[Carry_Okie]

Take it easy. The “one more time” was a jab at myself for an earlier mis-post.

Sorry, I took it in the context of our exchange alone.

What amendments do you propose instead?

I have only heard Levin talk about his amendments; I have not read his book. Most of what I heard as deficiencies were omissions. Here is my off the top of my head list:

1. Change the supremacy clause to make unambiguous that any treaty provision that incorporates powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution renders the treaty void in its entirety. That would include unconstitutional treaties already in force.

2. Render any multilateral treaty void. Screw the UN. Agreements must be concluded, allowing no change thereafter.

3. Require that any international agreement must be by treaty. Screw the WTO.

4. Render any treaty that allows agreements or decisions to be made by any governing body after its ratification void. Our laws should be made by our elected representatives, only. Screw any number of UN "Secretariats."

5. Change the manner of treaty ratification in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 to to require ratification of a treaty by 3/4 of the State legislatures, similar to a Constitutional Amendment.

6. Clarify the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to apply to natural persons, only. Corporations are not citizens and must be subject to State laws. Let Natural Law competition do its job.

7. Clarify the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to make unmistakeable that a child born of foreign parents in the US is a foreign citizen. We don't put press gangs into hospitals with claims for taxes on babies. If they grow up in America they should have an inside track for naturalization.

8. Clarify that the States may structure their state senates such that their State Senators are selected by their counties boards, much the way the pre-17th Amendment Senate was constructed.

I haven't thought about this in a long time. Too busy with other issues. But for discussion purposes, that might make a good start.

[supercat]

I'm not sure how best to word them, but I think a few general legal principles need to be stated:

1. Presumptions of legitimacy are only applicable to acts done in good faith. An attempt to infringe someone's rights to the maximum allowable degree while remaining "legal" would represent a deliberate attempt to infringe their rights, and should thus be viewed as an action performed in bad faith;
2. Assessments of whether or not an action is performed in good faith require assessments of witness credibility, and are thus matters of fact rather than law;
3. A finding that an action was not so egregious as to merit a remedy does not imply a finding that the action was legitimate, and may not be used as justification for others to proceed likewise in good faith.
4. Someone who breaks into another person's dwelling without a good-faith belief in the legitimacy of his actions is a burglar or, if he confronts or intends to confront the occupant, a robber. If anyone gets killed during such action, the person who illegitimately broke in is a murderer. These definitions apply to government personnel just as well as anyone else, and citizens have a right and duty to defend themselves against burglars, robbers, and murderers.

An embezzler who limits his activities to amounts small enough to escape notice is a thief. Likewise government personnel who try to infringe on people's rights as much as they can. I would consider a broad recognition of that principle to be as important as anything else.

[Jacquerie]

Okay. The treaty clauses have been tagged as problematic since 1787.

14th Amendment abuse knows no bounds.

As for Levin, I think you will appreciate his federal amendments.

A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments

[Agamemnon]

I have only heard Levin talk about his amendments; I have not read his book.

"Levin's "Liberty Amendments" do not address those deficiencies. I expect him to fix it or I will continue to criticize his plan publicly. Yes, I have flagged him on those threads and FR mailed him on the topic, but I have not heard any change. I guess he's just too important to bother with peons like FReepers."

As poorly researched as you admit to being I wouldn't have given you the time of day either.

I'll bet you're also of the kind around here that just reads the thread title without reading the article before posting to it too.

Lazy scholarship.