Replies

If amendments anywhere near those suggested by Mark Levin are ratified,

Well, that's a huge premise with little likelihood of success, but even assuming it were so . . .

I'll head off into a digression for a moment, but I believe it is relevant. In the Bill of Rights, there is only one amendment which is uncompromised - the 2nd. It says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." All of the others have limitations. The 1st merely says "Congress shall make no law" which did not stop the courts from making law on the topics. The 4th says the people are secure in their persons and property from "unreasonable" searches (and then goes on to identify cases where a warrant may be issued to further compromise our privacy). Each of the others - except for the second- has a similar 'escape clause' for reasons that seemed reasonable.

Then add in that the courts have taken a 'shadow and penumbra' of the 14th amendment to invalidate the clear and unambiguous language of the 10th amendment.

So, my expectation is that things like a balanced budget amendment would have exceptions for things like wartime, or during 'national emergencies' . . . and end up meaning nothing.

I really believe the 17th amendment should be repealed, but it hasn't always been the case that Republicans controlled a majority of the state houses and governorships. And the amount of power concentrated at the federal level is so great, that you can bet there would be major money issues with securing an appointment as a Senator. Can you promise, for example, that it wouldn't evolve to the case where a vote is held within each state to select the Senators, who are then ratified pro forma by the state houses?

It's not hard to find a way around each of the proposed amendments - considering that anything that can have a prayer of being passed even with Republican (who are not generally conservative) control of state houses will have exceptions. Or be something that statist judges can interpret to be in conflict with some other part of the Constitution, thus allowing them to pick and choose what to enforce.

Better to advocate a return to the actual, currently written Constitution. If we as a nation return to believing what the plain words say, then we can worry about changing those words. Otherwise, it won't matter.