# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Mark Levin Talks Liberty Amendments On Hannity

## TaftFan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...d_smaller.html

Yeah yeah, F-Levin, he hates Ron Paul, whatever.

Listen to what he has to say.

----------


## cajuncocoa

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...vin-Challenge/

----------


## TaftFan

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...vin-Challenge/


Sorry, not close minded.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Sorry, not close minded.


Close minded would make sense if I refused to try something I didn't already know about.  That said, the idea of Mark Levin having "Liberty Amendments" is hilarious.

----------


## Deborah K

I used to really like him.  Met him once.  I read his book: Men in black, and thought it was really good.  He lost me when he trashed the Pauls.  But I may buy this book.  He's a good researcher, and a good writer.

----------


## TaftFan

> Close minded would make sense if I refused to try something I didn't already know about.  That said, the idea of Mark Levin having "Liberty Amendments" is hilarious.


Levin is very good on the Constitution. You can ignore it if you wish it doesn't hurt me.

----------


## JK/SEA

is it Glenn Levin or Mark Beck?

----------


## JK/SEA

> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...d_smaller.html
> 
> Yeah yeah, F-Levin, he hates Ron Paul, whatever.
> 
> Listen to what he has to say.


yeah Mark is a smart guy.....wait...he hates Ron Paul = he hates me = $#@! you Levin...

next.

----------


## kathy88

Those two pukes in the same thread title. FML.

----------


## Deborah K

> Those two pukes in the same thread title. FML.


ROFL!!!

----------


## donnay

> Levin is very good on the Constitution. You can ignore it if you wish it doesn't hurt me.



That makes it more bizarre that he didn't back a Constitutionalist running for President--wouldn't you say?

----------


## Deborah K

> That makes it more bizarre that he didn't back a Constitutionalist running for President--wouldn't you say?


He suffers from a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

----------


## TaftFan

http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/13/m...ty-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 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th 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.
> ...

----------


## cajuncocoa

Well, fantastic.  Not only is it hard to tell the difference between RedState and RPF on most days lately, we can start sharing stuff with them.  

*slap my damned head*

----------


## TaftFan

> Well, fantastic.  Not only is it hard to tell the difference between RedState and RPF on most days lately, we can start sharing stuff with them.  
> 
> *slap my damned head*


Do you have any other reviews of the book which happen to describe the particular amendments he is proposing? Do you want to take the time to find another source just because you don't like a particular site?

Stop the mind control meme.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Do you have any other reviews of the book which happen to describe the particular amendments he is proposing? Do you want to take the time to find another source just because you don't like a particular site?
> 
> Stop the mind control meme.


Reviews of Levin's book?  LMAO.  I wouldn't use Levin's book if I ran out of toilet paper.  

As for your "mind control" comment, obviously you're just trying to censor me.  If your mind is that easily controlled, maybe you should get some help.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...vin-Challenge/


I respectfully disagree with you on this.  I see nothing wrong with discussing the man, seeing how many conservatives (possibly phony, but you get my point) like him.

That doesn't mean you have to support anything he does, of course.  Obama happens to be quite important, and as such, worth being discussed despite the fact that we all hate him.

----------


## TaftFan

> Reviews of Levin's book?  LMAO.  I wouldn't use Levin's book if I ran out of toilet paper.  
> 
> As for your "mind control" comment, obviously you're just trying to censor me.  If your mind is that easily controlled, maybe you should get some help.


I don't care about Levin in particular. Many would be interested in his ideas, many of whom are on the forum. I have no interest in beating a dead horse.

I am obviously not being mind controlled. But the groupthink of Ron Paul GOOOd, Everything Else BAAAD really insults the intelligence of me and everyone else who refuses to participate in it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Ignoring Levin  and just focusing on the amendments...




> 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.





> 


I disagree, I believe elections provide some semblance of accountability, even if not nearly enough, while a leader who has no fear of losing a reelection has no incentive to do the right thing.  Also, we'd lose what ground we have gained faster.  So, I understand this, but I don't agree.



> 2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th 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.


Agreed.



> 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.


I disagree with this.  I agree with the mentality behind it, but I don't agree.  I'd rather limit SCOTUS to only being able to rule on Federal legislation, having no jurisdiction over anything at the state or local level.




> 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.


I'd rather limit it to under 10% of GDP, if not under 5%, but I'm willing to start here.  As far as I understand it, it would still be permitted to tax and spend LESS than 15%, so its a start.

That said, why limit spending to 17.5% while limiting taxation to 15%?  Why allow spending to be more than revenue?  That makes no sense.



> 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.


Sounds good.



> 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.


I'm surprised Levin supports this, it contradicts other things he's said, including support for Federal drug regulations which he has defended using the commerce clause.  That said, while I don't understand how Levin could support this, I do.



> 7) Limiting Federal power to take private property


I don't know if this is a good idea, seeing as the Constitution already gives the Federal Government NO power to take private property.  This would just be a backdoor way of making some such seizures legal. 




> 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.


I disagree.  Amending the constitution should be hard.  Making it easy only makes things easier for the tyrants, since most people hate freedom.



> 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.


I could agree with this, although I'd like to make it even easier than this.




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


I agree with this, and while I think virtually everything should be left to each individual state, I do believe the rules regarding FEDERAL elections should be uniform throughout the country, by amendment if needed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't care about Levin in particular. Many would be interested in his ideas, many of whom are on the forum. I have no interest in beating a dead horse.
> 
> I am obviously not being mind controlled. But the groupthink of Ron Paul GOOOd, Everything Else BAAAD really insults the intelligence of me and everyone else who refuses to participate in it.


Who has said that?  LOL!

----------


## cajuncocoa

What's wrong with following the Constitution we already have?

----------


## phill4paul

> [COLOR=#111111]Ignoring Levin  and just focusing on the amendments...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				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.
> 			
> ...


  I agree with you on this. He get's to the meat of the problem in his explanation. Simply limit campaign funding and spending and the main problem goes away. If citizen's of a district want someone to represent them, for however long, then I see no problem with it. It's the insane amount of money that needs to be raised to fund a race that limits the challengers.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> What's wrong with following the Constitution we already have?


I caught him on Hannity's radio show yesterday talking about these LAs and from what I gather they're a way for grassroots activists to work to get their state legislatures discussing these amendments and starting a bottom-up way and passing new amends to the Bill of Rights. Despite Levin's name involved, I am delighted that the millions that listen to his show and Hannity's can be potentially mobilized to do something besides just bitching and voting.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> 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.
> 			
> 		
> 
> I disagree with this.  I agree with the mentality behind it, but I don't agree.  I'd rather limit SCOTUS to only being able to rule on Federal legislation, having no jurisdiction over anything at the state or local level.


SCOTUS has never been all-powerful.  It has no ability to enforce its own decisions, and its rulings on constitutional law are subject to being overturned by constitutional amendments.  Limiting judicial review to federal laws would be extremely unwise.  If that had always been the case, we might still have anti-miscegenation laws, racially segregated schools, mandatory public school prayer, and other horrors.  As Justice Holmes noted, "I do not think the United States would come to an end  if we lost our power to declare an act of Congress void.  I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several states."




> 7) Limiting Federal power to take private property
> 			
> 		
> 
>  I don't know if this is a good idea, seeing as the Constitution already gives the Federal Government NO power to take private property.


The power of eminent domain is implicitly acknowledged by the 5th Amendment.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I caught him on Hannity's radio show yesterday talking about these LAs and from what I gather they're a way for grassroots activists to work to get their state legislatures discussing these amendments and *starting a bottom-up way and passing new amends to the Bill of Rights*. Despite Levin's name involved, I am delighted that the millions that listen to his show and Hannity's can be potentially mobilized to do something besides just bitching and voting.


Why do you, or Levin, think the Bill of Rights need to be amended?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Why do you, or Levin, think the Bill of Rights need to be amended?


You got me there presuming that the BoR is only the first ten amendments. The idea is to do this bottom up approach and add more amendments to reign in and limit the govt overreach cause clearly the Congress doesn't listen usually. Not a bad idea to start focusing on our state legislatures and having them stick up for us like they should be. To me, this could be a multi-pronged offensive to a) clean up our state houses, b) push these amendments or similar ones through and c) keep pushing for better candidates to rise up and primary incumbents and/or focus on open seats. The value I see in this is that the vast majority of tea party people and socons tend to just do rallies, perhaps donate some money and vote. I see this as giving those people more focus and mobilizing them into the fold where most of us already are. That way we all have more allies to aid the broader cause of liberty. There won't be exclusive agreement across the board but points a and b should happen more smoothly.

----------


## jllundqu

> What's wrong with following the Constitution we already have?


It obviously NEEDS to be amended to restore balance.  

From a recent review of the book:  


> Some of Levin’s proposed amendments are intended to clarify language that already exists in the Constitution, such as the much-abused Commerce Clause – lately interpreted as a warrant for unlimited federal control of all human activity, although the Founders most certainly did not intend it to be taken that way.  Our language has changed over the centuries, always in a way that expands the Left’s desire for centralized control.  The authors of the Constitution would find our current understanding of the word “commerce” to be utterly deranged – indeed, they might even ask what the point of their Revolution was, if “interstate commerce” was to become a writ for powers beyond the wildest dreams of daft old King George.
> 
> Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power, making it easier for states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation.  Levin also makes a compelling argument against the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of United States senators.  Senators were supposed to be instruments of the state legislatures, while the House of Representatives would be filled by popular vote.  I have never read a better explanation for why this was important, and how it gave state governments a vitally needed hand in the crafting of federal legislation.
> 
> I’ve also seen no better case made for term limits on Congress, as Levin astutely points out that not only do Jurassic representatives-for-life distort the distribution of power in Congress, but they invest a great deal of our national energy (and funding!) in maintaining their 85-percent-plus re-election rate.  Surely some of those “safe” districts would merely replace Retiring Party Drone A with New Party Drone B, but as it stands, far too many representatives discover they can most easily secure lifetime tenure by representing the Leviathan State instead of their constituents, tapping the federal treasury to purchase reliable voters.
> 
> The reason all of these goals must be accomplished through Constitutional amendment is that any other instrument of legislation or representation can be twisted to the purposes of the central State.  Levin makes an irrefutable case that we long ago passed the point of no return for reforming our bloated, degenerate, dying federal government by winning a few elections.  The people who rigged this system made certain to armor it against future dissent from unhappy voters – one man, one vote, one time, every step of the way, with each new progressive “achievement” promptly declared more immutable than the tattered old scrap of parchment kept under glass at the National Archives.  Having studied the provisions for a Constitutional convention, Levin is convinced that the high bar for state ratification of any proposed amendments will keep it from becoming a carnival of kooks.  The kooks are winning anyway.  What could they get by amending the Constitution that our eternal bureaucracy and despotic executive branch aren’t giving them, one lost liberty at a time?

----------


## thoughtomator

Make it so no law remains in effect for more than two sessions of Congress (4 years), so that if a session does not reauthorize a law it automatically sunsets.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You got me there presuming that the BoR is only the first ten amendments. The idea is to do this bottom up approach and add more amendments to reign in and limit the govt overreach cause clearly the Congress doesn't listen usually. Not a bad idea to start focusing on our state legislatures and having them stick up for us like they should be. To me, this could be a multi-pronged offensive to a) clean up our state houses, b) push these amendments or similar ones through and c) keep pushing for better candidates to rise up and primary incumbents and/or focus on open seats. The value I see in this is that the vast majority of tea party people and socons tend to just do rallies, perhaps donate some money and vote. I see this as giving those people more focus and mobilizing them into the fold where most of us already are. That way we all have more allies to aid the broader cause of liberty. There won't be exclusive agreement across the board but points a and b should happen more smoothly.


That's not a bad plan.  Re-reading through the list of amendments Levin proposes, however, he  missed something that's crucial to our current Constitution and/or any good amendments that might follow:  we need to do something to assure our representatives listen to their constituents rather than global corporations that donate millions to their campaign.  I'm not anti-corporate; just the opposite in fact (my college degree and background are business related)...but when I see our congressmen ignoring the will of the people, using the Obamacare bill as an example, in order to satisfy the interests of big insurance and big pharma, something is very wrong.

----------


## jllundqu

> That's not a bad plan.  Re-reading through the list of amendments Levin proposes, however, he  missed something that's crucial to our current Constitution and/or any good amendments that might follow:  we need to do something to assure our representatives listen to their constituents rather than global corporations that donate millions to their campaign.  I'm not anti-corporate; just the opposite in fact (my college degree and background are business related)...but when I see our congressmen ignoring the will of the people, using the Obamacare bill as an example, in order to satisfy the interests of big insurance and big pharma, something is very wrong.


Agreed...  I think something to address is the Citizens United case and the "money is speech, corporations are people" argument.  I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one!

----------


## Pericles

Ultimately, all of these attempts to fix the Constitution have at their core, is the concept that the Constitution means what it says. The means of enforcing the Constitution is the real issue.

----------


## Woods

> That said, why limit spending to 17.5% while limiting taxation to 15%? Why allow spending to be more than revenue? That makes no sense.


Income taxes run about 83% of federal revenue; and 15 is about 85% of 17.5.  So, the 1-to-1 threshold you refer to is implicit his numbers.  That said, this is a fallback position.  He favors repeal of the Seventeenth.




> I don't know if this is a good idea, seeing as the Constitution already gives the Federal Government NO power to take private property. This would just be a backdoor way of making some such seizures legal.


The Framers knew that government has the power of condemnation.  That's why the Fifth Amendment says that the property owner must receive "just compensation" when the power is executed.




> I'm surprised Levin supports this, it contradicts other things he's said, including support for Federal drug regulations which he has defended using the commerce clause. That said, while I don't understand how Levin could support this, I do.


The proposed re-wording of the commerce clause does not contradict original intent nor Levin's arguments about "drugs."

----------


## libertygold

Levin and Hannity? Two neo-cons who hate Ron Paul and would have us enter more wars and grow the state. They pretend to care about the Constitution when it suits them so they can make money off a book or promote their Republican friends. When people were decrying the invasion of Iraq, Hannity was telling people to shut up. I won't forget how big of a shill Hannity was for Bush during his presidency.

----------


## scrosnoe

It is all about leadership and yes 'they' would like to get you to promote 'their' people with whatever issues it takes to get you trapped.  Promote the ones you know you can trust and keep moving toward the prize of freedom and less government.  It is not about selling books and air time for some of us!  It is about promoting people of principle WITH a track record of doing the right thing to match the rhetoric.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Levin and Hannity? Two neo-cons who hate Ron Paul and would have us enter more wars and grow the state. They pretend to care about the Constitution when it suits them so they can make money off a book or promote their Republican friends. When people were decrying the invasion of Iraq, Hannity was telling people to shut up. I won't forget how big of a shill Hannity was for Bush during his presidency.


+rep

----------


## libertygold

> What's wrong with following the Constitution we already have?


Exactly. The Constitution we have now is fine. We just need to follow it. Tell that to Republicans and Democrats in Washington.

----------


## Weston White

Say what now? 3/5 that equates to .6%, heck might as well just call it was it really is, a purely ceremonious activity to the assurance of democracy.  No the requisite should be a strict 3/4 supermajority and no less.

These amendments of his merely seem to give the appearance of great change without providing any underlying substance.  If they were representative of a meal, Mark Levin’s table would be devoid of meat and potatoes.

Also I think that revision on the commerce clause is dangerous.  When a state fails to take action against business ventures that impact the whole of society there needs to be somebody with the authority to step in and tell those businesses that no you are not going to dump your aluminum waste into the Mississippi; no you are not putting lead into that paint you sell; negative on the use of asbestos; until futher notice we are suspending your professional activities for insider trading; you have a major problem gentleman, it seems that you have been allowing the trichloroethylene (TCE) that you use to run off into the city’s drinking table.  It is mutually beneficial for a society to retain the power to cease and desist, to rectify the Beatrice and W.R. Grace’ of the world.

----------


## Woods

> He lost me when he trashed the Pauls.


He trashed one Paul.

----------


## Woods

> Levin and Hannity? Two neo-cons who hate Ron Paul


Levin neo-con?  He opposed intervention in Syria, Libya and Egypt.  But yes, Levin surely did lay into Ron Paul.  Seemed perplexing that Paul didn't go on the Levin show and straighten Levin out.

----------


## FloralScent

> Levin neo-con?  He opposed intervention in Syria, Libya and Egypt.  But yes, Levin surely did lay into Ron Paul.  Seemed perplexing that Paul didn't go on the Levin show and straighten Levin out.


Funny you didn't mention his warmongering against Iran. He's a neocon, and you're a troll.

----------


## Woods

> Funny you didn't mention his warmongering against Iran. He's a neocon, and you're a troll.


You didn't mention it, either.  Where is this supposed "warmongering?"

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Levin neo-con?  He opposed intervention in Syria, Libya and Egypt.  But yes, Levin surely did lay into Ron Paul.  Seemed perplexing that Paul didn't go on the Levin show and straighten Levin out.


Why is it that these people demand so much more attention than the issues themselves? Why do I care what Levin thinks about anything? Seems like just another weapon of mass distraction to me.

----------


## Woods

> Why *do* I care what Levin thinks about anything?


Reading "do" to mean "should" - Why are you asking me instead of the opening poster?

----------


## compromise

> Levin neo-con?  He opposed intervention in Syria, Libya and Egypt.  But yes, Levin surely did lay into Ron Paul.  Seemed perplexing that Paul didn't go on the Levin show and straighten Levin out.


Levin actually defended Obama on Libya and slammed those opposed to intervention and those who wanted a congressional declaration. He was consistently supportive of intervention in Libya.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/ma...nnis-kucinich/

Levin only really started to improve with regards to foreign policy this year. I wouldn't say he's a true neocon, but he definitely is a neoconservative-leaning hawk.

----------


## speciallyblend

great onion article title.

----------


## Woods

> Levin actually defended Obama on Libya and slammed those opposed to intervention and those who wanted a congressional declaration. He was consistently supportive of intervention in Libya.
> http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/ma...nnis-kucinich/


Your characterization misstates the content of your linked article and Levin's position - which is the same as mine - Obama's military intervention was constitutional, but stupid.  In the article, he said calling the intervention unconstitutional was "ridiculous," but never defended the policy.




> Levin only really started to improve with regards to foreign policy this year. I wouldn't say he's a true neocon, but he definitely is a neoconservative-leaning hawk.


He discusses foreign policy in a chapter called "self preservation," and writes, "America cannot export democracy simultaneously everywhere, nor should it attempt to."  He gives exceptions, namely the Marshall Plan. Was Thomas Jefferson a neoconservative-leaning hawk, for fighting an undeclared pre-emptive war in the Middle East?

----------


## Madison320

> I don't care about Levin in particular. Many would be interested in his ideas, many of whom are on the forum. I have no interest in beating a dead horse.
> 
> I am obviously not being mind controlled. But the groupthink of Ron Paul GOOOd, Everything Else BAAAD really insults the intelligence of me and everyone else who refuses to participate in it.


I agree with you on the Ron Paul good everything else bad thing, I have an infraction from this website to prove it (I said some Ron Paul fans were cult like). But I disagree with you about Levin. What good is supposed detailed knowledge of the constitution if you support hacks like Rick Santorum while displaying outright hatred for libertarians like Ron Paul? And its not just Ron Paul, he hates all libertarians. I can't remember specifically right now but I know he's gotten major things wrong like the lack of need for declaring war and all the vice crimes like drugs and gambling. Who gives a crap if you can recite every line of the constitution if you don't understand the concept of liberty?

----------


## libertygold

> I agree with you on the Ron Paul good everything else bad thing, I have an infraction from this website to prove it (I said some Ron Paul fans were cult like). But I disagree with you about Levin. What good is supposed detailed knowledge of the constitution if you support hacks like Rick Santorum while displaying outright hatred for libertarians like Ron Paul? And its not just Ron Paul, he hates all libertarians. I can't remember specifically right now but I know he's gotten major things wrong like the lack of need for declaring war and all the vice crimes like drugs and gambling. Who gives a crap if you can recite every line of the constitution if you don't understand the concept of liberty?


Amen. Amen. Amen. To everything you just said. Amen. Levin was in the bag for Bush. Levin is a war hawk who would have us at war everywhere. Levin is for the war on drugs. Levin, just like Limbaugh and Hannity and Savage and the others just try to speak the language of liberty but are actually the enemies of liberty. They are as much part of the problem as the Democrats. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Levin, and even Beck actually don't give a damn about the size of government and liberty. They simply want to enrich themselves and have their friends control the power of the state. They have no problem with big government so long as they are running it. They are just propaganda shills.

----------


## TheNung

More amendments for the government to ignore?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *What Makes Him Think that the U.S. Government Will Obey New Amendments?
> *Laurence M. Vance 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...ew-amendments/
> 
> Conservative Mark Levin has a new book out, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, in which he advocates new constitutional amendments. It doesnt matter how many or what they are about. What makes him think that the U.S. government, which doesnt follow the Constitution now, will follow any new amendments that are adopted later.
> 
> America had a chance to restore the Republic by electing Ron Paul but rejected him. Now America has what it deserves.
> 
> 6:00 pm CST on November 5, 2013
> ...


I'd say that pretty well sums it up.

----------


## Woods

> I'd say that pretty well sums it up.


It is a good summary, if you don't mind factual inaccuracy,  irrelevant slander, and the reality that all non-constructive criticism is worthless.  I bet neither of these two has read Levin's book.  If you haven't read them either, then it may explain why it works for you.

The reality is - most of the Constitution is in force.  The abuse of power derives from ignoring and dissembling a few key phrase, especially the commerce clause.  All the "quantitative" elements of the Constitution are observed:  Senators run every 6 years, Representatives every 2 years, and no one has yet argued that 49 is greater than 51.  Perhaps it is unintended, but nonetheless significant, but almost every suggested Levin fix is quantitative:  balanced budget, 3/5 state override, etc.  

I'd love to hear and actual, rational argument as to why these quantitative requirements would be the only quantitative requirements not followed.  Of the dozen or so "reviews" that have made this same point, none of them constructs a positive argument to support their hypothesis. 

----
DiLorenzo does get to the core of the issue.  Levin called Ron Paul, Rue Paul.  Further, Levin disses neo-Confederates as crackpots and phony academics.  So, DiLorenzo is firing back, and unfortunately, using phony academics to do it.  His quote of Levin's "previous" book is not in Levin's previous book.  Nor does DiLorenzo provide the refuting evidence.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *The Tyranny of Mark Levins Liberty
> 
> *By Jack Hunter
> 
> Under discussion: Mark Levin, _Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto_, Threshold Editions (2009), 256 pages
> 
> The first paragraph of the first chapter of Mark Levins _Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto_, the talk radio hosts latest _New York Times_ bestseller, reads: 
> There is simply no scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism. Moreover, there are competing voices today claiming the mantle of true conservatism including neo-conservatism (emphasis on a robust national security), paleo-conservatism (emphasis on preserving the culture), social conservatism (emphasis on faith and values), and libertarianism (emphasis on individualism), among others. Scores of scholars have written at length about what can be imperfectly characterized as conservative thought. But my purpose is not to give them exposition, as it cannot be fairly or adequately accomplished here, nor referee among them.
> 
> ...


http://takimag.com/article/the_tyran...#axzz2k3IxeEUv

----------


## Woods

Another random walk down ad hominem land



> Those familiar with Levins angry screeds, name-calling and general rudeness on his radio program might be surprised at first by the comparative thoughtfulness of his book.


Really?  Does he mean those that are familiar with the 2% of the show described in that sentence would somehow be unfamilar with thoughtfulness that comprises the other 98%?  I guess the guy doesn't actually listen to the show.  Is Mr. Hunter not angered watching the Obamacons dismantle the United States?  I understand Patrick Henry was pretty good at angry screeds.



> And Levin gives the impression that global American empire, not merely a republic in which each state was free to act on its own, had been the Founders intention from the beginning.


And where are all the quotes support this?

All this ad hominem fallacy and straw man bull $#@! is so tiring and time-wasting.  It's ideas that count.  In all this commentary on Levin and LIberty Amendments, when is someone pretending to be conservative or libertarian going to engage in substantive discussion?  When is someone going to take the suggested amendments in this book and specifically refute the need for them or refute the Constitutional history Levin provides to show these amendments as restoration of the republic.  In lieu of repealing the 17th amendment, how is the idea (which Levin didn't invent) of having 3/5 state override not a fine way to restore the lost check on the federal government the states once had?

Enough with personalities.  Who cares if Levin guy yells?  *Some media are reporting that David Long, leader of the Indiana Senate is calling for other states to convene with him to discuss the possibility.  Do you think Levin's politeness will come up or discussion?*

----------


## Kevin007

Levin actually likes Rand.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Anyone who believes a convention will save the country is a damned fool, and a useful idiot working for the destruction of the Constitution.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Levin actually likes Rand.


That doesn't say anything about Levin.  I'm just curious if it says something about Rand Paul.

I definitely wish we'd have more constructive criticism of Rand on here, and a little less of the all or nothing arguments.  Rand does do some good stuff.  But he has also done bad things, like endorsing intervention with ISIS, and refused to even explicitly take the constitutional stance of leaving drug laws to the states (let alone challenging such laws as being violations of liberty, as Ron did.)

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying Rand is all bad, I'd even say he's significantly more good than bad (I have a "stand with Rand" poster up on my wall, I would not have a similar poster for Ted Cruz or any other senate Republican) but his positions are bad, even dangerous, on a few issues, and those are exactly the reasons Levin tolerates him.

----------


## jmdrake

> Levin neo-con?  He opposed intervention in Syria, Libya and Egypt.  But yes, Levin surely did lay into Ron Paul.  Seemed perplexing that Paul didn't go on the Levin show and straighten Levin out.


So Levin is against foreign intervention when a Democrat is president.  Has he ever apologized for supporting the war in Iraq?  Because the same (non) justifications hold for both wars.  (Despot leader supposedly gassed his own people has chemical weapons that could fall into the hands of terrorists etc.)

----------


## jmdrake

> Levin actually likes Rand.


It depends on what day you are listening to Levin.

Levin says Rand is "soft on national security and way to liberal".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It depends on what day you are listening to Levin.
> 
> Levin says Rand is "soft on national security and way to liberal".


Well, he still says he "likes" Rand, though I don't know what that means for sure.

----------


## William Tell

> Levin is very good on the Constitution. You can ignore it if you wish it doesn't hurt me.


No, he hates and trashes not just Ron Paul, but anyone who supports Nullification. Levin is a Lincoln worshiper, he does not want the Constitution enforced. Nullification will solve the problems, not changing the Constitution.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Does anyone have a link to the government "authority/lawyers" take on Article V and what happens when the states call a convention for amending the constitution.  I have a bone to pick!

I know I've seen it posted here somewhere, but can't find it.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Levin actually likes Rand.


Will Rand go on his show within the next 18 months or so?    Make your prediction.

----------


## William Tell

> Will Rand go on his show within the next 18 months or so?    Make your prediction.


Rand was on his show a couple weeks ago.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Does anyone have a link to the government "authority/lawyers" take on Article V and what happens when the states call a convention for amending the constitution.  I have a bone to pick!
> 
> I know I've seen it posted here somewhere, but can't find it.


Bump question ^^^

----------


## TommyJeff

> Rand was on his show a couple weeks ago.


Obviously I'm not a regular listener.  Any chance you know the date he was on so I can find a podcast?
Thanks

----------


## William Tell

> Obviously I'm not a regular listener.


Neither am I, thankfully. Someone linked to it.




> Any chance you know the date he was on so I can find a podcast?
> Thanks


Sure, here's the link, its embeded at the Right Scoop:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=Mark+Levin

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-...ews-rand-paul/

----------


## TommyJeff

> Neither am I, thankfully. Someone linked to it.
> 
> 
> Sure, here's the link, its embeded at the Right Scoop:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=Mark+Levin
> 
> http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-...ews-rand-paul/


Understanding they only talked about a limited number of issues - there was much agreement.  It could be a good platform for Rand to pull votes from those on the right with brain cells

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Understanding they only talked about a limited number of issues - there was much agreement.  It could be a good platform for Rand to pull votes from those on the right with brain cells



So do you think Rand has a chance?  Will you vote for him?  Did you like Ron and vote for him?

----------


## TommyJeff

> So do you think Rand has a chance?  Will you vote for him?  Did you like Ron and vote for him?


A chance??  A chance of what?  Of the nomination? Presidency? 
Id say everyone still has a chance to all of the above as of today.  He will likely have my vote but I'm not locking it in today as I find no reason for doing that. Does he already have your vote regardless of what he says/done or anyone else says/does?
I still like Ron.

----------

