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.
>> then the opinion becomes definitive.
Is the “opinion” not definitive immediately upon ruling subject to an appeal?
The ‘Liberty Amendments’ is a starting point. Levin is not attempting to explicitly lay down new law.
>>Levins proposals are intended for discussion and debate.
This is an important point.
Disagreement with one or several of Levin’s proposals doesn’t mean they are without merit or could not be improved. I think they are a step in the right direction.
Levin is a lawyer himself, and as a lawyer, I’d expect he might have a pro-judiciary branch bias. (I could be wrong. But in general we each see things from our own vantage point, colored by our own experiences. Personally, I see most lawyers and judges as corrupt, petty, biased, and as using the legal system to advance their personal agendas, punish those they dislike, and reward those they favor.)
But the point is, the path we have been on for a long time now is veering far from what the framers described in the Constitution. Levin’s suggestions, as a whole, are steps to rectify that.
They are worthy of serious consideration and debate. I may not agree 100% with every detail, but I’d rather adopt them all in order to drastically improve this country than to nitpick at them and allow us to be divided and thus let the socialists continue further on their path of destruction.
By Mark Levin
Conservative talk radio host, lawyer, and frequent National Review contributor Mark R. Levin comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court in Men in Black, accusing the institution of corrupting the ideals of America's founding fathers. The court, in Levin's estimation, pursues an ideology-based activist agenda that oversteps its authority within the government. Levin examines several decisions in the court's history to illustrate his point, beginning with the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, wherein the court granted itself the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional.
Here here, bravo for getting it.
Yes imagine Tea Partiers writing, talking, to their representatives and neighbors to promote all of Marks Ideas in a Tar-ball for a vote @ the State Level.
I am a Michigander, but I would Love to see Texas do this in a expidited fashion.
The "community organizers" on the left may not have a trump card to stop this, and that is delicious.
Need a constitutional amendment to assert a 4th branch of government. The US Armed Forces, along with the joint chiefs of staff are NOT chosen solely by any one other branch. Must come up through the ranks.
Amendments 16 and 17 “broke” the Constitution, doing the head in the sand isn’t going to take that fact away. The Constitution is a failed document and hasn’t prevented the Federal tyranny our founders tried to prevent. Deal with reality.
...”Its not the Constitution thats broke...its the Republic. Our elected leaders in DC refuse to abide by it, to the extent that we are no longer a Constitutional Republic, and havent 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.”...
I started reading Levin’s book last night and find it refreshing and fascinating, especially the parts where he quotes the concerns of Ben Franklin and others regarding such a time as we find ourselves in today when power hungry men and women have ripped up our Constitution and enslaved the population for their own self aggrandizement as career politicians. The Founders had seen what narcissists had done to populations throughout history and they were trying to form a government which would prevent that in future times. I agree that Levin may have brought about a national debate which might light a fire under true patriots.
I like the guy, but I wish the country could see the dangers of an overarching government, no matter who is in charge.
I like your comment, but I can’t see how it relates to what Levin (and others) are trying to accomplish.
Levin isn’t running for President, after all; his personality or whether you or I “like” him personally is most irrelevant; what Levin (and others) are trying to do is rein in the federal Leviathan (i.e. an overarching government), no matter who is in charge.
That ought to please you.
Please read the Constitution's Article V. Even Levin pointed out that the Founding States wrote Article V so that the states could propose an amendment to the Constitution essentially independently of Congress.
Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States (emphasis added), shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The 16th and 17th Amendments didn't give Congress new powers that they essentially didn't already have.
As I ranted in my previous post, the reason that the Constitution is "broke," as you put it, is because many generations of parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers. Consequently, low-information voters don't understand that the federal government is wrongly making laws, such as Obamacare, based on powers which the states have never delegated to the feds via the Constitution.
I do think the left has a trump card and they are desperate to use it. That card is amnesty. If they get amnesty it becomes difficult if not impossible to get the 34 states needed to trigger a convention. I believe the growing support for an article 5 convention is why the establishment has such a sense of urgency for amnesty.
Look if you really "feel" that way we have nothing to discuss. The progressives of the early 20th century knew what they were doing, how to destroy the republic, and their useful idiots still exit today.
Ok now I’m lost. Is that not what we are talking about here? The government is out of control and has become corrupt. An article 5 convention has never been used to propose a change to the constitution. This is exactly what mark is proposing and I support this approach 100%.
Given the remote possibility that you haven't seen the following about Congress's power to lay taxes, you might find it interesting. Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So regardless of the 16th and 17th Amendments, members of Congress obligate themselves by oath to comply with Congress's Section 8-limited powers, including complying with case precedents which limit those powers.
First, are you familiar with Congress's Section 8, Article I-limited powers?
Next, I think that patriots should work to have federal lawmakers and justices who have not upheld their oaths to defend the Constitution impeached before we resort to amending the Constitution. This is why I've been noting that patriots and former Obama supporters need to elect a Congress controlled by a supermajority of conservatives in 2014. Such a Congress will have the constitutional autherity to clean up DC without Obama's signature.
The 17th amendment took off the leash that restrained the Senate. The de facto power that the Senators got was longevity.
And a campaign warchest worth millions in influence of others.
Levin’s effort should be respected. His proposals deserve consideration. It’s unlikely that we will be permitted to hold another Constitutional Convention, but who knows?
The campaign warchest is not a trivial thing. Senators in "safe" states use this money to fund sycophants in the House through campaign donations. That is a powerful power from the 17th.
Eliminate the 17th amendment, and you eliminate the need to raise campaign funds, since the elections go away. It will be harder for Senators to be kingmakers.
The reason that people contribute to federal campaigns in the first place is probably because they have never been taught that one of the few powers that the feds actually have to regulate intrastate commerce is to regulate postal services. And corrupt candidates for federal office probably don't think twice about promising low-information voters federal government programs to get themselves elected, programs which the federal government actually has no constitutional authority to regulate, tax and spend for.
As a side note concerning talk about term limits, I understand that before 17A was ratified that some states had problems finding citizens who were willing to be federal senators.
Finally, I will support repeal of 16&17. But let's not miss possible 2014 opportunity to elect conservative congressional supermajority to clean up mess in DC in the meanwhile.
While I do support certain amendments to the existing Constitution: the repeal of the ill-advised, ill-conceived Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and the inclusion of a provision protecting one man-one woman marriage, to name three - only one of which Levin mentions, I believe - I think there is something infinitely more important: and that is electing representatives who will actually keep their sacred oaths to support and defend the Constitution we've already got. You can amend the document until kingdom come, but what does it matter if they won't follow it anyhow?
-- George Washington
"[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths ... ?"
-- George Washington
God bless you abundantly, my FRiend.
The Federal Government has reached the saturation point with dishonest people. It can't be reformed through the normal electoral process. Fully sixty percent or more of the congress would have to be replaced which is impossible because the framers designed the system to change slowly.