I don’t think he/she read the book.
WTF? This person NEVER read the book.
The 10th Ammendment gives the states the right to take back their power. We don’t need a bunch of new ammendments.
The only real hold the Federal govt has over the states is Federal funds which it has used over the last 100 years to seduce and enslave the states. All they have to do is give up the Federal funds and exert their sovereignty.
Here’s an excerpt from the article giving an example of what he means:
“...
Levin’s amendment “to limit federal spending” (p 73 -74)
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the size of the GDP. Do you see?
The reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits – already set forth in the Constitution – on its spending.
Well then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?
But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers. It says:
“Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”
Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President to lawfully spend money on whatever they want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t authorize it.
Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections 6 & 7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt. 5”
I agree with most all of Levin’s amendments, especially the term limit ones, will they pass, Probably not, but we need to do the Article V process even if it fails and is a tilting at windmills maneuver.
Why?
Because then it would be one of the last avenues to exhaust before we enter into state secession period which then may lead to either a cold breakup via Czechoslovakia or a hat war like the civil war...
If we don’t exhaust all avenues before states decide to start leaving we only legitimize the federal government claims to the states.
It would be like starting the American Revolution without the Declaration of independence and all of the other steps taken before the hot war broke out.
It’s BS. Whoever wrote this garbage did not bother to read the book. For example, one suggested amendment empowers 3/5’s of the States to override any federal law. Another sets term limits.
Uh oh.
Yes, I’ve actually read Levin’s book, and likewise I’ve heard him talk about it at length via his radio program... Washington will never surrender power willingly. The Article 5 section in the Constitution was given for just this scenario. Those who argue AGAINST using the Constitution simply believe that the document itself is flawed. I’m for rule of law. Article 5 convention the federal government back into its sandbox yesterday or sooner. Yeah, do it. Do it now.
The Liberty Amendments and Convention of States would be a great idea if we had a judiciary that cared squat for the constitutions. Since we don’t, and all these guys know it, it baffles me that they’re still talking about it. We pass some great amendments, all branches act as if they never happened, rule them unconstitutional, or pass conflicting laws; what then? Time, money, brain cells wasted, that’s what.
I think the essential amendment is the one that repeals the 17th Amendment. Repealing the 16th and 19th would be constructive, too, but repealing the 17th is the game changer.
Basically, pretty good criticisms. The author identified the unintended consequences of proposed laws. Most such amateur “legislators” forget, that if passed into real laws, their work product will be interpreted by judges. The wordier the proposed”laws” the greater the room for “construction,” and “interpretation” by judges. Judges are no longer our friends.
A constitutional amendment that prohibits Congress from exempting itself or any other branch of the government from any law passed by Congress.
Eliminate income tax withholding and make tax day the day before federal elections. Imagine the voters reaction when they get a huge bill from the IRS and have to write that check the day before the election.
Where was the requisite “BARF” alert?
We already have tyranny; Levin is simply trying to fight it.
1. Repeal the 17th amendment to the effect that States appoint or elect their Senators at their choosing.
2. Prohibit out of State campaign donations to Politicians running for state and state representatives to the Federal government.
Viola’ it’s fixed.
Piddle.
paultard
Well, it is easy to see that “Huldah” is a moron! (and a deciever)
.
The only way to get the Federal boot of off your neck is through state(s) secession. Everything else is BS.