The Liberty Amendments: Mark Levin Book Review
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 6 months ago to Books
The Liberty Amendments: Mark Levin Book Review
Political Science, 208 pgs. ISBN 978-1-4516-0627-0
This book is filled with a well documented expression of original intent, the court cases, abuses and dereliction of duties as described in the document by the Congress, Judiciary and the Executive branches, which lead to the emasculation of the document, checks and balances and consequently the liberty of the citizens. Pertinent quotes from our founders and the influential thinkers of the age of enlightenment abound. This is the story of our Constitutional missteps and a method of correction.
It makes sound argument in favor of constitutional amendment by the states, and largely dispels the fears regarding a constitutional convention by utilizing the Article V clause which allows amendments by several methods: “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 other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress…” Here Mr. Levin makes the argument that it does not require the opening of the entire document at a constitutional convention but allows a method for state legislatures to amend the constitution as legitimately as the Congress, with or without their approval. Federalism, statehood, sovereignty must be exercised. The threshold is high. Three fourths of state legislatures combining forces to override the power of Washington are a number not easy to organize and maintain.
Proposing eleven Amendments by this method to correct the abused ambiguity, and counter the outright defiance and machinations the statists have used for their gain at our expense and liberty, Mr. Levin offers a method for restoring checks and balance, sovereignty and Liberty.
A recurring theme, a common thread…
For over two centuries our Constitution has been regarded by most of us as the law of the land; a final word regarding our protection against the potential of a growing tyranny and despotism. The document as originally intended was just such a document. It was a negative against the encroachment of unalienable rights, the diminution of liberty, the taking of private property, etc. Sure, there were some original flaws relative to equality, but they were remedied by the prescribed legitimate amendment process.
Not so, for statists and progressives who have done everything possible to undermine its restraints and usurp by both slow steady increments and “emergency” necessity, powers that have all but destroyed the original balance/separation of powers, the benefits of federalism, sovereignty of the states and citizens. They believe it not, a set of inviolable principles agreed upon in order to co-exist, but a malleable living set of recommendations, to be interpreted as pleases, if given any respect at all. Every sophistry, equivocation, and twisting of intent conceived were used for purposes of their own “utopian” aspirations. These dreams however divorced from potential actualization due to human nature (which the founders better understood), even if recognized, were of no consequence, because power and statism were sufficient goals in themselves. They disrespect the legitimate means of change through the amendment process as the only way to change the balance of power. No cost to you or the constitution will be too great to see the increase of their power, to create dystopian futures we know end in despotism.
Article V has been there all along, but will the people, the states, rally behind such an effort in necessary numbers? If, over time, our Constitution, has been allowed by acquiescence, inattention and a tolerance for politicians who trade our liberty for their vision, to be disrespected, then would these further Amendments be respected any more? I would like to believe that this could be accomplished and avoid what seems the endgame of our present course. It would be better than what history has all too often demonstrated: that “…mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed…” They do not rise until a great tumult is suffered.
Overall I recommend this book. I would prefer a different method of taxation to fund the Federal government than he proposes, but it would be a vast improvement over what we have now. Additionally his arguments would be just as valid without the references to particular religions even though it is true they influenced our founders. Everywhere a quote refers to God given rights or similar language would be just as powerful if argued upon natural rights. The arguments of 18th century political philosophers and politicians are often based on different (what some would call dubious) metaphysics and epistemology, but arrive at the same conclusions; thus it could be said that the arguments reinforce and compliment each other.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Political Science, 208 pgs. ISBN 978-1-4516-0627-0
This book is filled with a well documented expression of original intent, the court cases, abuses and dereliction of duties as described in the document by the Congress, Judiciary and the Executive branches, which lead to the emasculation of the document, checks and balances and consequently the liberty of the citizens. Pertinent quotes from our founders and the influential thinkers of the age of enlightenment abound. This is the story of our Constitutional missteps and a method of correction.
It makes sound argument in favor of constitutional amendment by the states, and largely dispels the fears regarding a constitutional convention by utilizing the Article V clause which allows amendments by several methods: “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 other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress…” Here Mr. Levin makes the argument that it does not require the opening of the entire document at a constitutional convention but allows a method for state legislatures to amend the constitution as legitimately as the Congress, with or without their approval. Federalism, statehood, sovereignty must be exercised. The threshold is high. Three fourths of state legislatures combining forces to override the power of Washington are a number not easy to organize and maintain.
Proposing eleven Amendments by this method to correct the abused ambiguity, and counter the outright defiance and machinations the statists have used for their gain at our expense and liberty, Mr. Levin offers a method for restoring checks and balance, sovereignty and Liberty.
A recurring theme, a common thread…
For over two centuries our Constitution has been regarded by most of us as the law of the land; a final word regarding our protection against the potential of a growing tyranny and despotism. The document as originally intended was just such a document. It was a negative against the encroachment of unalienable rights, the diminution of liberty, the taking of private property, etc. Sure, there were some original flaws relative to equality, but they were remedied by the prescribed legitimate amendment process.
Not so, for statists and progressives who have done everything possible to undermine its restraints and usurp by both slow steady increments and “emergency” necessity, powers that have all but destroyed the original balance/separation of powers, the benefits of federalism, sovereignty of the states and citizens. They believe it not, a set of inviolable principles agreed upon in order to co-exist, but a malleable living set of recommendations, to be interpreted as pleases, if given any respect at all. Every sophistry, equivocation, and twisting of intent conceived were used for purposes of their own “utopian” aspirations. These dreams however divorced from potential actualization due to human nature (which the founders better understood), even if recognized, were of no consequence, because power and statism were sufficient goals in themselves. They disrespect the legitimate means of change through the amendment process as the only way to change the balance of power. No cost to you or the constitution will be too great to see the increase of their power, to create dystopian futures we know end in despotism.
Article V has been there all along, but will the people, the states, rally behind such an effort in necessary numbers? If, over time, our Constitution, has been allowed by acquiescence, inattention and a tolerance for politicians who trade our liberty for their vision, to be disrespected, then would these further Amendments be respected any more? I would like to believe that this could be accomplished and avoid what seems the endgame of our present course. It would be better than what history has all too often demonstrated: that “…mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed…” They do not rise until a great tumult is suffered.
Overall I recommend this book. I would prefer a different method of taxation to fund the Federal government than he proposes, but it would be a vast improvement over what we have now. Additionally his arguments would be just as valid without the references to particular religions even though it is true they influenced our founders. Everywhere a quote refers to God given rights or similar language would be just as powerful if argued upon natural rights. The arguments of 18th century political philosophers and politicians are often based on different (what some would call dubious) metaphysics and epistemology, but arrive at the same conclusions; thus it could be said that the arguments reinforce and compliment each other.
Respectfully,
O.A.
'
•Amendments proposed in
The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic:
1. Term limits, including for justices.
2. Repealing Amendment 17 and returning the election of senators to state legislatures
3. A congressional super majority to override Supreme Court decisions (overruling what could be a stacked court)
4. Spending limit based on GDP
5. Taxation capped at 15%
6. Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights
7. Power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote
For me:
1. I never liked the idea that judges are unaccountable and in many cases, appointed for life.
2. I wholeheartedly agree, the state governors should appoint senators. This requires the senate to honor the wishes of their respective states instead of becoming Washington drones. The state legislatures can come up with their own ways to figure out who senators should be.
3. Sadly this is necessary, the supreme court has taken on the burden of deciding things far too important for 9 political appointees to figure out for themselves.
4. Not sure, this may be counter productive.
5. If this refers to the federal taxation, I agree. There is too much power concentrated in the hands of too few. The feds need to be reigned in, leaving social policy to the states.
6. Oh yes, the commerce clause has been so abused that the feds claim nearly everything affects interstate commerce.
7. Nope - not necessary if #2 & #3 happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many great voices out there who are mortals like the rest of us. They are not always right, but that doesn't mean they don't have something vital to contribute. I am always pleasantly surprised when I find myself in agreement on rare occasion with a Liberal... It happens...
Respectfully,
O.A.
It is unlike many of the political science books I have read recently, in that it offers a possible solution, as opposed to just complaining about the facts.
Regards,
O.A.