Posted on 12/29/2014 10:00:53 AM PST by Ray76
For 100 years, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated to it in our Constitution.
What should we do about it? Should we reclaim our existing Constitution and put an end to the usurpations?
Or should we “modernize” the Constitution by changing it so as to delegate to the federal government the powers it has usurped – so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?
Mark Levin begins “The Liberty Amendments” by saying he doesn’t believe the Constitution requires “modernization through amendments”. But he then proposes a series of amendments, six of which modernize our Constitution to delegate to the federal government most of the powers it has usurped during the last 100 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at publiushuldah.wordpress.com ...
I don’t think he/she read the book.
WTF? This person NEVER read the book.
Has Levin been inaccurately quoted?
LIBs lie. That’s all.
Specifics would be helpful
The 10th Ammendment gives the states the right to take back their power. We don’t need a bunch of new ammendments.
The only real hold the Federal govt has over the states is Federal funds which it has used over the last 100 years to seduce and enslave the states. All they have to do is give up the Federal funds and exert their sovereignty.
The blog article cites the specific text from Levin’s amendments, and points out how they do little or nothing to scale back the actual size and scope of the current government.
The author takes the position of the truly-Limited government and original Constitution, and holds therefore that anything beyond the actual text of the constitution is Unconstitutional, and that Levin’s amendments might even make some things worse (non-legislative agencies would come under congressional oversight, thus allowing formerly-unconstitutional regulations to acquire the status of constitutionally-valid law as they would now be issued by a sub-division of the legislative branch).
If the author has cited Levin’s amendments in a contextually-correct way, then he/she is essentially correct.
Here’s an excerpt from the article giving an example of what he means:
“...
Levin’s amendment “to limit federal spending” (p 73 -74)
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the size of the GDP. Do you see?
The reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits – already set forth in the Constitution – on its spending.
Well then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?
But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers. It says:
“Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”
Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President to lawfully spend money on whatever they want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t authorize it.
Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections 6 & 7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt. 5”
This person does not appear to be a liberal, and in my opinion he makes good points concerning the dangers & down sides of Levin’s proposed amendments.
I agree with most all of Levin’s amendments, especially the term limit ones, will they pass, Probably not, but we need to do the Article V process even if it fails and is a tilting at windmills maneuver.
Why?
Because then it would be one of the last avenues to exhaust before we enter into state secession period which then may lead to either a cold breakup via Czechoslovakia or a hat war like the civil war...
If we don’t exhaust all avenues before states decide to start leaving we only legitimize the federal government claims to the states.
It would be like starting the American Revolution without the Declaration of independence and all of the other steps taken before the hot war broke out.
It’s BS. Whoever wrote this garbage did not bother to read the book. For example, one suggested amendment empowers 3/5’s of the States to override any federal law. Another sets term limits.
Uh oh.
Yes, I’ve actually read Levin’s book, and likewise I’ve heard him talk about it at length via his radio program... Washington will never surrender power willingly. The Article 5 section in the Constitution was given for just this scenario. Those who argue AGAINST using the Constitution simply believe that the document itself is flawed. I’m for rule of law. Article 5 convention the federal government back into its sandbox yesterday or sooner. Yeah, do it. Do it now.
The Liberty Amendments and Convention of States would be a great idea if we had a judiciary that cared squat for the constitutions. Since we don’t, and all these guys know it, it baffles me that they’re still talking about it. We pass some great amendments, all branches act as if they never happened, rule them unconstitutional, or pass conflicting laws; what then? Time, money, brain cells wasted, that’s what.
[ The Liberty Amendments and Convention of States would be a great idea if we had a judiciary that cared squat for the constitutions. Since we don’t, and all these guys know it, it baffles me that they’re still talking about it. We pass some great amendments, all branches act as if they never happened, rule them unconstitutional, or pass conflicting laws; what then? Time, money, brain cells wasted, that’s what. ]
I think Term limits is the best chance, how can they possibly ignore term limits even Obama can’t ignore the term limits, if he did there would be junta immediately.
I think the essential amendment is the one that repeals the 17th Amendment. Repealing the 16th and 19th would be constructive, too, but repealing the 17th is the game changer.
Really? How come opponents of Levin’s ideas refuse to debate him? I’ll tell you why: They all support the rancid Establishment, once you scratch the surface.
Amen! End of story... But the new amendments would exert state power... Wrong, they would just had to the heap of rights already trampled by the government. The supremacy clause gives the states, not the supreme court, the right to decides what’s “pursuant to the constitution.”
I agree, but that needs to be made explicit throughout the process. 1) as an ultimatum to the government, 2) as an enticement to people, like me, who KNOW whatever comes out of the process will be stopped by the strong arm of a tyrannical government.
Have I read the book? No, of course not. I have too many things to read and the concept is too fundamentally flawed for me to worry too much about the details.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.