Skip to comments.Vanity - Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments #1 Amazon and #1 Barnes and Noble
Posted on 08/20/2013 7:42:17 PM PDT by Perdogg
#1 in Books
#1 in Kindle
#1 in Audio Book
Barnes and Noble
#1 in Books
#1 in Nook
#1 in Audio Book
Is there hope for America?? Maybe so.
The great one!
Great! This thing is taking off.
I got mine in the mail today. Can’t wait to get started. Go Great One!!!
And I’m sure the sales of his book wasn’t hurt by Rush’s mention on his show ... LOL!
I bought the audio and the book version. I have a Nook but I don’t use it to read... yet.
thanks. just put myself in the wait queue at my local library.
It’s gonna kill the NYT to have add this to their best seller list.
Any numbers? Is the American public finally getting the picture? If Mark is right and enough of us break down the walls of RINOism, can his approach stop the ruination of America by the liberal elite, the media lapdogs and the commies in government.......May God give us strength!!!!
My book arrives Thurs. Looking forward to it.
just ordered my copy with George Washington: the crossing
I watched the Hannity special the other night and what stood out for me was not only what was said, but it was the exchange of ideas and rational, thought provoking debate.
We all should take a lesson from it.....
Ahem, that is geared to an earlier thread from today.
HOORAY Mark! GRRRRREAT news!
I would love to see a modern leading liberal mind
publish his or her vision for completing a liberal vision for america and the american public vote on which they support.
God bless Rush! God bless Hannity! And God BLESS Mark Levin.
This is exciting! And it goes beyond Mark Levin’s suggested anemdnets. It truly empowers We the People to rise above the Ruling Class.
Like Pandora’s Box, there’s no stopping it short of genocide. Even if all of our technology were suddenly shut down via EMP — too late for the Ruling Class.
With the ‘Han Man’ on board, with Rush on board, Levin’s concept has powerful backing. Wow!
If I were to buy a book, this would be IT.
And I think this concept will take off faster than Levin has envisioned.
I am really excited, but we must bear in mind the potential power play that the Left will attempt. Fuzzy memory alert:
Didn’t Elena [or Elana?] Kagan believe that no constitutional amendment can/should be passed without Supreme Sandwich approval?
If the Supreme Sandwich ‘court’ were to kangaroo itself into convention meddling, that offers a fig leaf for ruling class republicans [the beltway goons] to claim that once the Supremes rule, their decrees must be upheld.
It would be better to prevent such rubbish than to react post-coup.
The Supreme ‘court’ has no such power unless the republicans pretend that they do.
I caught this little bit:
“I was originally skeptical of amending the Constitution by the state convention process. I fretted it could turn into a runaway caucus. As an ardent defender of the Constitution who reveres the brilliance of the Framers, I assumed this would play disastrously into the hands of the Statists. However, today I am a confident and enthusiastic advocate for the process. The text of Article V makes clear that there is a serious check in place.
Whether the product of Congress or a convention, a proposed amendment has no effect at all unless ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof. . . . This should extinguish anxiety that the state convention process could hijack the Constitution.
After more research and reflection, the issue crystallized further. If the Framers were alarmed that states calling for a Convention for proposing Amendments could undo the entire undertaking of the Constitutional Convention, then why did they craft, adopt, and endorse the language? In Federalist 43, Madison considered both Article V amendment processes equally prudent and judicious.
He wrote, in part, That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It,
moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. . . . 27
There are other reasons for assuaging concerns. [snip]
It’s not like the federal government has ever violated the other amendments to the Constitution.
If Kagan gets her way and ‘convinces’ ruling class repbulicans that she has the power to veto amendments, then the political process melts down completely. The ability to amend the Constitution is the greatest political power we have. After that, we would be like the pathetic Greeks of Constantinople resorting to riots when tyranny gets too harsh.
We should be a bit like Athens and exile those who become too popular or powerful.
[Not sure if Levin has any of these suggestions.]
— We could allow more freedom in education for example. The Parent's Right of School Choice [and right of legal guardians].
The states could appoint a National Debate Host who can mandate that any professor, teacher, judge, or politician must participate in a fair-time public debate with a selected opponent. None of them could be imposed upon more than three times a year, for example, and no personal attacks are permitted, merely issues and philosophy, etc.
[I especially like the idea of wacko professors needing to actually debate someone on a level playing field.]
— We could incentivize drilling and refining.
— We could temporarily streamline the massive number of fuel blends that cause too much retooling in current refineries. [Lower gas AND diesel prices very quickly.]
— We could incentivize wood chip power plants rather than leaving wood to rot in our parks.
— We could mandate a ‘pajama patrol’ of minimal wage people to monitor drones that fly over the border [while at home]. Such workers could publicize what the drones sighted one week after the Feds have had a chance to react.
We could allow students to record everything said in class and publicize it without any legal danger. [I bet Hannity would like that one!]
— We could demolish the Ground Zero Victory Mosque.
— We could put congress critters back in their home states and home districts, away from the beltway lobbyist cesspool and closer to immediate feedback from constituents. [Modernize MOST — not all — congressional sessions to be web conferences.] Better to disperse them anyway in case of any hypothetical terror attack on DC.
— We could allow police to have temporary powers regarding teens wearing gang colors in troubled neighborhoods [a power that sunsets after, let's say, two years]. We could OVERRULE the Supreme Court regarding what humane treatment is for prison inmates. We could allow good samaritan doctors to volunteer their services to the needy [if the needy signs a waiver] to free the doctor from any lawsuit dangers. The same with substandard food given to the poor by stores or restaurants. Most food that's thrown away is safe to eat if boiled in a stew pot long enough. [Waivers once again signed by charity recipients.]
“We should be a bit like Athens and exile those who become too popular or powerful.”
Athens was a disaster. Not really their fault. It was an early experiment in democracy.
No, I don’t like Athenian ostracism at all. A patriotic exhile is badly missed. A skilled general being exiled would be tempted to go ‘Benadict Arnold’. And an exiled creep would seek revenge from overseas. All of those things happened to Athens.
Punishment via the Constituion and outside the law is a very delicate matter, one that this nation is probably not ready for. Better that we solve bigger problems first.
Debate, however, clears the air. I like the idea of a Mandatory Debate Exec, appointed by the states and term limited. And for the time being, restrict such debates to issues, philosphy, controvery. A further restriction should be only three times a year. And only our educators, politicians, and judges. Fair debate and public — but no personal attacks.
‘A further restriction should be only three times a year.’ for any one mandated individual.
I’ve been listing a few amendment ideas of my own — post 22. Also, we could amend to REDUCE VOTER FRAUD DADGUMMIT! I think a ‘purple finger’ is reasonable myself. And record everyone who walks in and out — stating his/her name to the recording as he/she passes.
Thank you. I read the preview on Amazon. That clinched my buying decision.
Impeachment of Federal Judges —I wonder if Levin covers this?
[Great thing about his idea is that we must all start learning to think outside the box. I’m starting now while I feel creative.]
Term limits are great [which he does suggest], but not enough IMHO.
Federal judges [including the supreme oligarchs] are NEVER impeached/removed for anti-constitutional opinions during rulings. That is absurd. And since DC doesn’t have the stomach for it, that power should be given to the state governments! [A collective supermajority after impeachment trial.] Perhaps each legislature [or a given state’s group of legislatures] should appoint a juror for a judicial impeachment trial-by-the-states. When a Federal justice/juror/oligarch is removed, then the key ruling that triggered that removal should be automatically overruled as unconstitutional. Judicial opinions prior to this amendment [such as Kelo] should also be considered for retroactive impeachment, even if the oligarch is retired or has passed away.
Uups — post 22 “But on the flip side, we could bypass the Beltway with this. Far beyond what Levin is suggesting.”
No it’s not. This is the BASIS of what he’s suggesting. Sorry everyone.
Just a few more ideas I’m throwing out there [not necessarily covered by the Great One, who probably would not like so many words in Constitution.]
We can have a lot of ideas/amendments that are removed from the Constutition after a number of years [such as my earlier idea of police powers reg. street colors for two years.]
States should also have the power to impeach/remove appointees in the Executive branch. Such as Eric Holder for example. Repeal Power to the States Option
State Repeal of Legislature
Another option is to allow the states to collectively repeal [Federal] legislation with a simple majority vote.
Added Power to the House Option:
Perhaps the People would not mind giving up direct vote of senators if the House had more power over the purse strings than it claims to have now. While we’re at it, bad legislation is currently too difficult to repeal. Perhaps the House should have line item veto powers on spending, and the power to repeal exhisting legislation. This could be countered by a 2/3rds opposition by the Senate.
For example, the House tries to repeal Obama-Care. But if 2/3rds of senators block the repeal, then it is blocked [and the creeps in the senate ‘out’ themselves]. But there’s always ‘two years from now’. If there’s a shift of just a few senate seats, then the repeal might succeed in a future session.
Thank God that Hillsdale College has been educating people so vigorously about the Constitution. Without that level of growth, we would not be ready for this. We need even more Constitutional studies, and frankly, the amnedment should include some kind of Constitution teaching for all public high school students to graduate. I’d personally like all high school students REQUIRED to watch 20 hours of Hillsdale Constitution videos before graduating, and to pass a test.
I would also like all high school students to be taught the ‘broken windows’ theory [basic economics], Milton Friedman’s series on economics, and the Silent Scream dadgummit. But maybe I’m being unreasonable with such ideas.
Voter fraud is now a joke.
Also, wile Levin has often disagreed with Chief Justice Marshall, but he should note that every word must be assumed to have meaning. Levin cited a “naturalization act”. Our President must a “natural born citizen” and not a “naturalized” citizen. Both the 1790 and 1795 Acts were signed by George Washington whose most respected legal source was Vattel’s “Law of Nations”. our first law book, the only book on Washington's desk on his first day as President in New York, and the common-law definition understood by John Jay and Washington when Washington, in 1787, request the change in the draft of the requirement for presidential eligibility from “citizen”, to “natural born citizen.”
Anyone repeating the smokescreen used by the left and by Levin, that “...it was never defined in the Constitution” should read Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, p37, Madison's letter explaining to a constituent, why it was essential that definitions in the Constitution would quickly render it meaningless because language is always evolving. Chief Justice Waite noted that reasoning concisely in his precedent-establishing definition, exactly the Vattel definition, but with citing Vattel, when he said “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.”
There is an amendment process prescribed within the Constitution, and it is not based upon mob rule or political expedience, both processes that can be purchased, as it appears our political parties have been purchased.
Also some debate on the perversion of amendments and national immorality here [down in the posts]
Also important distinction:
It’s NOT a “Constitutional Convention” ... It is a “Convention of the States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution.” — Tenacious 1
Article V Invocation — Is There a Better Way to do it?
Some amendment ideas refined better here: