Posted on 07/11/2013 12:21:54 PM PDT by Jacquerie
On Mark’s nationally syndicated show last night, he revealed the thrust of his soon-to-be launched Liberty Movement. He described once again how reform will not emerge from the men and women of the institutions responsible for the fast approaching demise of our society and republic.
If reform is to occur, it will only emerge from us, the sovereign people, the foundation of legitimate government. The vehicle for that reform will be the states, and the tool of reform is the constitutional amendment process of Article V.
He emphasized that neither of the two amendment processes of Article V provide for a constitutional convention to start over, to shake the etch-a-sketch clean. A state initiated convention would propose amendments and amendments only. IOW, Congress can and has proposed amendments, and the states can too, via the convention process. The states can call a convention to PROPOSE amendments, which, if agreed upon, are then sent to the states for three-fourths ratification, just as congressionally sourced amendments have been, from the first days of constitutional government. Says Mark, “This ladies and gentlemen, should extinguish the anxiety that the state convention process could hijack the constitution. It is impossible.”
As opposed to our colonial forebears, whose choices were either to live in tyranny or revolt, the Framers gave us a peaceful means by which to go over the heads of our oppressors. Our present situation is the reason they put it there. It is time to use it.
Mark has always emphasized bottom up conservatism. In that regard, his personal example should be an inspiration to us all. Since running and winning, at age 19 for a local school board seat, to his Landmark Legal Foundation battles with the Left, Mark doesn’t wait for superman to save his country.
Next month, Mark will release The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. I cannot, of course, say with certainty that he will ask each and every one of us to exercise our God given sovereignty and press our state assemblymen and senator to exercise their authority to halt our slide into despotism. However, given his life-long passion and efforts, his willingness to get down in the mud with despicable men, women and organizations bent on creating a utopian hell, I am confident we will be called to action.
What we must fight: One of the strengths of the Left is their top down organization. Obama can call up protests and other actions anywhere, anytime, as his taxpayer funded agencies, dependents, goons and union thugs dutifully respond to the outrage of the day. Throw in the indispensable “Jawohl! Mein Fuhrer” media, and the disorganized republicrats cringe and acquiesce.
So, knowing this and Mark’s past activism, perhaps I’m not going too far out a limb to wonder if he has not coordinated his full frontal assault with other talk show hosts, such as good friends Rush and Hannity. Would Palin be aboard? I think so. Jim DeMint of The Heritage Foundation? Others? Considering the forces arrayed against constitutional restoration, it would a waste of time for Mark to be the lone ranger in this quest.
For the naysayers, the freeper defeatists, the Walter Mitty minutemen, recall the twenty six or so states that opposed Obamacare; recall the six year and ongoing jihad by Eric Holder’s DOJ against state sovereignty regarding border security and voter integrity. The EPA is busy setting state industrial and environmental standards designed to cripple our economy. Bear in mind that power is a drug. A federal drug is one that our state reps could develop an addiction to. In addition to state concerns, why wouldn’t they lust for input regarding federal statutes, treaties and federal court nominees via the senators appointed by them?
There is a strong whiff of resistance in the air. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to assume the offense against the Left, rather than continued, seemingly eternal defense? While I don’t believe we should wait for superman, I think Mark Levin, like Patrick Henry in 1765, may provide the spark of resistance to escalating tyranny.
I’m all FOR killing the 17th!
Roger that.
Thank you for posting that summary for us, I was only able to listen to a short portion of last evening’s show.
Levin said that we're winning a majority of the state governments, but we're losing the national races. Okay, so let's create more state governments in order to get more/new players into the process.
Grow the Senate by adding new states. Grow the House by removing the cap that was based on the 1910 census. If the Supreme Court can overturn the Voting Rights Act because the map is drawn from 1970 data, then the House shouldn't be based on 1910 data.
-PJ
I do hold one caution however. Mark says “impossible” for the state's convention to make wholesale changes and I agree that the Constitution’s wording clearly makes that structural confinement. However, the original constitutional convention convened under the Articles of Confederation was not envisioned to have the power to do what they did at the time and they did it anyway.
History and not structural confines must be our guide and we need to go into this with our eyes wide open as to the possibilities and have an arsenal of forces prepared in these conventions if that is the route chose.
Right now there is no plan, only varying degrees of capitulation to the Federal beast. SCOTUS rules and the States melt and apologize for the demands of their residents because federal monies are still a lust most states cannot resist.
Part of the States plan can include the Amendments Mark will propose.
That is one of the only saving graces I think viable in Mark's idea. It's not going to prevent the civil breakdown and violence that is near to our doors. We are too far gone. Tyrants will not back down from their end-game. I have to wonder whether or not Patriots will back down from their goal when the threats manifests themselves personally.
What is distressing is the likelihood that there will be no coordination and violence and chaos will ensue.
That is inevitable at this point, regardless of whether Conservatives are united or not - which we ARE NOT. Violence and chaos has been planned from the beginning with the MarxoFascists. Create misery and then blame your political opponents for causing it.
Every Marxist regime come into power instigates violence in order to impose absolute rule to 'restore order'. We already have arrived at the fact there is no rule of law, only the rule of tyranny which is arbitrary.
Violence is coming. It's being stoked. The only variable is how many Americans are going to submit and allow themselves to be subjugated in order to get a promise of subsistence or the vain hope of being left alone.
Yes, I’ve heard it said of conservatives that getting them to coordinate is like herding cats. That’s what happens when you have lots of independent minded folks that like to be responsible for themselves, that’s good and as it should be.
But in times of war (and we are in a war), we need to “pull together”.
Mark 3:25
English Standard Version (ESV)
24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.
(Quoting Christ, not Abe Lincoln )
What are you getting at in that post? Don’t understand what you were saying there.
I addressed that possibility in post #32.
He has some VERY interesting ideas about possibilities if we live through to the other side.
http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/philosophy.html
I am hoping and praying some of Mark Levin’s ideas might turn the tide without violence and civil war. I’m just afraid we wont make it through if all that happens, because I think there is a real possibility we’ll be invaded from the south (Mexico, Central, S. America), East (Russia) and West (China). But anyway, if it happens, and if we survive without coming under some other dictatorship - his ideas are very thought provoking.
Mind you, I do not ask that they endorse it, or its findings, however it is news. They might even ask a representative or two to comment on it, or call for a Congressional inquiry.
Instead, deafening silence on the issue. Now, they have a chance to partially redeem themselves by covering the now-demonstrated DOJ involvement in anti-Zimmerman demonstrations. I hope they do that, not by wringing their hands and telling their devoted listeners how bad that is, but by telling their choir to GOYA and talk to their representatives.
i’d be interested in who you
are referring to-—
Hannity. Really just a GOP Xerox machine. Great show for middle age women with 5 cats.
Rush - Hasn’t even put out a book in 20 years. Wont even use his platform to organize anything, as he says it wont appear “genuine”.
Beck - Not as bad, but spends way too much time on sometime just strange stuff ....I cant even begin to understand what that Cirque Du Soleil (Man in the Moon) thing he had just put on was supposed to accomplish. Everything he does is going to be “history making” until it’s not.
Savage....Moving right along.
Coulter - All over the map, becoming more of a circus.
Toss in a whole slew of minor AM radio hosts that still think that a AM show is more effective than the internet, or always have something to sell you.
Mark Levin, Palin, Perry, Allen West, Cruz, the NRA, pro life groups, and FR with a few others are the only ones that seem to be trying to find some way to actively combat these people instead of just phoning it in for a check.
A powerful centralized government works out well for many powerful groups that despise states rights and the republic. It is one stop shopping for lobbyists, corporations, gloBULLists and the mainstream media. It is a real pain for them to cover 50 bases when all the real power is in on convenient place the District of Corruption, 2 places if you count New York and finances (which has become a side show anyway). This is what we are up against, fellow anti-federalists.
Ah, I see what you are saying now. Thanks. Hate to say but that is true. Most of the AM radio types are not leaders. Some are “thinkers” and do talk about issues in a way that brings things to the public, but their goal is not to lead, to help or to serve. We are deluding ourselves if we expect that.
I’m hoping Mark Levin will be the exception to this. Even if he’s only a political philosopher, he is quite a brilliant one, and maybe his ideas will inspire some servant-leaders with some ideas for action to move forward and set goals and rally the people who WANT to work toward saving this country.
The Articles of Confederation were more like a treaty among sovereign powers, the States.
If one state violated its obligations to another state, it would set a precedent for other states to do the same. The Articles in this sense were a failure.
When the Constitutional Convention came together the intent was to strengthen the AOC but it was quickly seen that a new structure was needed to enforce a constitution on all states.
Americans at the time of the AOC wanted interstate commerce to be uniform. The wanted their God given rights to be respected in every state.
So the AOC needed to be scrapped, a complete makeover was needed.
If a CC comes together in our time, it is highly unlikely that states could reinvent the US Constitution or scrap it altogether. The People in the flyover states do not want to grow government. They do not want socialism or the disease of Detroit from spreading into their emerging urban areas. So in effect People today (especially in flyover country) want to strengthen the original principles of limited government that formed the foundation of the original US Constitution.
So it’s a different intent and motivation that calls for a CC today. And because it is ratified at the State level (50 states), there is zero chance that a CC would install socialist or communist manifesto.
A CC today will give us:
1. An amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment. The 16th was never a people’s amendment nor beneficial to states. It about allowing the federal political class to suck wealth from free Americans.
2. An amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment OR a new amendment to allow state legislatures to recall their wayward US Senators would boost the 10th Amendment and bind US Senators to state interests.
3. An amendment to preserve the US dollar and to enact a process of governing its value.
4. A social amendment that prohibits the federal government from interfering in any religious belief that was prevalent at the time of the founding. New groups would not be able to circumvent or evade by defining themselves to be a religion. New proposed religions would be required to have a lead time before they were officially recognized by the US government by vote of 2/3s of both chambers of Congress. A marriage provision defining it to be between one man and one woman would fit in here.
5. An amendment to limit abuses of the commerce clause as Constitutional law professor Randy Barnett wrote about so well in the WSJ in 2011.
Don't forget that the ConFEDERAcy revived the idea of very sovereign states. The Confederate States were sovereign indeed. They were so sovereign that the confederated states didn't cooperate all that much in fighting the war, which effort was seriously hampered by their rivalry and independent-mindedness.
The COTUS got it about right, but is now being overthrown by rampant Federalism.
Unfortunately, the concept of states' rights has now got a very bad name because basically the Confederacy conflated states' rights with slavery. Too damn bad! States' Rights is now a code name for anti-Negro discrimination! So is "Secession."
So, the Left uses the concept of States' Rights as a weapon. The concept needs to be re-introduced. If the Republican governors would GOTA and conference, maybe progress toward re-establishing that balance could be re-established.
Our, OUR I say, representatives can cut the federal government down to size by simply refusing to pay for it. Their failure to promulgate a budget is a failure ... an anti-constitutional failure.
(1) These fellows preach to an already convinced choir.
(2) They are Obama-centric. That is they tell the audience over and over how bad things are under Obama, how bad Obama is, how bad the government is, how bad the complaisant Republicans are, how stupid the lo-info voter is.
(3) In short a message of despair; pure negativity. Not one of the VRWC Yakkers that I know of bothered to ask Romney what his Program or Plan was. (Not that Romney was a candidate one might wish for, but then again, this is a Two-Party system, and he would have been a lot better than what we got, IMO.)
(4) One result? 4 million Republican voters fail to show up at the polls. All the VRWC Yakkers on the air, and they couldn't get more people, including their fans, off the couch and into the booth?
(5) Several other posters are telling me that Levin is going to come forward to propose an actual Program, a Plan for getting the country back on track.
(6) That would be great, especially if he will spearhead a drive for states' rights against the tide of increasing federalism.
We are in for a period of upheaval. The two-party system has turned into a 1 1/2 party federal kleptocracy, and there is nothing of a concrete nature on the horizon to replace it.
The people are the source of reform, but remember that the elites are part of the people. How do you get them to support liberty?
It took a long time, but I have come around to James Madison's thinking about rights/powers. He agreed to push for what became the first ten amendments only under pressure from the Anti-Federalists who threatened to upset the operation of the new government.
Virginia had a famous Declaration of Rights which protected the people . . . until it didn't. It was from experience that Madison referred to bills of rights as parchment barriers. Nice, but effective only if the politicians could be convinced to respect them.
Madison emphasized pitting interest against interest, divided power to keep too much power from falling into too few hands. It was ONLY through state participation in the new government that our freedoms could be respected. I think history has shown that to be the general situation before the 17th.
Prior to the 17th, in whose hands did power rest? One president, 435 congressmen, 100 senators, a thousand(?) federal judges, PLUS thousands of state legislators. That situation divided power such that tyranny was next to impossible.
Power was so divided, and yes, among some dishonest, dirtbag politicians, yet the damage they could do to our liberties was minimized by the structure of the government.
Oh, and I would add we've had the same bill of rights since 1791. Have they secured our liberties? As Madison knew from experience parchment barriers are just that.
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.