Posted on 08/13/2013 8:50:26 AM PDT by cotton1706
On the first day of its release, Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic reached the #1 spot in sales on Amazon.com--not just for political books, but all books. Levin appeared on Hannity on the Fox News Channel on Monday evening to discuss the book, and his proposals to restore the Framers' vision for limited government through an Article V convention that would propose eleven new constitutional amendments to restrain the runaway power of the federal government.
"I'm simply saying, I think it's time, if Americans want to remain free, to start reacquainting ourselves with the Constitution, and specifically Article V, and specifically the second part of Article V, which is the amendment process. The Framers thought--some of them in particular--that we might reach this point with an oppressive centralized government....And so they left us a legacy," he told host Sean Hannity.
"An oppressive federal government, an oppressive Congress, is not going to rein itself in," he added, describing his proposal to use the states to create a convention to propose new amendments, which would then return to the states for ratification. He described his suggestion as a way to engage ordinary Americans in restoring the Framers' vision for "the circle of liberty" around each individual.
A special edition of Hannity on Friday evening (9 p.m. EDT/6 p.m. PDT) will feature a panel discussion about The Liberty Amendments with Levin, Hannity and over a dozen conservative thinkers, including Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and Editor-in-Chief Joel B. Pollak.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
My pre-order is in.
I pray that it REMAIN at the Number One spot for the foreseeable Future!
The left and our government don’t respect the amendments we have now. What makes anyone think that they’ll respect new amendments?
A ConCon would destroy the nation as we know it.
I doubt anyone could control the agenda, just as the those who wanted reforms to the articles of Confederation did not intend for the creation of a completely new form of government- a national/republic in which states are not sovereign but subordinate to the central government so feared by the Founders.
The outcome of a ConCon would be even a father throw into totalitarianism, of the social flavor.
As it stands, we only have stupid laws that can be changed, in time and with effort but the bedrock (the constitution) is still firm.
Regards;
READ and comprehend before you shoot your mouth off. It makes you look stupid.
It is not a Con Con.
It is a different process wherein 2/3s of states vote to propose individual amendments to the Constitution, thereby bypassing Congress and their 2/3 requirement.
Each Amendment still needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
Also add to that that each state, as Levin said, can force the vote on specifics and not allow voting on just anything.
There is a way to restore constitutionalism with just a single amendment. The logic behind it is that the balances of the constitution have been ruined by the 17th amendment, which will never be repealed because senators enjoy it.
If government is restored to balance, the system will methodically fix itself, restoring constitutionality and order to the country.
The disturbed balances are between the branches of government, as well as the balance between the national government, the states and the people. In addition, the constitution was oriented to limiting growth, but has no “pruning mechanism” to reduce the size and power of government once it has grown.
Importantly, the growth of national power comes from several sources, and all must be addressed. Presidential power is far too great; congress passes enormous bills with no idea of their content, which are enforced by unelected bureaucrats under the president; and finally, federal judges are able to both create laws and convert state court actions to federal law, which is a huge usurpation of power.
The way to address all of this is in some ways like a “safer” version of a constitutional convention; but in others, it is like a recreation of the original intent of the senate, as representatives of their states, not national “free agents”, acting on their own whims.
The proposed amendment creates a new body of government, a “Second Court of the United States”.
First of all, it is *not* a federal court, but a body of 100 state legislature appointed judges, with concurrent terms to that states senators.
Since it is not a federal court, it does not decide whether laws are constitutional or not; though it does consider the constitutional opinions of the federal courts of appeal. Instead, it is a “jurisdictional court”, that decides if a law in the federal court system is actually a federal issue, or if it is a state issue, returned to its state of origin.
Somewhat like a constitutional convention, if the Second Court reaches a simple majority decision, it can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. But if it is decided in a 2/3rds decision, then future federal cases should take that into account. If decided by 3/4ths of the states, the decision effectively has the force of a constitutional amendment, as far as future federal court decisions are concerned. It is “stare decisis” (judicial precedent) with teeth.
The other thing the Second Court of the United States does is that it has original jurisdiction over all lawsuits between the states and the federal government. Instead of having to wind their way through several federal courts first, the states will decide lawsuits by and against the federal government.
This gives the states a tremendously powerful tool to trim and reduce the size of the federal government, if enough of them agree to do so.
bkmk
It is my understanding a ConCon, as you say, can only work upon those things agreed to upon the creation of a ConCon (IE: It could not touch the 2nd if it was not on the original ‘to do’ list).
If I am wrong, yes, I think we’d all be toast. But, as someone has already pointed out, what’s going to stop the current process let alone make them adhere to anything NEW?
Why? What good will it do? How many other books written by Levin or other conservatives have been No. 1? Now look at today's government.
You’re correct that such a system would restore the original intent of the senate, but a simpler method would be to just restore the original method of electing senators.
And the Congress already has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, though they rarely use it.
I’ve read John Adams’ works extensively and an additional check by some other body is nothing new. It seems a bit unwieldy though.
The main cause of the problem in government power as I see it is that the individual powers are not defending their own powers enough or are encroaching on the powers of the others too much.
The Congress cedes legislative power to the executive agencies, then the congress wants to encroach on executive power through the agencies they created or through earmarks; the executive power siezes legislative power through the congressional created agencies with their ceded legislative power, and the judiciary has siezed both executive and legislative power.
No matter if you create some fourth branch of government, if those granted the power will not defend the encroachment of their own powers, those powers will be siezed by the others until stopped.
But with people like Harry Reid and Scott Brown for example, who think it’s perfectly ok for a president to appoint people on his own authority in the absence of a senate recess, if in these type of situations, those granted power do not defend themselves, there will continue to be a breakdown.
During the Bush administration, the congress and the president limited the jurisdiction of the judiciary on some War on Terror issue. The Supreme Court issued a ruling anyway, and the Bush Administration just went along with it instead of ignoring it since they had no authority to rule on the issue.
My point is, no matter how many extra checks you create, there must be a will to defend them. But we seem to have a cabal of go-along people who are all in cahoots together. Which means the people, through the states are going to need to act to reign them in or liberty will be lost to all but those in power, as it has always been.
The Consitution was never intended to be a quilt, and it is not broken. Attempting to fix the current problems through the Constitution would be akin to remodeling the kitchen because a robber is in your house.
What is the real problem? Simple: the very concept of Statehood has departed from the political vernacular. Most people have no idea that a State was ever anything more than an arbitrary geographic boundary.
If you want a Republic again, then split the states up by counties. The Senate would then be representative of their constituency and the house would stay the same. It would not be perfect, but then thing never are where human beings are concerned.
I don't understand what you want to change.
I mean to split up the states—have as many states as there are counties. I know it sounds contradictory, but increasing the number of states would return the power back to the states as a whole.
Take a look at the electoral map by county, and then extrapolate those numbers to the Senate. Can you imagine the difference?
This does not create a fourth branch of government, but restores the federalism that was lost with the 17th amendment, again giving the states a say in national policy, the ability to defend their rights, and a veto over not just future government organization and policy, but existing government.
Remember the hope that the Department of Education would be abolished? It couldn’t happen, because the states had no say in it, it was strictly an intra-national government spat, doomed to fail because those with an interest in keeping it were far more determined that those who wanted it gone.
Even with near carte blanche, W. Bush could not reduce government, only consolidate part of it, while other parts continued to grow fast, and even that effort met stiff resistance.
But the states have their own interests, and do not care if some bureaucrats lose their little kingdoms, or how hard they will fight to keep them.
Right now, for a state to challenge some oppressive national government action, they must sue in their state’s federal district court, then likely a three judge panel of their region’s appeals court. And then the full regional appeals court. And *then* join the queue of some 8,000 cases appealed to the SCOTUS every year, of which they can hear a dozen or two.
However, with a Second Court of the United States, when they sued the national government, say Eric Holder, the case would *first* be heard by the other 49 states. And he could only appeal to the SCOTUS if the decision was by less than a 2/3rds majority.
And if the case really angered them, enough so that 3/4ths of the states found against Holder, it would be regarded in future federal court hearings as being as definitive as if it were a constitutional amendment.
When vertical separation of power, i.e. federalism returns, when the states appoint senators after repeal of the 17th amendment.
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.