Liberty Amendments

[TGHusker]

In our discussion of a 6 year term for the president, I was reminded that Congress will not reform itself nor will Washington fix the current 2 party stalemate.

Mark Levin, love him or hate him, has proposed that the only way to fix Washington is to fix it from the outside by the Constitutional amendment process via a State Constitutional convention (2 ways to amend the constitution - we are familiar with the Congress passing an amendment and it being ratified by 3/4 of the states, t convention of the states is the other method)

 

He proposes these 'fixes' to fix the humpty dumpty that is called Washington:

 

This summary is taken from a conservative website and is their summary (1st one I found so I ran wt it). The discussion is should be aimed at the proposed amendments and not on the website from which the summary came or about Levin. Can the amendments stand on their own as being valid answers to DC dysfunction and a more Constitutional practicing form of govt. A conservative opposing view is posted at the end of the summary

 

http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/13/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/

 

Mark Levin is proposing ten amendments to the Constitution. Each one is written in thoughtful language so as to preclude any ancillary problems:

1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2) Repealing the 17^th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17^th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7) Limiting Federal power to take private property

8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

Taken as a whole, there is no doubt that these amendments would restore our Republican form of government. Every proposal is backed up by scholarly analysis of the Framers’ view on the proposal, an overview of what has changed since the founding, and the rationale for why the proposal is necessary.

 

 

 

 

An opposing view from the conservative side.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/08/15/why-mark-levins-liberty-amendments-will-not-save-america/

http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/2013/11/03/commentary/madison-wouldve-said-liberty-amendments-chimerical/

 

The book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

 

 

[LukeinNE]

1. (Term limits) We've had this discussion in the other thread.

 

2. (17th Amendment): I'm not sure how this would help, other than delay political power shifts for one term (the 2010 GOP wave wouldn't have been felt by the Democrats until 2012 and 2014).

 

3. (Congress overruling Judiciary) There's already a check on Judicial power: impeachment. With the exception of the Warren Court, I think Supreme Courts have been pretty good at avoiding settling political disputes.

 

4. (Taxes and Spending): A couple of problems here. One, the limits on taxes and spending settles a political question in a decidedly conservative direction. Two, a BBA is a really, really terrible idea from an economic perspective.

 

5. (Reign in regulations) Good ideas, maybe a little aggressive on timeline.

 

6. (Reign in Commerce Clause) Agreed again.

 

7. (Federal eminent domain) I could be wrong but I could see this potentially causing some logistical issues.

 

8. (Let the states alone amend the Constitution) Absolutely not. It is hard to amend for a reason: The Constitution is the legal framework that all of us, regardless of how liberal or conservative, can agree to work within. Lower the threshold, and political questions start getting amended into the Constitution, rather than issues that society by consensus has agreed needs to be in there.

 

9. (States override federal government): Again, no. I'm pretty pro-states rights, but there are certain issues, national defense above all else, where the federal government must have absolute supremacy.

 

10. (Voter ID) Again, this is a political question. I think it's a sensible policy, but it's transparently a conservative hobbyhorse and that kind of undermines the seriousness of the proposal.

[lo country]

1. (Term limits) We've had this discussion in the other thread.

 

2. (17th Amendment): I'm not sure how this would help, other than delay political power shifts for one term (the 2010 GOP wave wouldn't have been felt by the Democrats until 2012 and 2014).

 

3. (Congress overruling Judiciary) There's already a check on Judicial power: impeachment. With the exception of the Warren Court, I think Supreme Courts have been pretty good at avoiding settling political disputes.

 

4. (Taxes and Spending): A couple of problems here. One, the limits on taxes and spending settles a political question in a decidedly conservative direction. Two, a BBA is a really, really terrible idea from an economic perspective.

 

5. (Reign in regulations) Good ideas, maybe a little aggressive on timeline.

 

6. (Reign in Commerce Clause) Agreed again.

 

7. (Federal eminent domain) I could be wrong but I could see this potentially causing some logistical issues.

 

8. (Let the states alone amend the Constitution) Absolutely not. It is hard to amend for a reason: The Constitution is the legal framework that all of us, regardless of how liberal or conservative, can agree to work within. Lower the threshold, and political questions start getting amended into the Constitution, rather than issues that society by consensus has agreed needs to be in there.

 

9. (States override federal government): Again, no. I'm pretty pro-states rights, but there are certain issues, national defense above all else, where the federal government must have absolute supremacy.

 

10. (Voter ID) Again, this is a political question. I think it's a sensible policy, but it's transparently a conservative hobbyhorse and that kind of undermines the seriousness of the proposal.

Real quick. Bought the wife iPhone upgrade at Best Buy. Get the e-mail with the order and directions specifically say "a government issued photo ID required to pick up phone". So I need that to get a phone, but not to vote. Right.

[carlfense]

Liberty Amendments, huh? That's the best branding that I've seen since the Patriot Act.

[Junior]

Liberty Amendments, huh? That's the best branding that I've seen since the Patriot Act.

 

Frank Luntz would be proud.

[TGHusker]

Liberty Amendments, huh? That's the best branding that I've seen since the Patriot Act.

Surprised you hadn't heard of these Carl. I'd like to know your thoughts on each one.

[carlfense]

1. (Term limits) Doesn't seem to work too well.

 

2. (17th Amendment) Definitely not. Levin should be more worried about diluting the influence of voters than he is about diluting the power of the states.

 

3. (Congress overruling Judiciary) No. The court is the proper place for determining legality or illegality.

 

4. (Taxes and Spending) What LukeinNE said.

 

5. (Reign in regulations) Absolutely not. Routine budget bills can't make it through the current obstruction so I can't imagine the damage that could be done if, for example, the Clean Air Act disappeared.

 

6. (Reign in Commerce Clause) Short answer, no.

 

7. (Federal eminent domain)I think that state/local eminent domain is a much bigger issue.

 

8. (Let the states alone amend the Constitution) Are you kidding me? No. (As an aside it sure seems like Levin is concerned about original intent when it comes to some issues . . . but when it comes to the procedure to amend the Constitution original intent doesn't matter as much, eh?)

 

9. (States override federal government) No. We sort of had a minor kerfluffle about that around 150 years ago.

 

10. (Voter ID) If voter ID is free and easily attainable I have no problem with it. Limiting early voting is a dumb idea. That's just trying to make it harder to vote for the sake of making it harder to vote.

[TGHusker]

Thanks Carl. Jr??

[TGHusker]

I see there is a web site/organization advocating for the Convention of States

 

http://conventionofstates.com/the-solution-article-v/

With this reference to the constitution:

The correct path can be found within Article V of the United States Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

- Article V, U.S. Constitution

 

With this on another page:

Two goals separate our plan from all other Article V organizations:

1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

2. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state’s legislative district. We believe this is very doable. Only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed.

Our Solution is Big Enough to Solve the Problem

Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.

A convention of states needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.

What Sorts of Amendments Could be Passed?

The following are examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a convention of states:

• A balanced budget amendment
• A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
• A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)
• A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
• A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
• Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
• Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
• Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

Of course, these are merely examples of what would be up for discussion. The convention of states itself would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments.

The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal government. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution.

[Junior]

1. (Term limits) I don't think this is the cure all people like to believe it is.

 

2. (17th Amendment) No. And suggesting it is absurd.

3. (Congress overruling Judiciary) No. And suggesting that Congress can overrule a Supreme Court decision is seriously one of the dumbest things I've ever seen suggested. And I'm not being hyperbolic here. It is truly asinine. Honestly, it's difficult to take anything else said by this person seriously after such a ridiculous idea.

4. (Taxes and Spending) I agree with Luke.

5. (Reign in regulations) No.

6. (Reign in Commerce Clause) No.

 

7. (Federal eminent domain) "Limiting Federal power to take private property." That's very ambiguous. So no.

8. (Let the states alone amend the Constitution) Not a snowball's chance in hell.

9. (States override federal government) Aside from the obvious (Carl's Civil War reference) this would create chaos as states pick and choose federal laws to obey and disregard.

10. (Voter ID) Agreed with what Carl said. If you have to spend personal money to get an ID to vote, that's a poll tax and is illegal. If it is free to the people, someone has to pay for it. More government spending!! Wait, I thought conservatives hated that? Besides, there's not a bigger red herring in politics today than the idea of in person voter fraud. It just doesn't happen.

[carlfense]

 

Liberty Amendments, huh? That's the best branding that I've seen since the Patriot Act.

Frank Luntz would be proud.

 

If you think that's impressive you should read my AMERICAF*ckYEAHGodGuns&Beer Act. It addresses campaign finance reform.

[carlfense]

I'd also add that an amendment should be added stating that US citizens have a constitutional right to vote.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Liberty Amendments, huh? That's the best branding that I've seen since the Patriot Act.

Frank Luntz would be proud.

 

If you think that's impressive you should read my AMERICAF*ckYEAHGodGuns&Beer Act. It addresses campaign finance reform.

 

where can we read it Carl?

[carlfense]

 

 

 

Liberty Amendments, huh? That's the best branding that I've seen since the Patriot Act.

Frank Luntz would be proud.

 

If you think that's impressive you should read my AMERICAF*ckYEAHGodGuns&Beer Act. It addresses campaign finance reform.

 

where can we read it Carl?

 

You can't read it. You have to listen to me drunkenly ramble it out incoherent line by incoherent line at my favorite watering hole.

[LukeinNE]

I'd also add that an amendment should be added stating that US citizens have a constitutional right to vote.

 

About the only issue I see this as addressing would be voting rights for convicted felons, which I do not support until their debt to society is paid.

 

Real quick. Bought the wife iPhone upgrade at Best Buy. Get the e-mail with the order and directions specifically say "a government issued photo ID required to pick up phone". So I need that to get a phone, but not to vote. Right.

 

To be clear, I support a national voter ID law provided that, as others have said, they are free and readily available from the government. I think the lack of ID issue is fairly narrow (as you implied, you can't do a damned thing in this country without one) and nearly everyone has some form of ID, but again, I wouldn't want to disenfranchise people who have a legitimate right to vote.