Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Levin's 'Liberty Amendments' includes one that would promote judicial supremacy
America's Party News ^ | August 20, 2013 | Steve Schulin

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: amendments; courts; levin; liberty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: Steve Schulin

>> 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.


21 posted on 08/20/2013 2:37:18 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

>>Levin’s 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.


22 posted on 08/20/2013 3:42:18 AM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: generally
Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying

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.

23 posted on 08/20/2013 4:00:41 AM PDT by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist
Don't sweat the small stuff. 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.

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.

24 posted on 08/20/2013 4:41:01 AM PDT by taildragger (The E-GOP won't know what hit them, The Party of Reagan is almost here, hang tight folks....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.


25 posted on 08/20/2013 4:43:30 AM PDT by USCG SimTech (Honored to serve since '71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

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.


26 posted on 08/20/2013 4:58:46 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

...”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.”...

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.


27 posted on 08/20/2013 5:47:00 AM PDT by jazzlite (esat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

I like the guy, but I wish the country could see the dangers of an overarching government, no matter who is in charge.


28 posted on 08/20/2013 6:58:03 AM PDT by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

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.


29 posted on 08/20/2013 10:30:53 AM PDT by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rottndog; All
At the very least, having the national debate could wake enough people up so we can start to pull things in the right direction.

Exactly!

30 posted on 08/20/2013 11:06:59 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist; All
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.

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.

31 posted on 08/20/2013 11:15:11 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: central_va; All
Amendments 16 and 17 “broke” the Constitution, doing the head in the sand isn’t going to take that fact away.

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.

32 posted on 08/20/2013 11:26:25 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

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.


33 posted on 08/20/2013 11:51:53 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
The 16th and 17th Amendments didn't give Congress new powers that they essentially didn't already have.

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.

34 posted on 08/20/2013 12:40:21 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

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%.


35 posted on 08/20/2013 1:12:57 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: central_va; All

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.

36 posted on 08/20/2013 2:54:43 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist; All
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.

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.

37 posted on 08/20/2013 3:08:15 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
The 16th and 17th Amendments didn't give Congress new powers that they essentially didn't already have.

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.

-PJ

38 posted on 08/20/2013 3:21:53 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

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?


39 posted on 08/20/2013 3:23:31 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too; All
Please see short post (#36) to central_va. Here's a link that should at least get post on your screen.
previous post

40 posted on 08/20/2013 3:28:57 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson