The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin

[hornadylnl]

What I see from many of the states rights crowd is that they decry the federal government playing role of nanny but are ok with or demand that their state and local governments play nanny. After all, I can't be trusted with lawn maintenance so they ensure that I do through force of law. Doesn't make any difference to me if it's a town, state or federal clown with a ruler measuring my grass.

 

[jbombelli]

What I see from many of the states rights crowd is that they decry the federal government playing role of nanny but are ok with or demand that their state and local governments play nanny. After all, I can't be trusted with lawn maintenance so they ensure that I do through force of law. Doesn't make any difference to me if it's a town, state or federal clown with a ruler measuring my grass.

There is no hypocrisy in that. Most people have a tyrannical streak in them - it just comes down to WHO can they use to enforce it?

There's an old saying: "all politics are local." I follow that up with "all tyranny is local, too." Tyranny can never be enforced from thousands of miles away. It can only ever be enforced at the local level. People might not consciously realize it in those terms, but deep down they understand that the federal government can't make you mow your grass, but the local town council can.

 

[Jerchap2]

A lot of detractors on here, generally with strong opinions, producing a lot of heat but little light. It is clear that we have to do something. If you have suggestions, put them forth, don't just say this will not work. I do not see any other solutions that have any chance of working. This strategy is well thought out, and worth a try I think. It might help to get a little better educated about it by at lease reading the first chapter:

http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/hosted_files/LibertyAmendmentsCh1.pdf


The radical Soros hate-group, Media Matters, fears The Liberty Amendments - that is enough in and of itself for me to embrace it:
Mark Levin's Electoral Kryptonite | Blog | Media Matters for America

 

[Hop]

What a bunch of spineless wimps you guys are. What Levin proposes reaffirms what's already in the Constitution and returns control to the states.

Do y'all want the out of control Fed to continue wrestling rights away until the only option is a blood bath civil war because that's where it's heading now!

 

[spirit390]

I could never imagine some on INGO would have an opinion on a book they have not read or no intention of reading. Gee go figure

 

[uberpeck]

Stick to what we have, what is clearly enunciated, what is tradition, what is our origin.

Do you even realize this amendment process IS WHAT WE HAVE. It's not new. In fact, it's the same age as the process Congress has used the past 200 years to make amendments. This is the hundredth anniversary of one of the most destructive amendments made to the constitution by Progressives, and you would keep it on the books; it is not original, yet some still vie for it, as if it were meant to be there. Wake up.

 

[MisterChester]

One problem I have: if the constitutional convention method is used, what's going to stop the people who want to take away our rights from doing the same thing? It's dangerous.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

One problem I have: if the constitutional convention method is used, what's going to stop the people who want to take away our rights from doing the same thing? It's dangerous.

They haven't needed a con-con to do that yet.

 

[MisterChester]

They haven't needed a con-con to do that yet.

I call for a Constitutional Convention to ban Constitutional Conventions.

 

[spirit390]

Do you even realize this amendment process IS WHAT WE HAVE. It's not new. In fact, it's the same age as the process Congress has used the past 200 years to make amendments. This is the hundredth anniversary of one of the most destructive amendments made to the constitution by Progressives, and you would keep it on the books; it is not original, yet some still vie for it, as if it were meant to be there. Wake up.

Could not have said it any better myself. People should really read the book or at least listen to Levin, he gives cliff note version on his book on his show here Mark Levin Show - Podcasts it has archives of two years of past shows. So you could listen to what the man says and decide for yourself or people could just keep beliveing what
the back benchers, repubicans, ingotarians and democraps say about the man. Me myself I like to listen to his show with a glass of tea left over from my tea party

 

[Jerchap2]

Could not have said it any better myself. People should really read the book or at least listen to Levin, he gives cliff note version on his book on his show here Mark Levin Show - Podcasts it has archives of two years of past shows. So you could listen to what the man says and decide for yourself or people could just keep beliving what the back benchers, repubicans, ingotarians and democraps say about the man. Me myself I like to listen to his show with a glass of tea left over from my tea party

A big Levin fan here also. A Constitutional attorney who not only talks on the radio to inform and inspire patriots, but also helps us see through his books: what is going on and how it got that way (Liberty and Tyranny), how the Left thinks, and why, and what their ultimate goals are (Ameritopia), and a path forward to restore power back to the states where it should be and to restore our country (The Liberty Amendments). For those of you who do not know, Mark Levin is also the head of a legal foundation, Landmark Legal, that litigates cases, usually successfully, and has gone up against the NEA, DoJ, EPA, and others. He is a true patriot who works hard in many ways to protect and defend our Constitution, and I admire him greatly. Do I agree with everything he says and does? No, but most of it. Nobody is perfect. Give him a listen locally M-F, 6-9 pm, on FM 95.9, or get podcasts of his show free on his website and listen at your leisure.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

What a bunch of spineless wimps you guys are. What Levin proposes reaffirms what's already in the Constitution and returns control to the states.

Do y'all want the out of control Fed to continue wrestling rights away until the only option is a blood bath civil war because that's where it's heading now!

Again, what he proposes already IS in our Constitution. It is a beautiful document. They thought of everything. The three-fifths compromise is now shameful, but contextually, it is a shining beacon of liberty and limited government. Everything that is not explicitly granted unto the Congress or the Executive or Judiciary explicitly, is ours and ours alone. It's beautiful and the best of all possible outcomes. How to then improve upon it? What, you think because those in power currently disregard its wisdom and dictates that they'll suddenly listen and adhere to new amendments? If simply writing it down enshackles and restrains government to obedience, why then has the national government willfully disregarded the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth amendments? After all, those too were duly passed and ratified. The process, despite flawless execution, does not restrain malevolence. It does not brook malfeasance: when one simply crosses their fingers behind one's back when swearing to uphold and faithfully execute the Constitution. Those problems, the problem of the unfaithful and true malevolent, are the ward of corrective force to restore obedience to its edicts, and that is where the problem lies: government refuses to abide its legal limits, and has usurped new powers, cut from fresh new cloth, piecemeal. And what in the name of the whole good world created by God makes you think this same government would abide new amendments? What is to stop them from disregarding a proposed twenty-eighth amendment as much as they disregard most of the first twenty-seven? Honor? Fidelity to one's country? Loyalty to progeny? Faith in the Creator? What prevents the government from subverting the intended will of the People as it has already done?

No. New 'amendments' aren't going to fix this diseased plant. Amendment is pruning the buds of the tree. Restoration of fidelity is to cut away the rot; to the root.

Do you even realize this amendment process IS WHAT WE HAVE. It's not new. In fact, it's the same age as the process Congress has used the past 200 years to make amendments. This is the hundredth anniversary of one of the most destructive amendments made to the constitution by Progressives, and you would keep it on the books; it is not original, yet some still vie for it, as if it were meant to be there. Wake up.

I absolutely agree with the process. I am absolutely uncomfortable with what the end result might be. When ratification was first undergoing, the public had a largely free and open press. Federalist and Anti-Federalist quarrelled with vociferous and eloquent rhetoric to hone the discourse of ideas. Now we have MSNBC and MTV. I shudder to think what sort of result might be wrought by a majority of today's voting public. My blood runs cold whenever anyone suggests a con-con.

Iron does not care to what purpose it is used. The same forge that forged the sword of liberty could just as easily forge the shackles of servitude. It is only the oversight of the blacksmith that keeps the piece malleable and workable, and not embrittled or fragile. We were, thanks to providence, provided a route to continually anneal our government, much through that same process: continual re-working of the metal of governance for the betterment of those who wield it. Do you trust your fellow countrymen to run the forge? Do you trust them to re-cast the sword of liberty stronger than it is? Or will there be defect in their re-forging?

I prefer to rely upon restoration of adherence and fidelity to our founding document before I would place my trust in amendment of our founding document, which should be - and has been - a rare process. Since ratification in 1791, our document has been amended seventeen times further over the course of two hundred and twenty-two years. This is thus a very serious proposition with unknown outcome. It is one thing to hope that there are enough liberty-minded individuals to not let the process get out-of-control or not to introduce very oppressive amendments. It is quite another to experiment with it.

Here's to hoping that government learns to live within its proscribed limits lest it be severely rebuked in future. Let us try forcing our government to obey the Constitution of these United States of America before we would change the Constitution of these United States of America.

Cheers.

 

[spirit390]

Again, what he proposes already IS in our Constitution. It is a beautiful document. They thought of everything. The three-fifths compromise is now shameful, but contextually, it is a shining beacon of liberty and limited government. Everything that is not explicitly granted unto the Congress or the Executive or Judiciary explicitly, is ours and ours alone. It's beautiful and the best of all possible outcomes. How to then improve upon it? What, you think because those in power currently disregard its wisdom and dictates that they'll suddenly listen and adhere to new amendments? If simply writing it down enshackles and restrains government to obedience, why then has the national government willfully disregarded the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth amendments? After all, those too were duly passed and ratified. The process, despite flawless execution, does not restrain malevolence. It does not brook malfeasance: when one simply crosses their fingers behind one's back when swearing to uphold and faithfully execute the Constitution. Those problems, the problem of the unfaithful and true malevolent, are the ward of corrective force to restore obedience to its edicts, and that is where the problem lies: government refuses to abide its legal limits, and has usurped new powers, cut from fresh new cloth, piecemeal. And what in the name of the whole good world created by God makes you think this same government would abide new amendments? What is to stop them from disregarding a proposed twenty-eighth amendment as much as they disregard most of the first twenty-seven? Honor? Fidelity to one's country? Loyalty to progeny? Faith in the Creator? What prevents the government from subverting the intended will of the People as it has already done?

No. New 'amendments' aren't going to fix this diseased plant. Amendment is pruning the buds of the tree. Restoration of fidelity is to cut away the rot; to the root.



I absolutely agree with the process. I am absolutely uncomfortable with what the end result might be. When ratification was first undergoing, the public had a largely free and open press. Federalist and Anti-Federalist quarrelled with vociferous and eloquent rhetoric to hone the discourse of ideas. Now we have MSNBC and MTV. I shudder to think what sort of result might be wrought by a majority of today's voting public. My blood runs cold whenever anyone suggests a con-con.

Iron does not care to what purpose it is used. The same forge that forged the sword of liberty could just as easily forge the shackles of servitude. It is only the oversight of the blacksmith that keeps the piece malleable and workable, and not embrittled or fragile. We were, thanks to providence, provided a route to continually anneal our government, much through that same process: continual re-working of the metal of governance for the betterment of those who wield it. Do you trust your fellow countrymen to run the forge? Do you trust them to re-cast the sword of liberty stronger than it is? Or will there be defect in their re-forging?

I prefer to rely upon restoration of adherence and fidelity to our founding document before I would place my trust in amendment of our founding document, which should be - and has been - a rare process. Since ratification in 1791, our document has been amended seventeen times further over the course of two hundred and twenty-two years. This is thus a very serious proposition with unknown outcome. It is one thing to hope that there are enough liberty-minded individuals to not let the process get out-of-control or not to introduce very oppressive amendments. It is quite another to experiment with it.

Here's to hoping that government learns to live within its proscribed limits lest it be severely rebuked in future. Let us try forcing our government to obey the Constitution of these United States of America before we would change the Constitution of these United States of America.

Cheers.

I agree with everyting you are saying. Personally I think if we use this process Mark has outlined to drain the swamp with term limits for the congress and the supremes, it may save us from draining the swamp with the Second Amenendment. Or we can just keep going as is and see how it works out for us.

 

[spirit390]

After re-reading your post I have to add to mine. I think this takes it to the local level which will take the progressive media out of the equation(as they say all politics are local). 3/4 of the state legislatures would have to ratify these amendments which would take out alot of the blue state crazieness (if you look at the last national election results of red and blue districts) and most of all look at polling data for how people approve of congress and the supremes the time is ripe for term limits. Even if it does not work the book is a book of geneous very inspiring for people like me that think we are at the end of the rope to where our kids will live in chains.

 

[g00n24]

After re-reading your post I have to add to mine. I think this takes it to the local level which will take the progressive media out of the equation(as they say all politics are local). 3/4 of the state legislatures would have to ratify these amendments which would take out alot of the blue state crazieness (if you look at the last national election results of red and blue districts) and most of all look at polling data for how people approve of congress and the supremes the time is ripe for term limits. Even if it does not work the book is a book of geneous very inspiring for people like me that think we are at the end of the rope to where our kids will live in chains.

Articles: 5 Reasons Why a Constitutional Convention Is a Better Idea than Just Electing More Republicans

Here is a good article explaining how this amendment process could actually work. One big point is 34 states would be needed to get together and 33 states have at least one house controlled by repubs. It also makes the point that some of the state reps/senators have not had the chance to become as pussified as the trolls in DC.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Articles: 5 Reasons Why a Constitutional Convention Is a Better Idea than Just Electing More Republicans

Here is a good article explaining how this amendment process could actually work. One big point is 34 states would be needed to get together and 33 states have at least one house controlled by repubs. It also makes the point that some of the state reps/senators have not had the chance to become as pussified as the trolls in DC.

He makes a couple of good points.