MARK LEVIN WOWS STATE LEGISLATORS: 'TAKE YOUR POWER BACK' [excellent video at source]

Breitbart ^ | December 5, 2014 | By Patrick Leahy

[Jim Robinson]

Conservative talkradio host Mark Levin made news Thursday when he addressed the annual conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a "non-partisan membership association of state lawmakers," and it wasn't just because he reiterated his call for an Article V "Convention of the States" to propose new amendments to the Constitution.

Levin's call for an Article V Convention of the States has been well known since the publication of his best-selling book, The Liberty Amendments, more than a year ago.

On Thursday, Levin framed the Article V Convention of the States as the beginning of the process in which state legislators can reassert their constitutional power and become, in effect, the kind of check on the out-of-control federal government the framers expected the three branches of federal government they created in the Constitution would be on each other.

"Take your power back," Levin told the enthusiastic crowd of state legislators from around the country.

Critics who claim an Article V Convention could become a "Runaway Constitutional Convention" miss the point entirely, Levin said. Critics think such a convention would have no impact, as the federal government is ignoring the Constitution already and would have little reason to observe any amendments, subsequently ratified by the states, that emerged from the Convention of the States.

"So if you ask me what makes you think the federal government will follow amendments to the Constitution if it won't follow the Constitution today, then you don't understand this process," Levin told the audience.

"By giving the state legislatures the ultimate say on major federal laws, on major federal regulations, on major Supreme Court decisions, should 3/5 of state legislatures act to override them within a two year period," Levin said, " it doesn't much matter what Washington does or doesn't. It matters what youdo."

[PapaNew]

There’s a minor precedent, called the civil war, that makes those passages in the constitution toothless.

I disgree. The outcome of the Civil War, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 codified what the Civil War was all about (ex post facto notwithstanding). But unlike what some like to believe, the Civil War did not legally amend or destroy the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or states' rights, nor was it legal precedent for such. Again, the post-war amendments codified whatever "precedent" the Civil War represented.

At some point, after this proposed convention is all said and done, if the feds find ways to avoid or "nullify" the ratified amendments (if, in fact they are the right amendments), then the states must begin independent action. After all, independence from wrongful, tyrannical government is what America is all about. We don't need the permission of a rogue, unconstitutional federal government to do that. The Constitution at that point is on our side, not the side of the unconstitutional federal government.

[PapaNew]

Yes, the effort by We the People via the states to save our Constitutional Republic by attempting to force the feds to abide by well-written amendments that hit the bullseye of cutting big government and putting it back in its constitutional cage is a worthwhile effort.

But just as the colonists against an obstinate King George government, the states must have in their back pocket, the willingness to be financially independent of the feds if the feds find ways to avoid or “nullify” the ratified amendments (if, in fact they are the right amendments). After all, independence from wrongful, tyrannical government is what America is all about.

[PapaNew]

The size of the federal government is around $4 trillion. An entire ONE-FOURTH of that is ONE bureaucratic agency, the unconstitutional Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) with a budget of around $1 Trillion. Since 1970, the size of the federal government has increased 1000% ($350 billion to $4 trillion).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2010USm_16s1li0181366_657cs_F0f
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_1970USrn

To remain a free constitutional republic, it is mandatory to cut by at least 80% the size of this unconstitutional federal government which would leave it at about $800 billion. This would mean the dismantling of most of the unconstitutional “Administrative State” bureaucracy, the unconstitutional “fourth branch” of government which is where all these “regulations” come from.

This could mean the loss of jobs to hundreds of thousands of federal employees including officials, bureaucratic mangers, and department heads. This could also mean the loss of income to hundreds of thousands of people dependent on federal government. Of course, there would be phase-out, phase-in periods, hopefully allowing time for the states and free market to replace these jobs and dependencies. There would be howling, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Nobody wants to lose their job and officials and bureaucratic heads would use everything in their power to stop it. It is hard to imagine it would happen.

Yet, if we are serious about putting the feds back into their constitutional cage, that is about what it will take. If the output of the proposed convention is ratified amendments that come even close to mandating a large portion of this rogue government, one has to ask, what mechanisms are in place to enforce such radical change and results?

[Zeneta]

it’s the $$$

the federales pass various legislation and they get the
states to comply by only providing federal funding if they
do

ie, if the states don’t comply with legislation about (say)
“disparate outcomes” in school suspensions or some such
ridiculousness, then the feds will stop funneling tax monies
from gasoline etc

quite slimey but thats politics

---

I’ve been thinking about this exact thing.

They are “Federal Mandates”, some are funded and some are unfunded.

The States, have become addicted to the Federal monies that come with these mandates/laws etc.

The affect of 3/4 of the states rejecting the mandates and the money would be profound. The Feds would soon be drowning in cash looking for something to spend it on. Most of these Government agencies measure success by how much they spend or grow their spending on these programs. Their budgets are set for the next year based on how much they spent the previous year.

Consider this, instead of cutting off the purse strings, flood them with their own/(tax payer) money that virtually no State will accept. They would have no choice but to reduce their budgets going forward and would likely result in a balanced federal budget and possibly start to reduce the Nat’l debt.

There’s more. The reduction in funds transferred to the States would or should allow for a substantial reduction in the number Government bureaucrats that administer those programs.

[BillyBoy]

State legislators, take your power back!

I'm WAY ahead of you on this one, buddy...

[TBP]

This is why I’m a “Tenthist”.