm trying to think of the last time that permanent assembly of politicians in Washington was restrained by the words that follow "We the People."

FF:

Your solution is nullification, correct?

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

Of course, a legitimate concern, not yet addressed on this forum, is what might happen once a convention were in session. Levin seems to think that a runaway convention is improbable because, well, because the Constitution won't permit it.

I'm trying to think of the last time that permanent assembly of politicians in Washington was restrained by the words that follow "We the People."

FF:

Your solution is nullification, correct?

A...

Among other methods.

For inspiration read Eric Frank Russell's short story ". . . And Then There Were None" (expanded to the novel The Great Explosion). While I do not endorse certain egalitarian aspects of the Gands' society, their attainment of liberty through non-cooperation with evil could serve as a model for the contemporary freedom movement.

[Mikee]

Eric Frank Russell's short story ". . . And Then There Were None" : Excellent! Thanks Francisco.

[caroljane]

I have been looking up Mark Levin and his book from the past year. It looks like he pre-tested his proposals in the conservative market pretty thoroughly. There will be a push to organize and finance the actions he suggests, is my guess.

[caroljane]

And Brant, in fantasyland --- if Arizona held a referendum on seceding from the Union, what would you do? Wearily start oiling your guns, or strike up "I ain't marching anymore"?

- Canada always an option

[GALTGULCH8]

Michael,

Ah shucks!

gg

[caroljane]

Calling a constitutional convention...

Bob,

This is incorrect. There is no provision for calling a "constitutional convention" in the USA Constitution. Here is the exact language from Article V (my emphasis):

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...

The correct term is "convention for proposing amendments."

The meme of calling this a constitutional convention is scare tactics and nothing more. Especially now in the Digital Information Age where it would be impossible to keep things secret.

Michael

I see that the correct term "Convention for proposing amendments" (presumably to the Constitution) could be shortened to Constitutional Convention in the public mind. Who (m) is it supposed to scare?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I see that the correct term "Convention for proposing amendments" (presumably to the Constitution) could be shortened to Constitutional Convention in the public mind. Who (m) is it supposed to scare?

Carol,

It's not a shortening and it's not semantics like Brant mentioned. A constitutional convention is a convention for the purpose of designing a new constitution. I was in Brazil, for example, when they had one in 1988. A convention for proposing amendments is just that--a convention to alter an existing constitution.

The scare with a constitutional convention is that the "other side" (depending on which side you are on) will somehow hijack the convention and impose that side's view of power and government organization so much, there will be tyranny.

That's what they say.

What's underneath is one of the most beautiful examples of the force behind checks and balances I can think of. They are afraid of losing their own slice of power.

The States will never convene to propose amendments without a massive grass-roots campaign that will threaten and/or empower State politicians to do it. That's why the fear on the conservative side is unfounded. How could an elite gang of Progressives or communists take over a convention when the unwashed masses beating at the gate with torches and pitchforks are the ones the delegates represent?

The conservatives against this idea are actually afraid of losing their own power--to people on the other side or to other people on their side. They are not really afraid of the other side taking over and forming a total strongman dictatorship since nobody truly believes that.

So they constantly mischaracterize a convention to propose amendments, which holds a very real threat of curtailing government power (i.e., their power), as a constitutional convention where they can sell their bogeyman story--and even use the way the USA constitution came into being to boot. There was supposed to be a convention for amending the Articles of Confederation, but the delegates were practically hijacked and sworn to secrecy until they came up with a new constitution. (it's quite a colorful story.) People say they are afraid this will happen again with tyranny as the result. I believe that is impossible, especially given the Internet.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

And Brant, in fantasyland --- if Arizona held a referendum on seceding from the Union, what would you do? Wearily start oiling your guns, or strike up "I ain't marching anymore"?

- Canada always an option

Thanks for reminding me to oil up my 12 gauge.

--Brant

you're always thinking of me

[caroljane]

This makes sense to me Michael. The fear of losing power and the desire of gaining or regaining past power are what will drive the prime movers in this, if it comes to actions. Do you think it will/ ?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

Like I said earlier, it's a long haul. One of the genius maneuvers of the Founding Fathers was that they made it hellishly difficult to amend the Constitution.

I believe there is a good shot for a convention to propose amendments to happen. But I wouldn't give better than 50-50 odds.

I support the idea, but only if the grass-roots movement happens. If not, I will oppose it because I will smell too many rats in backrooms making deals.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - I just now noticed the error in the title ("Amendmenst") and fixed it.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

I can understand why some conservatives and libertarians would be excited, on first glance, at Levin's idea. We Good Guys, i.e. those who of us who believe in capitalism and limited government, will convince "two thirds of the several States" to call a convention for "proposing Amendments." Then we'll make up for all the lost time we spent trying to fix Congress and the Supreme Court. We'll term-limit politicians and justices, put a cap on spending, sunset federal agencies, redefine the Commerce Clause, etc.

And on the Seventh Day we'll rest.

What nobody has bothered to grapple with is how the Good Guys are going to keep the blue states from also sending representatives to the Con-con. Are we to imagine that the Democrats, the progressives, the radical feminists, the eco-socialists, the Occupy Wall Streeters, the Mothers for Gun Control, the anti-"hate" groups, and every other left-wing critter is just going to sit back and let the right have all the fun?

How would you like a People's Rights Amendment or a Third Term Obama Amendment or an Abolish the Electoral College Amendment?

Yes, I'm sure the red staters will stand strong and not let any foolishness get past them, just the way, say, John Boehner has.

But what if it's the usual game of tit for tat? What if we have to endure a Living Wage Amendment in exchange for our precious Anti-Flag Burning Amendment?

Then what?

[GALTGULCH8]

Perhaps we will have to wait until all of those progressives die off. The trick will be to enlighten the younger generations via at least the efforts of the Students For Liberty and Young Americans For Liberty armed with the intellectual ammunition provided by Ayn Rand and the Austrian economists.

Harder still these days is the torrent of baby boomers who are reaching the age of eligibility for Medicare and Social Security at the rate of 10,000 people each and every day expected to continue for ten years. Can anyone imagine them supporting this?

Unless the doctors and hospitals promise to take care of them for nothing or what they can afford without money from the central government which is not about to happen.

Still if this Liberty Amendment thing doesn't happen all those unfunded mandates and promises will add up to an amount approaching estimates of 222 Trillion which would have to be printed because it doesn't exist otherwise. So the last thing to go if the Liberty Amendment movement succeeds will have to be the dreaded and hated Federal Reserve System.

China has ordered or encouraged its citizens, when it is not forcing them to move from their rural family farms to sterile cities that have been built in the dozens completely barren of occupants to bolster the GNP figures, to buy gold and silver coins. Perhaps America should encourage everyone here to do so as well to help them weather the hyperinflation being done through the quantitative easing extravaganza.

gg

[BaalChatzaf]

Perhaps we will have to wait until all of those progressives die off. The trick will be to enlighten the younger generations via at least the efforts of the Students For Liberty and Young Americans For Liberty armed with the intellectual ammunition provided by Ayn Rand and the Austrian economists.

Progressives are being reared and educated much faster than they are dying off, so your proposal, however well intentioned, is likely to fail. My guess is that a complete system failure of a violent revolution will be required to really turn things around.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Calling a constitutional convention...

Bob,

This is incorrect. There is no provision for calling a "constitutional convention" in the USA Constitution. Here is the exact language from Article V (my emphasis):

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...

The correct term is "convention for proposing amendments."

The meme of calling this a constitutional convention is scare tactics and nothing more. Especially now in the Digital Information Age where it would be impossible to keep things secret.

Michael

I see that the correct term "Convention for proposing amendments" (presumably to the Constitution) could be shortened to Constitutional Convention in the public mind. Who (m) is it supposed to scare?

Um it is not supposed to scare anyone.

It is supposed to inform and empower our citizenry which it will.

Question is, how many is enough?

[Brant Gaede]

If they all go to Vegas they can call it a "convention." They will lose everything. They'll have to sell their hair to a wig shop. Don't go to Vegas. Don't sell your hair to a wig shop. Get Cox TV, Internet and telephone.

--Brant

[caroljane]

lol If they propose Celine Dion as moderator you should get suspicious.

[GALTGULCH8]

My dream requires that students for liberty grows exponentially in the colleges and high schools all over the country and the world, becomes visible on the internet via the social channels as well as the SFL website, that tens of millions of youngsters read many books in the Objectivist/Austrian economics/libertarian realm, make more sense hence convert many otherwise indoctrinated souls, come to outnumber everyone with the possible exception of the islamic brotherhood types around the world.

This all takes several years by which time there are hundreds of millions of adherents who succeed in amending the constitution via the state legislature's call for a convention to propose amendments and pass the Liberty Amendments thus saving the country and our grandchildren who go on to live happily ever after.

gg

[Francisco Ferrer]

The vital point is that ratifying a slate of new amendments (or somehow putting a new Jefferson in the White House) won't work, won't matter, won't make much difference until there has first been a profound shift in the American Weltanschauung.

Pundits who promote quick fixes while ignoring the necessary long march of education are typically the ones most easily persuaded to compromise fundamental principles.

[BaalChatzaf]

My dream requires that students for liberty grows exponentially in the colleges and high schools all over the country and the world, becomes visible on the internet via the social channels as well as the SFL website, that tens of millions of youngsters read many books in the Objectivist/Austrian economics/libertarian realm, make more sense hence convert many otherwise indoctrinated souls, come to outnumber everyone with the possible exception of the islamic brotherhood types around the world.

Prepare to be disappointed.

It took the British over 600 years to get the notion of -rights- reasonably correct after the signing of Magna Carta.

You expect the American voting public to give up their Expectations of Goodies after over two generations of being fed the lie that government is the Source of Goodies? It will take at least that long to undo the damage. Most likely much longer.

I think the only chance to break the chain of false expectation is a complete breakdown of the system. And if that happens there is no guarantee that we will come back to something halfway decent. They never did in Europe, after WW 2, which should Americans come out any better?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[GALTGULCH8]

Ba'al,

Because this time we know the antidote which is being shared with those who encounter the SFL and YAL movement!

Take heart!

We will never give up!

gg

[jts]

My dream requires that students for liberty grows exponentially in the colleges and high schools all over the country and the world, becomes visible on the internet via the social channels as well as the SFL website, that tens of millions of youngsters read many books in the Objectivist/Austrian economics/libertarian realm, make more sense hence convert many otherwise indoctrinated souls, come to outnumber everyone with the possible exception of the islamic brotherhood types around the world.

Prepare to be disappointed.

It took the British over 600 years to get the notion of -rights- reasonably correct after the signing of Magna Carta.

You expect the American voting public to give up their Expectations of Goodies after over two generations of being fed the lie that government is the Source of Goodies? It will take at least that long to undo the damage. Most likely much longer.

I think the only chance to break the chain of false expectation is a complete breakdown of the system. And if that happens there is no guarantee that we will come back to something halfway decent. They never did in Europe, after WW 2, which should Americans come out any better?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are extrapolating from the past to the future. But the internet is a wildcard.

[BaalChatzaf]

You are extrapolating from the past to the future. But the internet is a wildcard.

Of course! All of our expectations concerning the future are derived from our past experiences. How else would we reckon what the future might bring?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

You are extrapolating from the past to the future. But the internet is a wildcard.

Of course! All of our expectations concerning the future are derived from our past experiences. How else would we reckon what the future might bring?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You don't believe the internet will have any influence on how rapidly ideas are spread?

Before the invention of the printing press, not much happened for perhaps thousands of years. With the printing press, things started to happen; science, technology, ideas.

The internet is the printing press on steroids.

The internet is not yet at its full power. In some countries, not everyone is connected to the internet. Even in technologically advanced countries, not everyone has ultra-high speed, which I am told is about a hundred times as fast as ordinary high speed. Also consider that computers and storage media are getting better and cheaper.

My point is the internet is a wildcard that puts doubt on your prediction of how quickly ideas will spread and be accepted in the general population.

Look at the bright side.