Posted on 08/22/2013 1:05:12 PM PDT by Red Badger
Me too
That’s the down side of a ConCon-—no rules/ no format. Levin makes great points and they ought to be considered straight-up and referred to the states by themselves——along with term limits and a ban on seniority rules in both the House and Senate.
The Amendments Levin proposes are listed below. Currently reading the book. Just by the name of some of these I’m not sure about them, but he does have some persuasive arguments on the ones I’ve read.
Also - I read somewhere in the last couple days that someone has proposed the idea of getting delegate leaders from 38 states (3/4) to work out the details before the convention is called. Then, when the convention is called, they only propose what they have already agreed upon and have the 3/4 of the states ready to approve.
It’s also possible that they start with a couple amendments (repeal of the 16th and 17th) and then start addressing the other things in separate conventions. It’s not all or nothing.
I would like to add one that requires Congresspersons (and their staffs) to live under the laws they pass, cannot have a separate pension/retirement/health plan and that their pay is, at maximum, the average of pay in the US.
- Term Limits of Congress and Senator
- Repeal the 17th Amendment - senators selected by their state legislatures as originally envisioned
- Term Limits of Supreme Court Justices & Super Majority - - Congressional Override of Supreme Court Decisions
- Limit Federal Spending
- Tax Reform
- Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
- Promote Free Enterprise
- Protect Private Property
- Grant States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
- Grant State Authority to Check Congress
- Protect the Vote
Forgive me, but I thought Levin’s book was about NOT calling a Constitutional Convention. He’s argued for years that doing so invites all the leftists in to shred the Constitution. Levin isn’t calling for a convention. He’s calling for state legislatures to adopt amendments to the Constitution and then having the rest of the states - 3/4 of them - to ratify amendments concocted in state legislatures. Isn’t that right?
Coburn seems to be calling for the worse option - and outright convention. Which would be a disaster.
Actually, they could nullify them too.
Levin is calling for an Amendments Convention as specified in Article V.
Convention might propose these amendments....
Congress Shall Pass No Law to abridge the freedom of beating creepy cracka’s
Congress shall pass no law forbidding the forced unemployment and starvation of those who blaspheme homosexuality
Add CO, NV and NM to the list (states with ‘rat control of the state legislature). And there’s even more if you go by states where Obama won the 2012 popular/electoral vote (add FL, IA, MI, NH, OH, PA, VA, and WI).
I like Mark but he is finally catching up with some of those “back benchers” he likes to scream about. Mike Church has been talking about a Con Con for over 6 years on his radio program.
I guess Mike should have wrote a book and went on Ham-mity to get some recognition.
I just got Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments, I haven’t read it yet, but as I understand it from listening to Mark, his idea is to use the state legislature’s power to amend the Constitution to get around rinos like Tom Coburn.
If Tom wants to help, he can work with the state legislators to make changes and claw back power to the people and the states, but we won’t allow him to be in charge or allow ourselves to be dependent on him. Tom and his fellow useless Republicans that refuse to fight are what put us where we are today!
I think Mr. Levin will do as he’s told.
The first one worked because all those in charge wanted to be free of the control of King George. Now though, half want the government to control everything, from how much you’re allowed to go to the bathroom, to how little you’re allowed to make (I’d’ve said how much, but that would imply the government would let you earn six figures. I have no doubt they don’t think you should earn that much). Then there’s our side, that doesn’t want to take action, because that would start off CWII.
It doesn't address the moral issues we face or foreign entanglements, but it would be a start.
It would be a fine start.
If the GOP-e got to pick Senators, Texas would be represented by David Dewhurst, not Ted Cruz.
Oh, reallly??? And, just who is it that tells Mr Levin what to do?
-PJ
So what is your “doing something useful”?
If it involves sitting on your ass and complaining, or pretending like you are going to be part of some army with guns, then you have nothing.
You guys are free at any time to offer up your detailed plan.
Completely agree. The hand writing is on the wall.
“So let me see if I understand you.
You are not worried about a run away convention,
you just think it is all a big waste of time?”
I’m not worried about a runaway convention because I think the chances of getting a convention are slim, and the chances of getting 3/4 of the states to ratify anything a convention produces are about zero.
I don’t think it’s a waste of time to have people talk about the Constitution. As a method of securing needed conservative political change I think going for a Con Con or changes to the Constitution via amendment is flat out dumb. You’d achieve more positive change for this country by starting a vegetable garden. Plus you’ll get fresh tomatoes.
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.