Mark Levin Declares WAR on Statism w/ 'The Levin Liberty Project'

Reaganite Republican ^ | 11 July 2013 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

The highly-influential 'Great One' Mark Levin -who's shows I download and listen to religiously- has unleashed his long-awaited battle plan
for facing today's unified Obammunist-RINO front on the federal level (or rather, out-flanking them) The Levin Liberty Project...

The best-selling author outlined an initiative to take-our-country-back on the air yesterday, in which he proposes new constitutional amendments and a
re-invigoration of the states' power, to be fully-outlined in his new book 'The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic' (print copy available August 13th).

Levin said that the Founders clearly feared the type of soft tyranny we find attacking our personal sovereignty on every level today...
so much so that they left us various fallback legal remedies, which constitutional conservatives need to utilize stat.

Some choice quotes from yesterday's Levin show (via Doug Ross):

• Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution -- and has in 27 cases that have been ratified -- and the states can too, through the convention process. The first method, where two-thirds of Congress passes a proposed amendment and then forwards it to the state legislatures for possible ratification by three-fourths vote. And that has occurred 27 times. 

•  The second method, involving the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures, for a convention of proposing amendments -- not a Constitutional Convention, a convention for proposing amendments, which would thereafter require three-fourths of the states to ratify -- has been tried in the past without success. And today it sits dormant.

• The fact is: Article V expressly grants state legislatures significant authority to re-balance the Constitutional structure for the purposes of restoring our founding principles should the federal government shed its limitations, abandon its original purpose, and grow too powerful as many delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention feared.

• Which is EXACTLY why they provided for two methods of amending the Constitution.

• Under both amendment procedures, the Constitution requires at least 3/4 of the states ratify the amendment -- either by their state legislatures or by the state conventions. So again, rather than Congress proposing amendments, what's suggested here is that the states can and should convene to do the same thing.

• ...you'll hear critics say, "We don't need a Constitutional Convention! We'll never get anyone better than the Framers!"

  And they're right! This isn't a Constitutional Convention. This is a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.

• And here's the beauty of the process: Congress' role in the state application process is minimal and ministerial. And it couldn't be otherwise, because the Framers and Ratifiers adopted the state convention process for the purpose of establishing an alternative to the Congressionally-initiated amendment process. That was the point. 

•  Now you can see why the ruling class and their little mouthpieces are going to hate me: because this removes power from them.

Can't wait to see the book... but you can pretty much count me in already, sir- nobody on our side seems to have any better ideas.

Doug Ross   FreeRepubic   BadBlue

[Reaganite Republican]

*** PING ***

[Maceman]

I am absolutely opposed to a Constitutional Convention, which will do nothing but eliminate important, valid provisions of the current document, while adding all sorts of rights-cancelling new ones.

What emerges from such a convention will look more like the South African constitution than what we have now.

[PapaNew]

Good, but not by calling for a second Constitutional Convention which would be a colossal error.

[Reaganite Republican]

“I am absolutely opposed to a Constitutional Convention...”
_______________________________________________________

So is Levin, he says it’s NOT a Constitutional Convention:

“..you’ll hear critics say, “We don’t need a Constitutional Convention! We’ll never get anyone better than the Framers!”
And they’re right! This isn’t a Constitutional Convention.

This is a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.”

[lurk]

What we need is a simple return to the Constitution as it is today.

After we have repented, fasted and prayed.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I have to agree.
Too many trouble makers would like to see what we have destroyed.

[Rational Thought]

Under both amendment procedures, the Constitution requires at least 3/4 of the states ratify the amendment -- either by their state legislatures or by the state conventions.

Given the powers which control both major political parties, is accomplishment of such a procedure even realistic?

[goodnesswins]

His plan does NOT require the conventional “Convention.” That’s the beauty of it.

[SC_Pete]

Not necessarily. There was risk in taking on the British—but now there is greater risk in doing nothing. Check this guy out:

RANDY BARNETT, law professor at Georgetown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett

[Joe 6-pack]

Without a reawakening of public morality and virtue, we are lost. All the amendments in the world will be meaningless to the lawless.

[Jacquerie]

Freeperdom is the land of ADHD, post first, maybe read later if at all, numbnuts.

[Jacquerie]

Uh, make that “developing into land of . . . “

[Jacquerie]

Randy Barnett is a treasure.

[Polyxene]

Oh, that there were more patriots like Mr. Levin!

[SC_Pete]

Yes, he certainly is. His Bill of Federalism is so needed. Mark Levin is also a treasure!

[shove_it]

Levin’s onto something here. Let’s start with a convention of proposing an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment.

[Jacquerie]

I think I spent the better part of week, off and on, digesting his explanation of the history, interpretation, significance and importance of the “necessary and proper” clause.

Also enlightening was his exposing the fact that modern jurists regard the 9th Amendment as if the Framers knocked a bottle of ink over it and made it disappear.

[OneWingedShark]

What we need is a simple return to the Constitution as it is today.
After we have repented, fasted and prayed.

I agree with the last, but disagree with the first. To wit: there is no Constitutional limitation on the assumption of debt (and the 14th Amendment prevents the validity of the debt from being questioned) so I think there is absolutely need for some amendment. Maybe something like this.

[oldbrowser]

I was thinking some amendment to clarify the different clauses that have been used to give the federal government control of everything down to the design of toilets.

"Necessary and proper.....general welfare.....interstate commerce...etc.", these are all clauses that have been stretched to mean whatever the government wants them to mean.

They need to be clarified to put the federal government into a limited role. Return all the powers they usurped back to the states or the people.