.

NEWS AND VIEWS THAT IMPACT LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with
power to endanger the public liberty." - - - - John Adams

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Mark Levin - The Liberty Amendments



Mark Levin
"An Exercise in Political Masturbation"
A more honest title for Levin's new book.



Book Review

By Gary;

Mark Levin is a true patriot, an ally in the war against Statism and a defender of the Constitution.

But that being said his newest book is mostly a waste of time.  The book fails to address the one real problem in America today - the lack of free elections.

We would not be having this conversation if the politicians had any fear at all of the voters.  They don't.

Levin talks about passing new amendments to the Constitution. But that means nothing when the entrenched politicians financed by a bottomless pit of big Beltway money simply ignore the existing ones.

It is a little know fact that up until 1940 the U.S. was a multi-party Republic.  The people could easily form brand new political parties to overthrow the corrupt Elites in D.C.   Power came from the bottom up.  From the People.

We saw many parties elected to Congress:  Federalists, Democrat-Republicans, National Republicans, Democrat, Anti-Masonic, Free Soil, American, Republican, Greenback, Populist, Progressive and more.

Until free elections are restored we are doomed as a nation.

Levin has proposed a number of amendments he claims will save the county.

Term Limits

Levin proposes term limits as a cure for D.C. corruption.  Sorry.  That one is totally dead on arrival and misses the point that we no longer even have free elections.

As a resident of the People's Republic of California we have had term limits.  It has done absolutely nothing to change the corrupt nature of government.  The reason is, term limits does not change the way politicians are elected.

California resembles the US House of Representatives with monster, huge legislative districts.  900,000 people for the State Senate and 450,000 for the Assembly.  In a special election for State Senate last month both parties spent about $5,000,000 on the race.

Nathaniel P. Banks
Speaker of the House, American Party.
Banks was a Democrat, then the American Party,
then a Republican and finally Liberal Republican
Party.  With small House districts new political
parties can easily rise and fall striking FEAR
in the hearts of the D.C. Elites.
(Nathaniel P. Banks)
Because districts are so huge only millionaires or those willing to be bribed with millions in corrupt outside special interest cash get elected. 
.
Our "representatives" do not represent the People.  They really represent the big money cartels of unions and corrupt businesses wanting "payback" for their campaign money investment. 

Until the common man can again afford to run for office there will be no changes.

REFORM  -  Levin is wasting his time with amendments.  If there is any hope at all in saving the nation then we need to restore free elections. 

Here is a reform that only takes a majority vote of the US House - vastly expand the House of Representatives to help restore the Republic.

Article One, Section 2 of the Constitution says, "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." 

Everyone could easily meet their Congressman face to face with next to zero campaign costs.  The House has ignored that number for 200 years causing the current House seats to balloon up to 700,000 people and increasing campaign expenses to the insane level.

The lower houses districts in Canada and Britain run about 100,000 in population and they are both multi-party democracies with free elections. 

About 100,000 is a good number for the US House.  Back when House seats were that size we had free elections with new political parties rapidly being formed, getting elected to Congress and often vanishing just a fast.

With huge districts the political class has no reason to fear the people at election time.

Taxes, Debt & Spending

Levin proposes a limit on spending, taxes and debt which includes a 60% vote of Congress to override.

Once again Levin is lost in intellectual theory la-la-land.

Since 1978 California had a two-thirds (66%) requirement to pass a budget.  The minority GOP had a total veto over all spending and debt.  What happened?  The Republicans simply cut deals with the Democrats to keep the spending-debt machine running at full blast.

Levin's amendment is a joke.  The GOP has the power to freeze or cut spending now with a 50% + 1 vote, but Republicans have not voted to cut even one cent from the budget since the 1920s. 

The money machine gets them re-elected.  Levin's amendment changes nothing.  Only election reform (above) will do that.

Supreme Court Term Limits

If find it interest that Levin attacks the one part of the Constitution that still operates just as our Federalist Founding Fathers wanted  -  the Federal Courts.

Justice Clarence Thomas
Mark Levin wants judges like Thomas
to be term limited.  Sorry Mark, I want
Thomas in there until he is 90 years old
and the EMTs have to pry him out of
his seat.
Again Levin demands those somehow "magical" term limits for those horrible men in black with their "evil" lifetime appointments to the Federal Courts.  Never mind that this is what the Federalists wanted when they wrote the Constitution. 
.
Our Founders wanted a judiciary as far removed from the tug of everyday politics as possible.  The Founders wanted judges to be appointed for life by a variety of Presidents to reduce the danger of dictatorship.

Both Conservatives and Liberals take their turns in attacking the Court.

The Conservatives praise the Court when it votes their way on cases like guns or voting rights and curse them with equal fervor when they dare to vote different. 

The same goes with the libs.  This standard hot air political BS has not changed since the founding of the country.

Also the last thing you want is a judge being term limited at age 60 instead of serving for life.  The judge could easily rule on cases looking ahead to being hired by the very firms or politicians he is making rulings on.

A New Constitutional Convention

Levin is correct that a new Constitutional Convention called by the states is needed.

The Federal government has become a bully dictating everything in our lives from school lunches, to local zoning laws and health care.  A new Convention could draw up an amendment putting serious limitations on the Federal Dictatorship.

Still, we have a 10th Amendment now and neither party pays attention to it.  Would a new amendment be any different?

For political junkies like myself Levin's book is a fun read.  But as a guide for political action I suspect it will be ignored by both parties.



7 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a terrible review, you completely ignore his amendments that put the state legislatures square in the middle of the law making process. did you even read the book, or just the chapter titles?

Gary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gary said...

I love anonymous postings.

If the liar politicians ignore the Constitution today what makes you think that any new amendment will be followed?????

Levin fails to address that House members have no fear of the voters because free elections have nearly vanished.

Until free House elections are restored we are doomed to be ruled by centralized Billionaire Cartels of unions and businesses who fund the campaigns. And the Cartels don't give a crap about the Constitution. They only exist to raid the treasury.

Bruce said...

We need more small-government types to focus on what we agree on rather than what we disagree on.

I agree, as does Mark Levin and as do you that an Article V convention to propose amendments is key to putting in place some institutional changes.

I agree with you that some of Mark's proposals miss the mark, but the key thing is to first get a convention going. Then we can have the detailed debates over what the amendments should read.

I only recently started looking into this myself. I had assumed the difficult part would be to get any state legislatures to stand up and request a convention.

I was completely wrong. I was beyond surprised to find that there are hundreds and hundreds of outstanding applications to Congress from the vast majority of states (yes, more then 2/3).

I encourage you and your readers to look at:

http://www.foavc.org

I am not a member of that website, and I don't agree with every legal conclusion they arrive at. But they are doing a heck of a job in turning up Congress' lack of responsiveness to the applications that *are already there*. This is something that should concern every American.

Gary said...

Thanks for posting.

I agree with Mark about a new and limited Constitutional Convention to address issues.

But Mark fails to address that the Constitution is ignored right now. The basic reason for that is the politicians are almost fully financed by D.C. interests and have almost NO FEAR of the voters.

I want Mark to address true election reform in the House with smaller seats so the local Joe the Plumbers of the nation can afford to run for office.

Mary Hopkins said...

Short sighted. First of all, over and over again the book and Levin make sure that hat is being called for is NOT a Constitutional Convention - so why would you say that if you read the book or want to seem to agree with Levin on the merits of the process? (rhetorical question, yes).

You provide little to no insight or thoughts relative the process itself, that is Article 5, Section 2 of the Constitution which is the entire point of the book.

You do however spend most of your review disagreeing with term limits. Ok. So your problem seems to be around whether or not term limits truly changes the nature of corruption. You say it does not and use comparisons under today's protocols to make the case. BUT term limits completely change the paradigm Gary. Career politicians have a long(er) time owing lobbyests and PACS renumeration for their "support" either for their reelection or for their tricks to skim money. A recent book speaks to how todays politicians use laws to effectively blackmail businesses. If businesses come arcoss with enough money, those laws can be softened, exempted (for the payee) or let unpassed. This is the epitomy corruption, smacking of "protection money" of thugs in the city which is fully illegal - unless you are the lawmaker.

And on your comment on the Supreme Court... what argument are you even making there and also, I have two words for you anyway "Justice Roberts".

At this very moment Gary, the federal government is way out of control and is pushing us headlong into a despotic tyranny. In Levin's book, he makes the case why (the thing you argue strenuously lacking, albeit weakly) simply changing the election laws is useless and you didn't take that assertion at all.

These are the reasons you are getting bad reviews for your review. It's not very deep.

Gary said...

Thank you so much for the post. We must simply agree to disagree.

I don't like game playing. If you are calling a convention about the Constitution then it is a Constitutional Convention.

I don't have a problem with a convention, but if the politicians do not obey the Constitution now why would they obey an amended Constitution?

Term limits in California did noting to stop corruption, shakedowns of businesses for political cash or the march of big government. Levin is putting his faith in a system that failed.

I have blogged repeatedly about election reform that removes big money from House races and allows the average person to run for office. This reform could be enacted by a simple majority vote of the House.

CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE ONE; SECTION TWO

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, . . . "

The current monster super-sized House districts of 700,000 people require endless corrupt campaign cash. Only a return to small House seats will bring back anything like a democracy.

As say "John Roberts." Again, Levin is totally wrong by eliminating lifetime appointments to the courts. The Founders WANTED the courts to be as insulated as possible from politics.

Under term limits a judge gets appointed at age 45 for an 8 year term. So at age 53 he is term limited out and looking to make a living for run for office.

A judge knowing his job ends in a few years will become even more political looking to rule the right way in order to get hired by the groups he is ruling on. Or better yet, make rulings the "correct" way to build a resume to run for Congress etc.

Today Federal judges never run for office. They are above politics as much as can be.

Under Levin's term limits they become total political animals.