Skip to comments.Mark Levin: A Modern-Day Constitutional Prophet
Posted on 08/23/2013 9:56:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
When Mark Levin decided to write his book "The Liberty Amendments" to advocate a convention to propose a series of amendments to the U.S. Constitution, he may not have realized how quickly and deeply his profound idea would resonate. But throughout the nation, people are inclining their ears.
The first obstacle Levin faced was the widespread misconception that he is calling for a constitutional convention that could be hijacked by enemies of our founding principles and converted into a forum to hammer the final nails into our constitutional republic by fundamentally and radically changing our founding document.
In fact, Levin's proposal couldn't be more at odds with that misperception. He is, first and foremost, a constitutionalist. His goal is neither to eradicate nor to substantially change the Framers' blueprint for government. It's to restore it with specific, defined amendments intended to re-establish the proper balance between the power of the government and the liberty of its citizens, with due emphasis on the latter.
Levin is not arrogantly presuming to improve on the ineffable work of the Framers in crafting "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man" but humbly calling on his fellow patriots to recognize that we have strayed from the principles they enshrined in the Constitution and join him in his effort to advance the necessary correctives.
The Framers didn't meet in Philadelphia in the 18th century with the burning desire to pass super-legislation to codify an ideological political agenda to establish fundamental rights in health care or education, and they certainly didn't want to guarantee, by law, certain economic outcomes.
They met ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation and ended up scrapping it entirely and replacing it with our Constitution.
They were determined to design a system of government that would maximize individual liberties. That would require establishing a government strong enough to protect citizens from domestic and foreign threats but no stronger than that, for they knew that historically, unchecked, tyrannical governments had been the enemies of freedom.
Their challenge was to find that optimal balance between the power of government and individual liberties, so they created a system that divides and diffuses power between the national and state governments (through a system of federalism) and between coequal, competing branches of the federal government (the separation of powers), which hold one another in check.
It was not the affirmative granting of rights that would establish liberties -- many meaningless constitutions have paid lip service to that endeavor -- but the imposition of defined, specific and enforceable limitations on the federal government.
We must not lose sight of the fact that their overarching concern was liberty, an idea that gets little attention today -- apart from conservatives, constitutionalists and tea party patriots.
What constitutionalists understand is that upholding the integrity of the Constitution and its designed system of limited government is essential to preserving our liberties, and usurpations of power by all three branches of government and by an out-of-control, unaccountable administrative bureaucracy have imperiled them. Constitutionalists abhor abuses of power by any and all branches, irrespective of the substantive political agenda being served by such usurpations.
When King Josiah found a copy of the Jewish law in the Temple, which was being restored in 621 B.C., he was mortified by the extent to which the nation had departed from its teachings. He called for rededication to the law and a revival of its presence in the lives of the people.
Mark Levin is a modern-day constitutional prophet whose purpose is not to revamp the Constitution. It is to revive it and refurbish it -- to restore the cracks in its foundation caused by lawless officials through the years who were more interested in guaranteeing outcomes than they were liberty.
The goal of every one of Mark's proposed amendments is to restore the delicate balances the Framers originally designed; it is to restate and revivify the system of limited government they established by replacing bricks in specific places in our constitutional foundation -- bricks that statists have forcibly dislodged over time.
The sagacious and prescient Framers knew that no matter how well they crafted the Constitution, no matter what kind of protections it included, it would always be vulnerable to the abuses of lawless men who simply refuse to honor its provisions. They also understood that experience would enlighten their successors as to possible pitfalls and weaknesses in the framework that could be breached by such scofflaws over time, so they provided specific methods for amending the Constitution to shore up those trouble spots -- always keeping in mind that preserving liberty was the greatest imperative.
Today's statists have no regard for the Constitution or rule of law and have severely weakened it in many places, and as a result, our liberty, our prosperity and our very nation are in decline and in grave jeopardy.
Mark Levin is calling on us to take corrective steps -- through a process anticipated and expressly sanctioned by the Framers, no less -- to restore our system and reinvigorate our liberties. Let's pray his effort becomes an inexorable movement that sweeps the nation like the Great Awakening.
Speaking very well of Mark’s new book.
"The first obstacle Levin faced was the widespread misconception that he is calling for a constitutional convention that could be hijacked by enemies of our founding principles and converted into a forum to hammer the final nails into our constitutional republic by fundamentally and radically changing our founding document.
In fact, Levin's proposal couldn't be more at odds with that misperception. "
Opens a convention none-the-less and once it's open ....
However, considering that half of the reps do not share even one hair of our Founder's thinking, any attempt to change the Constitution or to improve it at this point will only end in a huge mess. Much like the French Revolution where competing philosophies created utter chaos.
The only way to restore it is for people to wake up. We need a huge come-to-Jesus moment.
I'd assume also he'd demand strict adherence to it (Where IS that Roe v Wade?)
Once it’s opened, its agenda is controlled by the Chair and by the delegates. There is no reason to believe that they will let the left wing hijack the convention into a marxist circus. And if they do, the conservatives simply walk out.
Better yet, since there are no rules establishing what such a convention looks like, establish it so that each state’s legislature is accorded an equal number of delegates. Don’t let the liberal strongholds be over-represented.
Whom chooses the chair and delegates ?
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group.
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago.
There is no hard rule on how the delegates are chosen. I think the architects of the convention can decide that. It would be one of the things the state legislatures voted on when deciding whether to call the convention.
Once convened, I would assume the delegates — either by a floor vote or committee — would select the Chair.
While those may be useful guidelines, neither is a binding document. The architects of the convention are free to propose whatever structure they choose.
There is no reason to believe that they will let the left wing hijack the convention into a marxist circus.
Which they will try to and often do.....
-OR- plan for and accomplish a hijack in the opposite direction...
Then the liberals walk out exposing themselves as the fascists they are..
Truth is “blue” states will never go for this.. never..
They are so brain washed.. the very concept of States “rights” is abhorrent to them..
They are indeed “the Borg”.. the collective Hive is home...
There is no living with the Borg.. it’s their way or the Highway..
BUT this gathering COULD organize freedoms forces..
A tool to start the conversation... and advance it..
The leftist will stay just to find a way to “Snark” it..
The “red” States MUST FORM a Coalition a block...
This could be the start of that..
Some states are barely blue others are completely blue..
A line must be drawn... the Hive -OR- FREEDOM..
This conversation HAS NEVER BEEN HAD!... Ever!..
IT’s TIME!.. NOW....
Socialism -OR- Capitalism a mix will NEVER WORK...
They are anti-thesis of each other.. total enemies..
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
The goal of socialism is communism. -V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism .-Karl Marx
Many here are missing a basic point: The convention cannot modify the Constitution. It can only propose amendments. Any amendment proposed still must be ratified. No left-wing progressive rewrite would ever be ratified.
Why would anyone believe the idiots that don’t follow the current Constitution would follow new amendments?
You need to read the book.
True. There are no precedents to follow because weve never held an Amendments Convention under the Constitution. Two centuries of case law have left so many tangled gray areas in the entire amendatory process. I dont necessarily agree with the conclusions of the ABA Report, but at least the commissioners were thorough and conscientious in identifying all the gray areas. In that, at least, it is a treasure trove of information.
The architects of the convention are free to propose whatever structure they choose.
They can propose, but that doesnt mean their proposals will carry the day.
Heres the problem. Two Supreme Court decisions Dillon v. Gloss in 1921, and Coleman v. Miller in 1939 ended up giving Congress wide latitude in regulating the amendatory process, provided such regulation does not contravene the words of Article V itself.
From 1967 to 1991, three senators, Dirksen of Illinois, Ervin of North Carolina and Hatch of Utah, proposed legislation regulating all aspects of an Amendments Convention. This included timeliness of petitions, relevance of petitions, selection of delegates and conduct of the convention. What prevented these bills from becoming law was a lack of urgency. Dirksen had first proposed his bill when it appeared that there might be enough states on board to request a convention repealing the Supreme Courts One Man/One Vote decision. The possibility of a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment drove Ervin and Hatch. Because of those two Supreme Court precedents, Congress believed it had the right to regulate an Amendments Convention.
Does it really?
I question whether it does, but those precedents are there, and so is the will of Congress to act.
How will it play out?
If two-thirds of the states request a general convention to discuss Levins proposals, Congress will feel enough urgency to legislate standards for the convention. Then a number of state attorneys general will go into federal court making your arguments that an Amendments Convention is the property of the states and that Congress has no say in the matter. (I concur with that position.) Eventually the Supreme Court will either expand the Dillon and Coleman precedents to give Congress the power to regulate a convention, or the Court will limit those precedents and take Congress, partially or totally, out of the process.
How will the Court rule?
I dont know. I simply recognize that the decision we want may not be the decision we get.
"Moreover, the state legislatures determine . . . the method for selecting their delegates; and the subject matter of the convention. In addition, Congress's role in the state application process is minimal and ministerial."
Bottom line: The progressive institutions and people who drove our once republic into the dirt, and profit very well from it, have no interest in republican restoration. It is a waste of time to focus all our attention to DC. Much more of our efforts should be directed at state assemblymen and senators. Send them Mark's book and explain how the salvation of the grand experiment called America is in their hands.
I wouldn't DARE call for a CC with the political make-up of our houses
You have a book already? Outstanding!
“Heres the problem. Two Supreme Court decisions Dillon v. Gloss in 1921, and Coleman v. Miller in 1939 ended up giving Congress wide latitude in regulating the amendatory process, provided such regulation does not contravene the words of Article V itself.”
They are slick little devils aren’t they, those progressives? They get people tied up in mental knots.
No court in this nation has jurisdiction over people getting together and discussing constitutional amendments. No way, period. States can get the process started until freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are taken away.
If Congress ‘bans’ an amendment, rename it and keep talking. Nuts to them!
Ping. [Thank you, Jacquerie.]
“There is no reason to believe that they will let the left wing hijack the convention into a marxist circus. And if they do, the conservatives simply walk out.”
We are holding an informal ‘convention’ here-and-now IMHO. All we need is people willing to consider amendments. That’s it. No matter what happens to the bouncing balls that the Ruling Class tries to distract us with, we can still be pro-active about amendments. They might hijack the first attempted convention. Like you said — that would be a ‘nothing convention’ and we keep rolling out conservative ideas that might be wildly popular.
I believe that Article I Section 6 prevents sitting House and Senate members from being delegates to an Article V Amendment Convention, regardless of what the ABA report says.
I understand that they are not the only "politicians" in DC.
“Truth is blue states will never go for this.. never..”
What about a ‘property rights’ amendment? Do you think that people in Blue States like Kelo? I have faith in most people to have at least that much sense. We will find chinks in those blue states, and their legislators will end up needing to defend Kelo to them. Ha!
Members of Congress as Delegates
We cannot discern any federal constitutional bar against a member of Congress serving as a delegate to a national constitutional convention. We do not believe that the provision of Article I, Section 6 prohibiting congressmen from holding offices under the United States would be held applicable to service as a convention delegate. The available precedents suggest that an office of the United States must be created under the appointive provisions of Article II or involve duties and functions in one of the three branches of government which, if accepted by a member of Congress, would constitute an encroachment on the principle of separation of powers underlying our governmental system. It is hard to see how a state-elected delegate to a national constitutional convention is within the contemplation of this provision. It is noteworthy in this regard that several delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were members of the Continental Congress and that the Articles of Confederation contained a clause similar to Article I, Section 6.
We express no position on the policy question presented, or on the applicability and validity of any state constitutional bars against members of Congress simultaneously serving in other positions.
For reference, below is the text of Article I Section 6 Clause 2:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
The quote from the ABA report is deceptive in its missing language. They refer to an "office of the United States," but the actual language is a "civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created." If it is Congress that calls for the Constitutional Convention, how can that body NOT be a civil office under the authority of both the Congress that called it, and the Article V provision that authorizes its existence?
If it is, in fact, a body under the authority of the United States, then Congressmen cannot be delegates unless they first resign their Article I seats in order to participate in an Article V convention.
I have faith in most people[blue states] to have at least that much sense.
I do not... Logic has nothing to do with it people... believe what they want to believe..
The Yellow Brick Road.. some want a heart, some want a state of mind, others want utopia..
All searching for the Wizard of Oz..
They found him.. you know...... in Barry Half-White..
They are happily “his bitches”... some are “Ho’s” but all are Skanks..
Frankly, I think it's time to stop talking about this convention and start petitioning our state legislatures to vote on it. And I think one of the first issues on the amendment menu must be the definition of marriage as a monogamous, heterosexual institution. Then we can worry about repealing the 17th (and ultimately, the 16th) amendments. And ...
I like your way of thinking. Building on your thinking, how about this?
The first amendment we should propose is this:
Under God Amendment
We the People declare that we are One Nation under God and we ask the Almighty to forgive us our sins and guide us.
People are eager for economic and freedom solutions. But then later this more fleshed-out amendment could be further down the list of the Convention:
Religion and Tradition Amendment
All classrooms and all court rooms must reverently mount a copy of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule near their front doors.
All states are free to pass and enforce laws that call for the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each school day with the words, “Under God”, included.
The sacred bond of marriage is between a man and a woman. No redefinition of that bond is recognized in the United States of America.
Military personnel have a reasonable freedom to exercise their religion except during covert operations in terrority hostile to their religion. Personnel may sign waivers to abstain from visible religious symbols in such hostile territory if it is diplomatically essential, but no member of the Armed Forces may sign or promise to sign such a waiver until the operation is eminent, nor may such a member be penalized or mistreated for refusing to sign such a waiver. [Temporary note — not only is it far, it is also essential that many of our fighting forces be God-fearing.]
But such freedoms come at their own expense, and it is not reasonable to treat military personnel to lengthy religious requirements during important training, maneuvers, or combat.
Section 5: Transgender bathrooms are now illegal in any school, college, university, daycare center, or government building. Nor may any laws coerce other places to designate such bathrooms. Someone physically male may not knowingly make use of a restroom designated for females.
[I'm working on other ideas too which will strengthen the free exercize of religion.]
“Why would anyone believe the idiots that dont follow the current Constitution would follow new amendments?”
That is exactly why we have little time left to prevent a complete political meltdown. People think things are bad now? We ‘aint seen nothin’ yet.
You are absolutely correct that they will try to pull some stunts on us. Kagan, for example, will push for the Surpreme Tyrant Court to make our amendments ‘unconstitutional’. We must quickly warn the public that the courts don’t have that powre. Why? Because the door to freedom is closing.
States have their own election laws, although Obama has been undermining them. But with what foundation remains, when 3/4 of our states unite behind amendments, getting the naysayers primaried out would be much easier than it is now.
It is my belief that we have been racing against the clock. If our states’ ability to reduce voter fraud is not rapidly dealt with, then we are doomed no matter what we do politically.
“We need a come-to-Jesus’ moment.”
We are already there. Only problem, it’s like a frog boiling in a pot. We now have a Federal government obstructing state voter fraud laws. Then there’s the illegal immigrant crisis. How much longer will our votes even count?
Please note post 28 and 29.
Levin, a political prophet? No, prophetic was warning people ten or 11 years ago that the patriot act, homeland security, and the TSA were horrible ideas repugnant to the notion of “the land of the free, home of the brave.” Now mister hack for the police state is going to save you with a constitutional convention, the most dangerous, likely to backfire weapon available. Save the bulls**t about how it can be restrained. I’ll have my I Told You So’s ready if you fools get your way.
While I find your efforts laudable, let’s remember that we’re not asking Congress to pass laws. We’re amending our fundamental chartering document. So any proposals must rise to the level of cornerstone legal and moral principle: the right to free speech, the right to freely practice one’s religion (and not just in a place of worship but in one’s everyday dealings), the right to self-defense, the right to security in one’s person, papers, and property. In other words, the rights already vouchsafed us by our birth as free men.
The Definition of Marriage Amendment is necessary to prevent a corruption of one of civilization’s cornerstone institutions and to forestall the imposition of a godless perversion on people of religious conviction.
But the actual agenda for the convention does not need to be carved in stone before it is convened. We first must get commitments from 34 states to call the convention. Let’s walk before we run.
Obama has punched God in the face so many times. Every oath he has taken has been a direct affront. And, God does not suffer fools gladly.
When George Washington gave his Farewell Address, towards the end of it he expressly asked God to forgive him of any mistake he had made unwittingly, because he understood his responsibility as president and the fact that he had engaged himself in a sacred oath with God.
Obama, on the other hand, took those oaths with complete disregard that there are blessings and curses attached to his action. He has had absolutely no intention of fulfilling his part. We are living under a cursed leader.
As much as Levin and everyone talks about impeachment and illegals and voter fraud, there is a much bigger consideration, something even George Washington knew was an even more important matter.
“We first must get commitments from 34 states to call the convention. Lets walk before we run.”
Running builds excitement. And excitement drives political support.
I don’t think Levin wants to be called a prophet either by the way. He’s a scholar and historian.
“Ill have my I Told You Sos ready if you fools get your way.”
Okay, so what is your plan? Rely on Speaker Bone-head? Take the hit on immigration and voter fraud? Count on Justice Roberts? Pray that the constitutionalist justices don’t die for the next fifteen years? Watch colleges educate more RINOs who lie to conservatives? What is your plan?
If We the People make it clear through the Convention that we submit ourselves humbly before the Almighty, THAT is the first important step to welcoming God back.
I have faith in most people — PEOPLE — no matter what state — to have at least enough sense to hate Kelo. The majority of ALL states want to preserve our rights. Gun rights for example. The overwhelming opposition to Obama-care. Border safety. The list goes on and on. The majority doesn’t even want abortion-on-demand, only rape/incest/life-o-mother.
I agree that tricks will be attempted at a convention. I also agree that this is a gamble. So is cancer surgery.
Do we, or do we NOT have a malignant cancer in our nation?
Running before you’re able to walk well is a good way to fall flat on your face.
And I love how pointing that something is a horrible idea somehow obligates me to come up with a plan to fix everything. How about this...I didn't make this mess, I didn't carry water for the people who did. This. Is. Not. My. Problem. You want to find solutions to this mess...? Try listening to someone (anyone) other than the people who were waving their pom poms during the march that got us here. Try listening to people who aren't beholden to establishme t party insiders for their radio gigs and thinly disguised bribes being passed-off as book deals. Those clowns are the kardashians of politics.
Absolutely. We have one of two choices. Either let it continue to stage five anarchy ending in despotism, or excise it to return to republican liberty.
For those who think Article V may be abused, you are correct. The identical argument was made by anti-federalists in 1788, who foresaw dangers in a new constitution they determined to be not worth the risk. In response, the federalists then, and yours truly today, says that near anything may be abused or pose danger. Every waking moment of our lives present some level of risk.
The alternatives to not taking the chance on an Article V amendment convention faaaar outweigh the possible downside. So I posit this: If we are to avoid tyranny and possibly restore liberty, we must return to federalism. If that is true, then the peaceful means provided by our framers are worth the effort and any attendant risk.
Click on his book and scroll down about a third of the way.
BTW, he has been an activist since nineteen years of age, when he got elected to a school board seat. He's been twisting statist tails ever since.
It's a bunch of individual state conventions convened with the sole, constitutional, purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.
I'm unable to imagine a scenario in which these conventions could be hijacked in a manner that would result in the supplanting of the current Constitution.
Yes. Ratification of the amendments requires three-quarters of the states.
This can't be repeated enough. We'll face enough resistance from the bad guys. We don't need a circular firing squad on our side.
We forget that progressive legislators and judges have been re-writing the Constitution for the last 100 years. It's time that we brought the subject out into the open.
I think blue-staters will go for congressional term limits as well.
That will get the ball rolling.
This is more suited to statutory law. Amendments deal more with basic principles.
Do we, or do we NOT have a malignant cancer in our nation?
I love your metaphor.. but radical surgery was needed 10/15 years ago.. maybe 20/30..
The Pox is upon us.. the flock(herd) is diseased.. culling is mandatory..
Whats needed is not a scalpel but a meat ax..
Failure to admit this (by cowards) will cost the entire HERD...
It is not just Obama but ALL the people brought into gov’t from the time of the Clintoon’s... ALL OF THEM..
YES; that includes Bush too.. including the stealth progressive Rove.. and even Gingrich..
Newt brags that he is a progressive.. the flock is diseased..
Ron Paul “the Barbarian”(i.e.Conan) might buy some time.. BUT..
America way too brain washed for Ron.. its not cancer BUT the POX..
You kinda “have it” but lack the correct diagnosis..
It’s THE POX.. grasshopper.. not cancer.. need different tactics..
I’ll consider looking into his latest payoff from whatever think tank bought by the pallet as soon as this constitutional “scholar,” lover of liberty and enemy of statists stops claiming the mantle of all those things long enough to apologize and admit he was totally and completely wrong for shilling for the patriot act, homeland security, TSA and all of the other crap that he mocked people for settling off warning bells about. Funny how his tune changes to whip up the rubes when the people holding his leash don’t have their guy in the white house. He’s a well paid fraud.
You are right that there are many Ruling Class culprits that need weeding. Sure, we weed out those who are vulnerable. And the weeding will get easier when they openly oppose Levin’s ideas.
Men no longer worried about elections, such as Rove and Bush, will be rendered irrelevant if the Convention is a success.
It’s law that had such things taken down. To reverse such a law, we need an amendment. It sets the tone. Let’s see who opposes it.
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.