Liberty Amendments

[carlfense]

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.

Completely agree. It should be easily addressed through the language of amendment itself.

[TGHusker]

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.

My take

1. I'm still for term limits with certain other protections: Retiring congress persons cannot work (10 year ban) for a company they regulated / or had votes which regulate that company/industry. And they can not work for/advise any company that lobbys Congress -

 

2. 17th Amendment - agree - not sure this helps much. So NO. I think the view is that it gives states more control but not much different that the people of those states who vote in the state govt reps will probably vote in the same type of US rep or senator. I think this is aimed at those US Senators like John McCain who think they speak for the whole nation and not represent Arizona. Arizona is more cool on comprehensive immigration reform while McCain is for it.

 

3. Judicial Term limits and States/Congress overruling the supreme court: NO and NO, this is knee jerk reaction to the passing of Obama Care. What if the court approved a conservative law - then we'd have a knee jerk reaction the other way. Society changes slowly and the SC reflects some of that slow change. Hopefully changing for the better - like removing Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Ed

One might think of possible compromise reaction: Term limits in the 30 - 40 years range (keep senile judges off the court): Regarding an over turning a SC decision - only if 25 or more years passed to avoid knee jerk political reaction - hopefully, it the decision was real bad like Dread Scott a new court will correct itself as explained in this article:

This wiki (yea not the best source but quick) talks about impeachment of a SC judge. But it doesn't address health issues:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office

 

4. Limit Taxes and BBA: The only way these work is with an 'out clause' - taxes/spending can go up under certain criteria - example: "Declared War", Certain Economic factors (think 2008), national emergencies. However the best "Out Clause" is to vote out the guys who over spend.

 

5. Reign in Regs: Ok but limited: 10 year review, not 3 year. Certain major regs being exempt or given a 25 year review period (Like Clean Air Act that Carl mentions - exempt). Congress should be able to review and modify or delete inefficient or no longer needed regs that are just a burden to the economy. Perhaps zero base budgeting would help in this area - or it could open up a whole new can of worms.

 

6. Commerce clause - I do believe a review needs to be done. The Feds have reached too far using this clause.

 

7. Federal land grab - apply it to states and local govts as well and make it consistent

 

8. Let states alone amend the constitution - No. Allow the states to hold a Convention of States as provided for in Article 5 of the constitution - yes.

 

9. States override Congress: No - they can do it by the people of the states sending new reps to vote differently. Then Congress can override itself if

 

10. Voter Id: Yes - do not make it a burden or a cost, but a voter should be able to identify himself as a valid voter/citizen We have to show ID for less significant issues and the value of our vote is diminished if there is fraud of any kind. Yes, this has been a push of repubs for years but I'd agree to this if the Dems were pushing for it. I think it preserves the sanctity of the vote - one of if not our greatest privilege as a citizen.

 

 

As these links from the OP state, we get the govt we deserve. Govt is by and large a reflection of the society. If we want to change govt, perhaps the best way, and unfortunately the slowest way, is to change society. Cultures take a long time to change unless an strong outside force is placed into the mix.

 

http://www.teapartyt...t-save-america/

http://www.peoplespu...nts-chimerical/

from the 1st link:

The bottom line is that structural governmental reforms, which is what the liberty amendments Levin proposes are, are just an exercise in futility absent cultural and educational change meant to resurrect the original American national psychology. In fact, there is a very real danger that just such a conversation may overshadow the true problem.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, who is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, offered the single most thoughtful illustration of the argument I am making. In USA Today, he praised Levin for his creativity, “but the underlying problem is tougher. One way or another, the country tends to get the kind of government it deserves.” He adds, “And that gets to what I think is the real problem lying behind all of this enthusiasm for constitutional change: a sense that there are two sets of rules, one for the ‘insiders’ in Washington and their (frequently subsidized, or bailed-out, or protected) corporate allies, and another for everyone else.”

[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?

 

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.

 

Maybe sometime we can meet at a Husker game and I can hear it first hand.

[Husker_x]

I think the idea that we need to amend the constitution to deal with the money in politics problem should be given due consideration. The idea that we need a second Bill of Rights in response to that black guy being president (and passing a Republican healthcare law) is a bit of a stretch for me. In any case, the Levin/Limbaugh/Savage/Hannity schmucks would be the last people I would choose to draft any amendments. Given that the Levin-style conservative definition of 'liberty' involves stripping gays of rights but allowing nitwits to open carry automatic weapons with extended magazines into McDonald's, I don't think he qualifies as a serious person, much less one that should have the honor of altering our nation's foundational text.

[strigori]

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

 

 

So he knows the right is dying, and wants to change the constitution to prevent it.

 

1 - Term limits, let the states choose. Some already run term limits. This runs contrary to many of his other points, but the reason he wants it done is simple. Point # 2

 

2 - Senate seats are currently unable to be gerrymandered, strait up statewide elections. While congressional seats, and all internal state seats are. So the plan is to term limit out the left and replace them. Good luck convincing the public that they are should have no say in who their senator will be.

 

3 - Judicial Tyranny is a farce. A BS argument from the right when the puritanical holdover laws get struck down from other pesky parts of the Constitution that prevent any form of discrimination.

 

4 - The more money for the rich amendment. The locked spending is so far beyond idiotic. Better hope that everything happens was planned for ahead of time.

 

5 - Crack is a hell of a drug. Its simply aimed at removing any regulatory body to let businesses run wild. Lets be more like China, what's the worst that could happen?

 

6 - Again, this is another angle to let businesses to whatever they want, and remove the prohibition of monopolies. It is simply bad policy. This is one nation, we neeed a strong level of balance on national operations.

 

7 - The Federal gov very rarely takes private property. It is usually a State or municipality that uses eminent domain. Ironically this would prevent the Keystone Pipeline the right so desperately wants.

 

8 - Ties back to #2. He knows with how the small population states tend to lean right, they can gerrymander the state legislatures and impose the will of a very mall minority on the masses.

 

9 - This is The United States of America. This is not the EU, this is not the balkans. We are one nation and have one over riding rule of law. This type of power would remove decades of progress in a vast number of areas.

 

10 - This is not a problem. And amounts to a poll tax. Until there is empirical evidence that there is a widespread problem, this is idiotic. This simply amounts to an effort to keep the black and brown people away from the polls.

 

Its pretty simple what Levin wants. A 1950's social ideal, with a robber baron era ruleset for businesses. A great set up for the right white man, and a raw deal for everyone else. The Orwellian power this plan would give to the right should scare the living hell out of everyone. Giving a heavily gerrymandered minority of people the absolute power of the land is exactly what the Constitution is designed to prevent.

[tschu]

Why does voter ID keep coming up? It is literally not a problem, like zero problem, and any proposed "solution" to the non-problem that I've seen is just a GOP attempt at limiting the poor/minority voters from voting.

 

Again let me reiterate that voter fraud is literally not a problem at all

[BigRedBuster]

Claiming voter ID is a poll tax is a crock and it's nothing more than Dems trying to scare poor people into thinking republicans are trying to make it so they can't vote.

 

Now we can debate if we need voter ID all day long but to say its a poll tax is a load of crap.

[Husker_x]

Claiming voter ID is a poll tax is a crock and it's nothing more than Dems trying to scare poor people into thinking republicans are trying to make it so they can't vote.

 

Now we can debate if we need voter ID all day long but to say its a poll tax is a load of crap.

 

The Republican strategy must involve voter suppression. Given their stance on women, minorities, and immigrants, they can't actually expect to win an election fairly. So instead they manufacture controversies about voter fraud, claim to be the party that will fix the problems they invented, and then use a blend of voter suppression tactics and gerrymandering to win house seats. It's not an anomaly. It's their playbook.

[BigRedBuster]

Wow. That's right out of the democratic play book.

 

The Republican Party is flicked up. I totally agree with you on that but the Dems have mastered the art of taking every issue and making it look like that conservatives are nothing more than racist rich white men.

[tschu]

Given that there is zero need for Voter ID and that it would unnecessarily keep many people from the polls, mainly poor people and minorities, who conveniently happen to vote Democratic, what conclusion are we to draw?

[BigRedBuster]

Given that there is zero need for Voter ID and that it would unnecessarily keep many people from the polls, mainly poor people and minorities, who conveniently happen to vote Democratic, what conclusion are we to draw?

Bs.

 

I have spelled out on here how to do it do nobody is left out and all I got was....."it's not needed" ok that's fine. But then debate the need for it and stop with the poor people scare tactics.

[strigori]

Claiming voter ID is a poll tax is a crock and it's nothing more than Dems trying to scare poor people into thinking republicans are trying to make it so they can't vote.

 

Now we can debate if we need voter ID all day long but to say its a poll tax is a load of crap.

A cost added to be able to vote is by definition a poll tax. State ID's continue to have a rising cost as states pass the increased security layer cost onto the public. $10 or $15 might not seem like much money to many people, but there are people where that is the difference between eating for the week or going hungry. There is a reason why a poll tax is illegal.

 

And hell, typically it would be the right screaming and waving fists if everyone was required to walk around with a state issued ID. I guess when it suits their political needs, the ideology can go out the window.

[BigRedBuster]

That's laughable. It's easy to make them free.

[carlfense]

. . . Dems have mastered the art of taking every issue and making it look like that conservatives are nothing more than racist rich white men.

All conservatives aren't racist rich white men but I'd be more than willing to bet that most racist rich white men are conservative.

[strigori]

That's laughable. It's easy to make them free.

The people who want the ID, are the same ones who do not want anything to be payed for by the Gov. And it would defeat the primary purpose of those behind these laws. Remember, there was the Ohio GOP leader who said that the ID laws were going to keep Ohio from going to Obama in 2012.