I just read a single point and it was defective. I don’t have much hope for the rest since it is clear that the author has not talked to Mark, listened to his commentary, or possibly even read his book.
I’m trying to figure out what purpose the “refutation” serves. So far, Levin looks like he is trying to unite the states against the federal government to stop the continued dismantling of the US constitution. This here seems to be a laissez-faire approach to the federal government, merely ignoring via nullification, something not written into the US constitution and a tenuous theory at best.
Which point?
Just laugh at the sad sight of someone pitifully trying to make a name for herself.
Mark shouldn't and won't respond.
Defective or not, attempted refutations, successful or not, are very useful in keeping the topic current, and for people who have read Levin's books (I am reading two as we speak) it will fill in the "other side," of each argument. The generally better informed will find the weaknesses in argument, or the misrepresentation of history, or more importantly, the context of time and place.
My refutation is much more simple:
Assuming ALL of Levin's amendment pass and are adopted, what's to prevent any two parts of the American Constitutional Representative Republic government from ignoring with impunity the NEW improved Constitution?
Without standing, "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE STILL OUT OF LUCK!