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 1-2021-4041-45 next last
America's Party was formed in 2007, after John McCain had won enough delegates to secure the GOP presidential nomination. All of good will are encouraged to join in on our real town hall style conference calls every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday night starting at 9 pm eastern. Dial in to 712-432-3566 code 340794#
1 posted on 08/19/2013 10:03:35 PM PDT by Steve Schulin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

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.


2 posted on 08/19/2013 10:18:27 PM PDT by qaz123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

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?


3 posted on 08/19/2013 10:20:26 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Obama: the bearded lady of Muslim Brotherhood))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

It isn’t as for now a Supreme Court decision can only be overturned by another SCOTUS decision.


4 posted on 08/19/2013 10:33:02 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

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.


5 posted on 08/19/2013 10:40:59 PM PDT by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade
Under the current Constitution, the courts do not trump the other branches when it comes to supporting the Constitution. In every jurisdiction, for example, I'd like to see candidates for Mayor, County Executive, Governor and President who explain to voters why the littlest persons -- children in the womb -- are protected by the Constitution no matter what Roe v Wade opinion asserts to the contrary. And then, if those candidates are elected, they should put their understanding into action. I voted for the FReeper Eternal Vigilance (Tom Hoefling) for President in 2012, in part because he had a plan to support the constitution, using the lawful powers of the presidency, to shut down every abortion facility in the nation. Levin's proposed amendment would likely eliminate the lawful ability of the President to act as Tom Hoefling said he would.

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.

6 posted on 08/19/2013 10:41:36 PM PDT by Steve Schulin (Cheap electricity gives your average Joe a life better than kings used to enjoy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

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.


7 posted on 08/19/2013 10:50:23 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Obama: the bearded lady of Muslim Brotherhood))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

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.


8 posted on 08/19/2013 10:54:20 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin
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.

9 posted on 08/19/2013 10:55:44 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
I for one do not want Supreme Court decisions ever made irrevocable.

Nothing in the proposed amendment, as I read it, prevents a future court from reversing a SCOTUS decision. If congress failed to overturn a decision within the 2 year time frame, a future court would not be prohibited from doing so.
10 posted on 08/19/2013 10:58:09 PM PDT by rottndog ('Live Free Or Die' Ain't just words on a bumber sticker...or a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin; All
I disagree in general with Levin that we need to amend the Constitution for anything at this time; if it's not broke then don't "fix" it. I think that Levin just likes being in the limelight like other so-called celebrity conservatives.

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.

11 posted on 08/19/2013 11:06:19 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Or to sell books.


12 posted on 08/19/2013 11:16:26 PM PDT by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

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.


13 posted on 08/19/2013 11:19:07 PM PDT by rottndog ('Live Free Or Die' Ain't just words on a bumber sticker...or a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

A 2 year window to overturn a SC ruling is infinitely better than the judicial tyranny now in place....


14 posted on 08/19/2013 11:24:54 PM PDT by freebilly (Creepy and the Ass Crackers....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
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. "

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.

Good Grief!

15 posted on 08/19/2013 11:33:20 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin
I think the issue is that "definitive" means not relitigated again and again. Lower courts accept the ruling instead of looking for new cases to get the results they wanted.

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.

-PJ

16 posted on 08/19/2013 11:57:36 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 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

i was of the understanding that Congress could right any judicial wrong/decision and that of the Executive.


17 posted on 08/20/2013 12:10:43 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade
No new powers are needed for the chief executive in any jurisdiction to say that the 14th Amendment clearly prohibits depriving any person of their life without due process, and that it is also clear that the current practice of allowing a whole category of persons to be deprived of their lives without due process is unconstitutional. No new powers are needed for the chief executive in any jurisdiction to order executive branch officials to do everything in their power to ensure that this unconstitutional depriving of life be stopped.

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.

18 posted on 08/20/2013 12:14:10 AM PDT by Steve Schulin (Cheap electricity gives your average Joe a life better than kings used to enjoy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
If congress failed to overturn a decision within the 2 year time frame, a future court would not be prohibited from doing so.

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.

19 posted on 08/20/2013 2:23:56 AM PDT by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

I hope he sells lots of this one.


20 posted on 08/20/2013 2:25:58 AM PDT by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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