Posted on 04/13/2013 9:42:21 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Mark is working on another book. Every night it seems, he wants to bust out and talk about it, but his publishers have put the ixnay on too much disclosure. Still, he shows a little leg now and then. That happened in the second hour of his show last Thursday, April 11, 2013.
With the help of sixteen rinos, Dingy Harry got 68 votes to proceed with a gun control bill that few, if any Senators had read. After wailing on the lack of process and regular order, Mark focused on the nature of the Senate and how it differed from the institution of our Framers.
Mark Levin:
“The Federal government’s powers were supposed to be limited. Defined. Enumerated. The Federal government wasn’t supposed to have all of this power. It wasn’t supposed to have plenary power; the plenary power was with the States. (Relates how in times past one could easily have a face to face with State legislators from your home town) Some States are great, some suck. But that’s not the point. The point is that the federal government is worse than any State; is it not? That’s what happens when power is concentrated. That’s’ what happens when limits are thrown off. So, we’re fighting battles we shouldn’t have to fight, and they’re coming one after another after another. They’re bipartisan. I want you to keep something in mind, this is very important, IMHO.” (wails on the 16 rinos who threw in with the rats over gun control/2A.)
“I want to ask you this question, what’s the purpose of the US Senate? I’m serious. Originally, the US Senate was supposed to be made up of members who were sent there, to this body, from the State legislatures. See, the States that gave birth to the federal government, they WANTED A SAY in what the federal government did. So they said, okay, we’ll have a popularly elected House of Representatives elected every two years; there was a lot of debate over the term, but they settled on two years, and then they said, ‘We’re going to have this Senate. And one of the main reason s we’re going to have this Senate is, well of course the main reason is WE THE STATES need a say in this, some position in this government we are creating. But they also said, look, the Senate will slow down, ya’ know what might become a fad, or a movement, a temporary sort of mob activity, because we’ll give them longer terms, and because Senators won’t be elected directly by the same people who elect House members, but they’ll be elected indirectly by the same people, through their State legislatures.”
“Instead what we have here really is a body that has no point. There’s no point to it. Do these Senators really represent their States? I mean this guy Wicker and his vote today, does he really represent Mississippi? These two jerks from Georgia, do they really represent GA? No, they got on a boat, with Manchin, who really doesn’t represent West Virginia, and “Mark what do you mean, he doesn’t really represent, I mean the people elected him . . . “ No, I didn’t say he didn’t represent the people of GA or MS, I said the States of MS or GA, because right now they have no say in anything. So what’s the point of the US Senate, will somebody please tell me? I don’t know exactly. Well, I know what the Constitutional powers are, THAT’S NOT THE POINT. My point is why have two bodies if they’re both popularly elected?” No matter how you change the terms, they don’t represent the States, or they represent a district, yiptido!"
"I don’t think there is a more useless body than the US Senate, in terms of its structure today. And how did it happen? In 1913, that the 17th Amendment was ratified, giving direct elections to Senators. Well, it’s the same way things happen today. Radical populists, and so-called Progressives, whom I call Statists, . . . because in the end that’s all they are, big government types, they pushed this movement, . . . both the 16th and 17th Amendments in the same year. (more on amendments in general) This movement has undermined our system, as it does today. This is why there is a disconnect, there’s an absolute disconnect, so if you’re a Senator you can change from day to day who it is you think you represent or claim to represent. (rant on who or what do Senators represent, the people, states . . . ) IOW you do whatever the hell you want in the name of the people, the Constitution . . . and so forth . . . and you’re really doing it TO the people and UNDERMINING the Constitution. It’s an ugly, bizarre institution right now."
"That’s what I’m saying. We understand the House of Representatives. We may not like what it does but we understand what it is supposed to do, don’t we? Its peculiar, this Senate. I’m going to talk of this down the road. . . . because I think what’s necessary here, well . . . I’ll talk more about it down the road, because in many ways I think we’re banging our heads against the wall."
Be sure to inform your pals at DHS of your diagnosis of my mental state so they can come confiscate my firearms.
Jerk.
As Mark Levin regularly reminds us, reform will not emerge from Washington. If we are to peacefully save what remains of our freedoms and regain what was lost, it is time for the States to call an Article V Constitutional Convention. If Congress does not head it off on its own to consider a single amendment, repeal of the 17th, we have little to lose. Our consolidated government ignores our unalienable rights, separation of powers and is arming itself to put down mass confrontation. If Congress ignores the threat and the States convene a convention, we risk no more than where we are already headed, a consolidated government of unlimited powers bent on creating a perfect social justice Utopian hell.
We have the means to save our society and lives; means that were not available in 1775. Let’s use them. Together, with the help of God, we just might save these United States.
It's a win-win for the MarxoFascists - if we do not take the bait, they erect the machinations of tyranny that will be impervious to dismantlement, if we resist - we become enemies of the state, terrorists the Ruling Class will say is justified for extermination.
Your suggestion is a noble idea, and if this people were a moral and upright people as generations before us were, such an effort would have a good chance of success.
We are no longer a moral or upright people, especially among those ruling us and those beholden to them.
A con-con will be hijacked by agents of the Ruling Class, and what you intended would become a weapon against us all and the entire Constitution itself 'legally' rewritten to suit the MarxoFascists.
This regime and the Ruling Class in power are no longer bound by the Rule of Law, the Constitution or the Will of the People. They have repeatedly defied us, ridiculed us and did what they intended to do despite protests. We're dealing with evil and corruption on a scale I do not think you comprehend.
If they will not respect the rule of law as written NOW, what makes you think they are going to abide the repeal of the 17th?? You think for one second that this regime, the entire political ruling class and their dependents are just going to surrender their usurped power without engendering a bloody fight?
No my friend, history teaches that such men in power have no fear of law when they have manipulated it to their advantage. Nor do they have fear of any new law that upholds the rights of the people. That too will be ignored, marginalized or demonized to ineffectiveness. The only safeguard against such power of ambition is the fear of force being used against them, and the will to execute such force.
Aside from all that - why should God help us preserve what is left of the Republic when we sat on our hands while the Secular Hedonists threw Him out of our culture? Why should God help a nation that practices infanticide and murdered an entire generation of Americans in the womb because our current definition of liberty is to do whatever we feel like doing? Why should God help a nation that is granting homosexuality an elevated status in society?
I'm not trying to be defeatist here - but realistic. Of course we should make attempts to 'appeal' to our rulers, same as our Founders did. But there comes a time when reality must be accepted and a futile course of appeasement and petition of those who are unfit to rule a free people, requires the means and will to resist them by the only thing tyrants respect.
If what you desire as a course of action were to have any viability whatsoever, begin first by getting this people to do a II Chronicles 7:14. Shy of that - I'm afraid John Adams' statement about liberty being lost forever, will prove not only to be prophetic, but an indictment of our failure.
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it…" - John Adams
Criminals have no rights to "keep and bear arms".
Be careful you do not cross that boundary, or urge others to.
So there is only one viable option here, and that is to persuade, persuade your fellow citizens of the righteousness of your cause.
Failing that, you might want to think about some other country, presumably freer than ours, to call your home, FRiend.
You being the arbiter of what is criminal and mentally unstable.
You know, it’s a funny thing - but our Founders were criminals, rebels and terrorists in the eyes of the lawful, legal authority of the Crown and in the eyes of those who supported the tyranny of the Crown.
Nothing new under the sun, even for such a time as this.
Possibly you've heard of "the law" and "the Constitution"?
Those are rules we live under, and if you violate them, you are subject to prescribed punishments, including loss of certain rights, i.e., to "keep and bear arms."
INVAR: "You know, it’s a funny thing - but our Founders were criminals, rebels and terrorists in the eyes of the lawful, legal authority of the Crown and in the eyes of those who supported the tyranny of the Crown."
A small point, but the word "terrorist" in its modern meaning did not exist in those days.
Indeed the first "terror" came during the French Revolution, more that 10 years after our Revolution of 1776.
So our Founders were never considered "terrorists".
Certainly, rebels, insurrectionists and revolutionaries engaged in treason, about which Benjamin Franklin famously said:
So, after years of patient attempts at negotiations, when our Founders finally sat down to write up their Declaration of Independence, they had a long grievance list, with dozens of particulars, including ones such as this:
And this one from Jefferson (later deleted):
And that's what's meant by a "right of revolution" -- in the face of major provocations and crimes against humanity, and lacking lawful recourse to a representative legislature or courts of justice.
Those are not the conditions today, and are unlikely to ever become such.
So what, exactly do you wish to revolt against?
The fact that our fellow citizens keep voting for more "free stuff" and government control than is healthy, or constitutional?
Of course, that cause is worthy, but any resort to violence will not produce a good result, FRiend.
Try explaining that to Obama and Congress. You obviously haven't been paying attention of late.
A small point, but the word "terrorist" in its modern meaning did not exist in those days.
Semantics. You know what I meant.
And that's what's meant by a "right of revolution" -- in the face of major provocations and crimes against humanity, and lacking lawful recourse to a representative legislature or courts of justice. Those are not the conditions today, and are unlikely to ever become such.
America will last forever, Obama's a really nice guy, Government is not trampling our inalienable rights and what's going on is just politics as usual. You haven't a freaking clue what time it is pal. You have an incurable case of Normalcy Bias
but any resort to violence will not produce a good result
Some things are with dying for. I guess for you - the promise of safety and security is enough to placate.
Enjoy your slavery, good luck attempting to reason with the MarxoFascists for what is left of your liberty and may posterity forget you were ever our countrymen.
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. - Winston Churchill
We're soon to arrive at the latter portion of Churchill's statement, but not so for you. Your end will be to perish AS a slave.
I thought that state Senators were elected prior to those decisions, only the district boundaries were fixed (counties), so that these jurisdictions were not subjected to redistricting and gerrymandering. No matter how the political winds blew, the Senator from Fairfax County, VA, for example, would always represent the people of Fairfax County, VA, no matter how populous the county was.
Reynolds vs. Sims screwed that political stability over.
You are correct. I was illustrating a proposal of my own. Sorry if I conflated the two.
Reynolds vs. Sims screwed that political stability over.
Yup, but I do wish State Senates worked off the principle of appointment by county boards of supervisors. County governments need representation at the State level just as States do at the Federal level.
So, I take it INVAR was appointed criminal prosecutor, judge, jury and executor of justice against the administration?
And this happened when, exactly, and by whom?
Funny, I don't remember ever voting for INVAR.
INVAR referring to his inappropriate use of the word "terrorist": "Semantics. You know what I meant."
Politics is all about "semantics" -- precise definitions and uses of words to distinguish right from wrong, fact from fiction, acceptable from not, etc.
So it's important to understand that in no sense of the word -- traditional or modern -- were our Founders "terrorists".
Yes, treasonous rebels against the Crown, for sure, but they were in the best sense of the word: Gentlemen, not "terrorists".
INVAR: "You haven't a freaking clue what time it is pal.
You have an incurable case of Normalcy Bias."
I know that some people would like to convince us it's again October of 1860 -- or even November 10, 1860 and if you know your history, you know why that date is important.
But November 10, 1860 was not the date Abraham Lincoln launched his invasion of the Confederacy, it was the date slave-holding secessionist Fire Eaters launched their assault on the United States.
It ended badly for them.
I'm merely here to warn you: don't repeat their mistakes.
INVAR: "Some things are with dying for.
I guess for you - the promise of safety and security is enough to placate."
Some of my ancestors served in every major US war, beginning with the Revolutionary War.
I volunteered and served years in the United States military during a time of war.
And you have done what, exactly?
INVAR: "We're soon to arrive at the latter portion of Churchill's statement, but not so for you.
Your end will be to perish AS a slave."
Now you're just blathering nonsense.
When I served, we stood ready to be called up for defense of military installations -- against violent attacks by the same crowd that now runs Washington, DC.
My, how times change.
They will change again, FRiend, lawfully, constitutionally, peacefully.
And unicorns poop skittle rainbows in your universe too.
Enjoy your servitude, I'm sure you will convince yourself you are free.
I know that I am free, whenever I have time to post comments on Free Republic, FRiend! Ha.
;-)
You make a good point. However, I’m not sure a county council would be sufficiently numerous enough to pick a state Senator the way a state legislature would pick a federal one. If I remember correctly, my county government used to be run by three elected commissioners, for example.
Furthermore, the intent of the Framers was for the states to have numerous and indefinite powers, so having both houses of the legislature democratically elected would not be so deadly to such an intent, the way the current Senate and House setup is to the Federal government’s intent of having enumerated, limited powers.
Of course, looking at states like California and Maryland, your way of doing things might be better after all. But you might want all elected county officers (councilmen, executive, sheriff, school board, etc.) to have a vote in picking a state Senator, not just the councilmen, to ensure a body of electors that is sufficiently numerous.
Short answer: yes.
No matter how you change the terms, they don’t represent the States, or they represent a district, yiptido!
Er ... Gesundheit?
There's always something odd about county government. ;-)
I don't see that as a problem. At least the people might take their local elections more seriously.
Of course, looking at states like California and Maryland, your way of doing things might be better after all. But you might want all elected county officers (councilmen, executive, sheriff, school board, etc.) to have a vote in picking a state Senator, not just the councilmen, to ensure a body of electors that is sufficiently numerous.
Those kinds of experiments are appropriate to the laboratory of Federalism.
I was just revisiting this thread and saw your post. I think it is insightful and an opportunity for the GOP. We didn’t just get here with Obama’s election. Government has been growing for a century and accelerating as we go.
The GOP could block grant a lot of the federal budget back to the states for their use...and leave it open ended. They can spend it on entitlements or pay down debt or reduce state taxes, etc.
They could also target “redundancy” by allowing states to enforce some regulations thereby eliminating centralized, national control and improving federalism - competition between the states.
What do you think?
Excellent rejoinder. Well done and well thought.
Block granting the money back to the states still results in redistribution. I can see the arguments both ways. On the one hand: White flight, Rustbelt flight, Sunbelt flight, urban flight, whatever, is unfair to the people left behind who can't flee. Therefore the federal government must tax the rich states to preserve the poor states. On the other hand: the destination states have pro-growth policies that attract those willing to work, have favorable tax policies that let workers keep more of their earnings, have right to work policies that attract business, have Republican leadership.
The GOP has a terrible time making these arguments.
I can't imagine the federal government ceding redundant powers back to the states to perform locally for two reasons: 1) they would have to cede the funds back as well for the states to afford it, 2) the federal government today is suing states to stop redundant efforts. Redundancy ultimately leads to political conflict.
The radical alternative is to drastically cut federal taxes and let the states increase state taxes, concurrent with a reduction in federal services that would now be assumed by the states. The natural Leftist argument is that it is just tax cuts for the rich. The Right argument should be that is pays for the localization of government services, but the governments providing the services are the states, not the feds.
The Left would then fall back to my first point that states like Michigan with cities like Detroit could never survive on their own without federal aid, while the Right would say that it was Democrat rule that killed the state in the first place and caused its citizens to flee. Again, the GOP would be terrible at making that argument.
Finally, the Left wants "equal protection" in all things, including state character. They want Texas to be like New York, Florida to be like California, Utah to be like Oregon. The thought that someone in Utah some day might not be able to get an abortion without having to travel to Oregon is horrifying to them, even if they never set foot in Utah in their entire lives. The thought that Texans might keep their earnings in Texas to be spent locally by Texas politicians is equally horrifying.
Today, Senators from California, Oregon, and New York can dictate spending in Utah, Texas, and Florida. The poor states are actually stronger when they band together as a national party bloc that can raid the rich states, through the people electing Senators who will toe the party line. I can't imagine states taking a predatory view towards other states if their Senators were appointed by their respective legislatures.
-PJ
Thanks for your kind words, much appreciated!
;-)
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.