http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...d_smaller.html
Yeah yeah, F-Levin, he hates Ron Paul, whatever.
Listen to what he has to say.
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
Sorry, not close minded.Originally Posted by cajuncocoa
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
Close minded would make sense if I refused to try something I didn't already know about. That said, the idea of Mark Levin having "Liberty Amendments" is hilarious.
I used to really like him. Met him once. I read his book: Men in black, and thought it was really good. He lost me when he trashed the Pauls. But I may buy this book. He's a good researcher, and a good writer.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Levin is very good on the Constitution. You can ignore it if you wish it doesn't hurt me.
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
is it Glenn Levin or Mark Beck?
yeah Mark is a smart guy.....wait...he hates Ron Paul = he hates me = $#@! you Levin...
next.
Those two pukes in the same thread title. FML.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
—Charles Mackay
"god i fucking wanna rip his balls off and offer them to the gods"
-Anonymous
ROFL!!!
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
That makes it more bizarre that he didn't back a Constitutionalist running for President--wouldn't you say?
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
He suffers from a serious case of cognitive dissonance.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/13/m...ty-amendments/
Mark Levin is proposing ten amendments to the Constitution. Each one is written in thoughtful language so as to preclude any ancillary problems:
1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.
2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.
3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.
4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.
5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.
6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.
7) Limiting Federal power to take private property
8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.
9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.
10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
Well, fantastic. Not only is it hard to tell the difference between RedState and RPF on most days lately, we can start sharing stuff with them.
*slap my damned head*
Do you have any other reviews of the book which happen to describe the particular amendments he is proposing? Do you want to take the time to find another source just because you don't like a particular site?
Stop the mind control meme.
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
Reviews of Levin's book? LMAO. I wouldn't use Levin's book if I ran out of toilet paper.
As for your "mind control" comment, obviously you're just trying to censor me. If your mind is that easily controlled, maybe you should get some help.
I respectfully disagree with you on this. I see nothing wrong with discussing the man, seeing how many conservatives (possibly phony, but you get my point) like him.
That doesn't mean you have to support anything he does, of course. Obama happens to be quite important, and as such, worth being discussed despite the fact that we all hate him.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
I don't care about Levin in particular. Many would be interested in his ideas, many of whom are on the forum. I have no interest in beating a dead horse.
I am obviously not being mind controlled. But the groupthink of Ron Paul GOOOd, Everything Else BAAAD really insults the intelligence of me and everyone else who refuses to participate in it.
New to liberty?
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt online for free!
Ignoring Levin and just focusing on the amendments...
1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.I disagree, I believe elections provide some semblance of accountability, even if not nearly enough, while a leader who has no fear of losing a reelection has no incentive to do the right thing. Also, we'd lose what ground we have gained faster. So, I understand this, but I don't agree.
Agreed.2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.
I disagree with this. I agree with the mentality behind it, but I don't agree. I'd rather limit SCOTUS to only being able to rule on Federal legislation, having no jurisdiction over anything at the state or local level.3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.
I'd rather limit it to under 10% of GDP, if not under 5%, but I'm willing to start here. As far as I understand it, it would still be permitted to tax and spend LESS than 15%, so its a start.4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.
That said, why limit spending to 17.5% while limiting taxation to 15%? Why allow spending to be more than revenue? That makes no sense.
Sounds good.5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.
I'm surprised Levin supports this, it contradicts other things he's said, including support for Federal drug regulations which he has defended using the commerce clause. That said, while I don't understand how Levin could support this, I do.6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.
I don't know if this is a good idea, seeing as the Constitution already gives the Federal Government NO power to take private property. This would just be a backdoor way of making some such seizures legal.7) Limiting Federal power to take private property
I disagree. Amending the constitution should be hard. Making it easy only makes things easier for the tyrants, since most people hate freedom.8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.
I could agree with this, although I'd like to make it even easier than this.9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.
I agree with this, and while I think virtually everything should be left to each individual state, I do believe the rules regarding FEDERAL elections should be uniform throughout the country, by amendment if needed.10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Who has said that? LOL!
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
What's wrong with following the Constitution we already have?
I agree with you on this. He get's to the meat of the problem in his explanation. Simply limit campaign funding and spending and the main problem goes away. If citizen's of a district want someone to represent them, for however long, then I see no problem with it. It's the insane amount of money that needs to be raised to fund a race that limits the challengers.
I caught him on Hannity's radio show yesterday talking about these LAs and from what I gather they're a way for grassroots activists to work to get their state legislatures discussing these amendments and starting a bottom-up way and passing new amends to the Bill of Rights. Despite Levin's name involved, I am delighted that the millions that listen to his show and Hannity's can be potentially mobilized to do something besides just bitching and voting.
SCOTUS has never been all-powerful. It has no ability to enforce its own decisions, and its rulings on constitutional law are subject to being overturned by constitutional amendments. Limiting judicial review to federal laws would be extremely unwise. If that had always been the case, we might still have anti-miscegenation laws, racially segregated schools, mandatory public school prayer, and other horrors. As Justice Holmes noted, "I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several states."
The power of eminent domain is implicitly acknowledged by the 5th Amendment.I don't know if this is a good idea, seeing as the Constitution already gives the Federal Government NO power to take private property.7) Limiting Federal power to take private property
Why do you, or Levin, think the Bill of Rights need to be amended?
You got me there presuming that the BoR is only the first ten amendments. The idea is to do this bottom up approach and add more amendments to reign in and limit the govt overreach cause clearly the Congress doesn't listen usually. Not a bad idea to start focusing on our state legislatures and having them stick up for us like they should be. To me, this could be a multi-pronged offensive to a) clean up our state houses, b) push these amendments or similar ones through and c) keep pushing for better candidates to rise up and primary incumbents and/or focus on open seats. The value I see in this is that the vast majority of tea party people and socons tend to just do rallies, perhaps donate some money and vote. I see this as giving those people more focus and mobilizing them into the fold where most of us already are. That way we all have more allies to aid the broader cause of liberty. There won't be exclusive agreement across the board but points a and b should happen more smoothly.
It obviously NEEDS to be amended to restore balance.
From a recent review of the book:Some of Levin’s proposed amendments are intended to clarify language that already exists in the Constitution, such as the much-abused Commerce Clause – lately interpreted as a warrant for unlimited federal control of all human activity, although the Founders most certainly did not intend it to be taken that way. Our language has changed over the centuries, always in a way that expands the Left’s desire for centralized control. The authors of the Constitution would find our current understanding of the word “commerce” to be utterly deranged – indeed, they might even ask what the point of their Revolution was, if “interstate commerce” was to become a writ for powers beyond the wildest dreams of daft old King George.
Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power, making it easier for states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation. Levin also makes a compelling argument against the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of United States senators. Senators were supposed to be instruments of the state legislatures, while the House of Representatives would be filled by popular vote. I have never read a better explanation for why this was important, and how it gave state governments a vitally needed hand in the crafting of federal legislation.
I’ve also seen no better case made for term limits on Congress, as Levin astutely points out that not only do Jurassic representatives-for-life distort the distribution of power in Congress, but they invest a great deal of our national energy (and funding!) in maintaining their 85-percent-plus re-election rate. Surely some of those “safe” districts would merely replace Retiring Party Drone A with New Party Drone B, but as it stands, far too many representatives discover they can most easily secure lifetime tenure by representing the Leviathan State instead of their constituents, tapping the federal treasury to purchase reliable voters.
The reason all of these goals must be accomplished through Constitutional amendment is that any other instrument of legislation or representation can be twisted to the purposes of the central State. Levin makes an irrefutable case that we long ago passed the point of no return for reforming our bloated, degenerate, dying federal government by winning a few elections. The people who rigged this system made certain to armor it against future dissent from unhappy voters – one man, one vote, one time, every step of the way, with each new progressive “achievement” promptly declared more immutable than the tattered old scrap of parchment kept under glass at the National Archives. Having studied the provisions for a Constitutional convention, Levin is convinced that the high bar for state ratification of any proposed amendments will keep it from becoming a carnival of kooks. The kooks are winning anyway. What could they get by amending the Constitution that our eternal bureaucracy and despotic executive branch aren’t giving them, one lost liberty at a time?
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
Make it so no law remains in effect for more than two sessions of Congress (4 years), so that if a session does not reauthorize a law it automatically sunsets.
That's not a bad plan. Re-reading through the list of amendments Levin proposes, however, he missed something that's crucial to our current Constitution and/or any good amendments that might follow: we need to do something to assure our representatives listen to their constituents rather than global corporations that donate millions to their campaign. I'm not anti-corporate; just the opposite in fact (my college degree and background are business related)...but when I see our congressmen ignoring the will of the people, using the Obamacare bill as an example, in order to satisfy the interests of big insurance and big pharma, something is very wrong.
Agreed... I think something to address is the Citizens United case and the "money is speech, corporations are people" argument. I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one!
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us