Skip to comments.Mark Levin's 'Liberty Amendments' includes one that would promote judicial supremacy
Posted on 08/19/2013 10:03:35 PM PDT by Steve Schulin
One of the proposed Constitutional amendments in Mark Levin's new book specifies that Congress can overturn a Supreme Court opinion. But the amendment also specifies that if, within 24 months, Congress doesn't so overturn a Supreme Court opinion, then the opinion becomes definitive. It's that last part that seems a big step in the wrong direction to me.
Under the current Constitution, a Mayor, County Executive, Governor or President's duty to support the Constitution would not be defined by a court opinion or by Congress. But under Mr. Levin's proposed amendment, executives would have to let these other branches tell him what the Constitution means. The Constitution is clear, for example, in specifying that no person shall be deprived of their life without due process. Roe v Wade opinion denies the personhood of a whole group of persons. If the Supreme Court were to repeat that aspect of the opinion after Mr. Levin's proposed amendment took effect, and if Congress remained silent on the matter for two years, we'd be stuck with a (mis)interpretation of the Constitution which involves alienating the unalienable right to life.
I'm glad that Mr. Levin is trying to get We the People to restore much of what has been lost over many decades. But this one particular amendment strikes me as being worse than the most onerous transgressions he so appropriately castigates.
(Excerpt) Read more at americaspartynews.com ...
At the end, all of this comes down to the people paying attention to what is going on around them and making the decision as to what they want. Do they want radicals moving into their communities and taking over their HOA’s, city councils, school boards. Before they know it, people are saying, What the F**k.
If they were paying attention, alot of this wouldn’t be happening.
So, today Congress (or anyone) *cannot* overturn? But in Levin’s setup there is a two-year window in which to overturn?
How exactly is it you see that as a step in the wrong direction?
It isn’t as for now a Supreme Court decision can only be overturned by another SCOTUS decision.
Levin’s proposals are intended for discussion and debate.
The point made here is worthy of discussion and debate. The proposed provision seems unnecessary to me. I for one do not want Supreme Court decisions ever made irrevocable.
The Governor of Maryland a couple of years ago ordered executive agencies to recognize same-sex marriages, despite the state law specifying that the only marriages recognized in Maryland were those between one man and one woman. I disagree with him about same-sex marriage, but I very much agree that if the chief executive sees a law or court decision as unconstitutional, he still has a duty to support the Constitution.
Nothing *trumps* the Constitution, and this wouldn’t either. far as I can see, this doesn’t add anything new to the process except that a scotus opinion can, in egregious cases, be overturned inside a two-year window.
No legislation from the bench, only interpretation of the Constitution.
Are you looking to give the President some new legislative powers, fitting with Hoefling’s vision? The President is bound by the Constitution, same as scotus.
Why the hell even have three branches of govt. Do away with the SC and just have the executive and congress. Come to think of it, why the hell even have two branches. Just have the executive.
Just get on board, get to 34 states and limit government back to the intent of the founders. If we get that done it will be easy to change small details later.
The problem with the Constitution, imo, is actually PC interpretations of the Constitution that have been accumulating for 100+ years as a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers. This division of powers is evidenced by the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment.
And speaking of Article V, regarding Levin's suggestion to give corrupt Congress the constitutional authority to essentially veto Supreme Court decisions, please consider the following.
When state lawmakers actually understood the Constitution that they swear to protect and defend, they knew that they could essentially overturn Supreme Court decisions by ratifying an appropriate amendment to the Constitution. In fact, the 11th, 16th and 19th amendment are examples of the states doing just that.
So Levin seems to have overlooked that the Founding States did include a constitutional mechanism, Article V, to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Again, if it's not broke, then don't "fix" it.
And a "practical" constitutional mechanism that Levin also seems to have overlooked to repeal Obamacare is the following. If patriots and former Obama supporters can elect a 2/3 conservative majority to both Houses of Congress in 2014, then Congress will have the constitutional authority to do the following. Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I gives a congressional supermajority the power to override presidential vetoes. In other words, Clause 2 would give Congress the power to repeal Obamacare, for example, without Obama's signature.
Finally, let's not forget that the only reason that the corrupt media gives DC so much attention is because of all the 10th Amendment-protected state powers that corrupt Congress has stolen from the states, powers which most federal laws are actually based on. In fact, if patriots were to get low-information voters up to speed on the constitutional reality that one of the few powers that the states have actually delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, to regulate intrastate commerce is control of postal services (Clause 7 of Section 8 of Article I), then voters could put a stop to the present tsunami of illegal federal taxes and lose interest in DC for the most part.
Constitutionally enlightened citizens would then need to learn to deal with their state governments for government spending programs as the Founding States had intended, instead of dealing the the federal government.
Or to sell books.
It’s not the Constitution that’s broke...it’s the Republic. Our elected leaders in DC refuse to abide by it, to the extent that we are no longer a Constitutional Republic, and haven’t been for decades now.
As Levin says, Washington will not fix itself. The country is so far gone, perhaps irretrievably so.
Going the Article V route may be an extraordinary measure, but we are in extraordinary times.
At the very least, having the national debate could wake enough people up so we can start to pull things in the right direction.
A 2 year window to overturn a SC ruling is infinitely better than the judicial tyranny now in place....
I hate to be rude but you are hopelessly lost. The states can't overturn anything by "ratifying" an amendment because the states don't get to ratify an amendment unless it's first PROPOSED by congress. The congress is not going to propose a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment or an amendment to overturn Obamacare or anything else that would limit their power.
An article five convention exists so the STATES can propose amendments then put them before a vote of the people to be ratified.
The problem is that Article I says that each chamber of Congress can make its own rules. This also means that no Congress can bind a future Congress with laws that can't be undone. I don't think that Levin meant this amendment to bind future Congresses, or this amendment would become a de facto power of the Court to write the rules of Congress.
Admittedly, this is quick thinking on my part, and in another 24 hours I might have other thoughts on the matter.
i was of the understanding that Congress could right any judicial wrong/decision and that of the Executive.
I very much agree that the President and Supreme Court are both bound by the Constitution. And I agree with the logic stated in Marbury v Madison opinion that each official has the duty to support the Constitution. It seems like many folks think Marbury v Madison opinion elevates the Court to be the supreme interpreter of the Constitution. I'm very disappointed that Mr. Levin would propose to turn that misconception into reality.
If that's the case, then it goes a long way toward easing my concerns. In fact it seems quite reasonable that Congress would have a window of time available for their action, failing which the issue would be closed for them - but not for future Courts.
I hope he sells lots of this one.
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.