The Liberty Amendments

REVIEW OF Mark R. Levin's book "Liberty Amendments" 26 Jan 2014In general Mr. Levin's amendments are good but somewhat long and wordy for a Constitution that needs to be short and to the point. Eleven new amendments would make the total number thirty-eight. At some point the main body of the Constitution needs to be revised to include the amendments. When the amendments become longer than the basic Articles it is reasonable, after 225+ years, to reform and modernize the obsolete portions as well as the pertinent parts of this very important document with more than with just amendments. The situation is no different than when the Founders were trying to amend the Articles of Confederation.Suggestions by Chapter:Chapt. 2, (pg 19): Term Limits Amendment: 12 years both houses--OKSec 2: Not needed--common sense admin.Chapt. 3, (pg 33): Restore Senate Election Method: Don't agree. The 17th Amendment was passed for good reason. Numerous State legislatures were having problems electing Senators because of corruption and corporate influence for which we now have more than then. So the reoccurrence of States going without Senators is likely. We already have political chaos--why add to it. There are several arguments for the Senate already being too State orientated and neglecting foreign relations. Voting against the League of Nations for example. I see no problem with Sec. 4 of his amendment to give State legislatures the power to remove a wayward Senator for unethical or anti-State gross contrariness. All in all there is plenty wrong with the Senate but the 17th Amendment doesn't rank high on the list. The Founders were looking for a wiser upper house--perhaps more education or experience in their qualifications would be a better approach.Chapt. 4, (pg 49): SCOUS Term Limits and Override: Agree somewhat. Sec. 1: I like the age out limits better than years of service, otherwise a judge might get appointed at an older age and still be within the 12-year limit. Age out also doesn't require the semi-complicated class changes. See "Lex Ferenda" (on Amazon) for age out details. Sec. 4 & 6: The three-fifths override is too low. Two-thirds would be better. The reasoning is that mid-west, mountain and southern States combined would exceed the 3/5ths number and might overload the system in some unreasonable manner. Sec. 8: The two-year time limit is also excessive and leaves the law in limbo too long. This is the communications age and even our legislatures and citizens should be able to determine a bad law within a year.Review of Liberty Amendments, page 2Chapt. 5, (pg 73): Spending and Taxing Amendments:Spending Amendment: Limits are necessary.Sec. 2: I believe the word after "Oct 1 of each year" should be "or" rather than "and."Sec. 3: The words "receipts" and "outlays" are not defined until Sec. 5. This section may also be difficult to administer adding to the bureaucracy we are trying to reduce.No emergency exception statement is mentioned until Sec. 6.Sec. 4: The logic for the 17.5% indexing is not clearly explained in the text.Sec. 5: How exactly is the debt repaid?Sec. 6: A one-year suspension may not be sufficient for war and three-fifths of the Congress may not be available after a WMD attack. Perhaps a percentage of those living or some sort of approval by the States would be a secondary solution.Sec. 7: There is no specific debt limit or indexing and the attendance question in Sec. 6 above applies.Taxing Amendment: Congress doesn't ever seem to get it.Sec. 1: Abe's Indignation League suggested the 15% income tax limit in 1999, but without a Constitution amendment to limit welfare programs it may not now be enough.Sec.2: Changing the tax return date would make Sec. 3 of the previous amendment even more difficult to administer.Sec. 3 & 4: A simple clause against double taxation should be sufficient. There is no emergency clause to increase taxes in case of war. This might be a good place for a minimum tax and tax code simplification requirements.Chapt. 6, (pg 99): Bureaucracy Limits: Good idea for selected parts.Sec. 1: It is not reasonable to Sunset all departments every three years. For example, the defense/war department has been around pretty much since the founding and not likely to go away. Agencies such as the FCC and FAA are nearly set in stone. On the other hand the education department could go away tomorrow and the States could/should take over higher education and local boards manage through K-12.Sec 2: It's not a good idea to place fixed amounts ($100 million) in an ongoing document because of inflation over time. Dollar amounts need to be indexed to the GDP or some other method moving with time such as population.Review of Liberty Amendments, page 3Sec. 2 & 3: Establishing a new committee does not jive with the less government goal of the book and if Congress is going to perform many of the functions of all these bureaucrats they are going to need a lot more smart people. Congress has trouble coming to meetings and oversight already. There is a basic power question here: do we want short term inexperienced Congressional staff doing oversight or longer term experienced bureaucrats?Sec. 4: A six months wait for action on some regulations is excessive; e.g. patents, aircraft, pharmaceuticals, etc.Chapt. 7, (pg 117): Promote Free Enterprise: Maybe miss named?This amendment is a limit on the use of the commerce clause. A better approach would be to have a Definition Amendment and include general welfare, misdemeanors, etc as well. I don't see the words promoting capitalism or economic freedom in this section?Chapt. 8, (pg 137): Private Property Amendment: Agree with premise, but!This borders on a happy lawyers amendment. How much litigation will be produced on the $10K amount, and why not a $1K minimum? Amounts should be indexed in any case. Mr. Levin claims the common case law in this area is a mess. Perhaps this is true, but if some local governments are abusing the "takings clause" law, shouldn't the higher courts fix it. We can't put everything in the Constitution and one reason for the book is to return more power to the States, not increase federal power. Here is perhaps a better solution: For principle homes, farms, or businesses at least five years old, and applying only to families, use an average of three disinterested appraisals and double the dollar amount plus appraisal fees. For other property use the same appraisal method and 1.5 times the amount.Chapt. 9, (pg142): Direct Amendment by two-thirds of the States: Generally agree.There is a potential problem with 34 States modifying the Constitution because this number might not include any of the larger States. Requiring ratification by at least half of the largest ten States could solve this. Article V with ¾ ratification probably isn't that bad.Sec. 3: A set time limit is a good idea--but why six years? This is the 21st Century and our modern communications methods should expedite the process.Chapt. 10, (pg 169): States Authority to Check Congress: Generally agree.Sec. 1: Requiring time for bills to be read is important, but 30 days may be a little long. We shouldn't forget that Congresspersons have large staffs that help them with these activities just like the clerks for the Supreme Court. Limiting the size of bills would help.Review of Liberty Amendments, page 4Sec. 2: Don't understand this section. If Congress just passed a bill why would they suddenly want to override it?Sec. 3: I would make this Section One.Sec. 4: Shouldn't the regulation negative be in Chapter 6 with the other bureaucratic changes. Also seems to be a typo with the "Chapter 9" which should be Chapter 6.Sec. 6: Twenty-four months is too long to delay laws.Chapt. 11, (pg 183): Voter ID: Better to leave as a States' job.Sec. 2: The phrase "unable to afford" complicates the fee payment. Why not just make it free for all. But unless the fed's pay, it is another mandate we are trying to avoid.Sec. 3 & 4: Let the States decide--we want the States to have more powerSummary:Important items neglected include campaign finance and war powers.The book's theme is ok, although not new or original. Mark is no James Madison, and neither am I, but he (or his staff) could have done a better job with more and deeper research using already published books and thinking through some of the consequences of the changes.This would be a good time for a group of intelligent conservatives to get together for an extended period and solve the problem; our outdated Constitution.Jim Schmitendorf, Sarasota FL & Piedmont SD

Very good book...thank you

From David Limbaugh's article issued 8/14/2013: In his new book, The Liberty Amendments, my friend Mark Levin is offering a bold plan for the re-establishment of America's founding principles and a restoration of constitutional republicanism through a series of amendments to the Constitution.I know of no one who has a greater reverence for our Constitution and for the scheme of limited government and personal liberties it established. Mark has been a student of America's founding and its constitutional history since he was a young boy, when he and his friends would visit Philadelphia, where it all started, and study the history.I had many outstanding professors in both undergraduate and law school who were experts in the Constitution and constitutional law, and I know and read many constitutional scholars today. But I've never met anyone so steeped in this subject or so attuned to the minds of the Framers as Mark. He understands our system and the issues underlying its creation more intimately than anyone else.Mark has written two books, "Liberty and Tyranny" and "Ameritopia," in which he expounds on our founding principles and the threat they are currently under from the forces of liberalism and statism. But in "The Liberty Amendments," he proposes an action plan.Like Mark, I was originally skeptical of the idea that we should support the calling of a constitutional convention in an effort to rein in the federal government and restore the power of the states and our individual liberties. But that's because I hadn't fully explored what that process would entail.In fact, Mark is not calling for a constitutional convention. He's suggesting we have a national dialogue with the goal of amending the Constitution under its Article 5. As he points out, Article 5 provides for two methods of amending the Constitution, but in neither case does this process provide for a constitutional convention.One method is for Congress to pass a proposed amendment and then forward it to the state legislatures for ratification — a process that has occurred 27 times. The other — and the one Mark is proposing — involves the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures for a convention for proposing amendments, which, if proposed, would also have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. This method has been tried but never successfully in our history.Perhaps my earlier confusion — and the confusion of others about this process — lay in the fact that the language includes the word "convention," but it's critical to understand that this is a convention not for some de novo constitution but for the proposal of specific and defined amendments.Of course, there is some risk in opening up even this limited type of convention, but this risk is mitigated by several factors that Mark delineates and is warranted, in any event, by the urgency of our current state of affairs.The most important check, to which I've already alluded, is that none of this can occur without the approval of three-fourths of the states. We also should derive some comfort from the fact that the Framers themselves included this amendment process because they knew that they could not anticipate every difficulty the republic would encounter and that only experience and history could serve that purpose.Another important check against this process's turning into a playground for statists is, in the words of former law professor Robert G. Natelson, that "a convention for proposing amendments is a federal convention; it is a creature of the states or, more specifically, of the state legislatures. And it is a limited-purpose convention. It is not designed to set up an entirely new constitution or a new form of government."Finally, the likelihood that this process could be hijacked by those hostile to our founding principles is greatly reduced because Congress' role in the state application process that Mark is proposing would be minimal and ministerial.Most importantly, Mark is not calling for a new constitution or any kind of revision of our founding principles. He seeks to restore our timeless founding principles and shore up the constitutional edifice to preserve them.But we must first acknowledge that the federal government is out of control, acting far outside its constitutional powers, and has become unmoored from its constitutional foundation — as few patriots would dispute — and that this condition is urgent and, if untreated, will result in the end of the American republic.In addition to making a compelling case for the amendment process, Mark has proposed 10 specific amendments designed to restore and refurbish our founding principles, and all the ideas — or some similar variation of them — I dare say, would be enthusiastically embraced by the Framers.He has done an incredible job of drafting these proposed amendments aimed at re-establishing the balance between the federal and state governments and restating the social contract between the governments and their citizens — in such a way as to reinvigorate our individual liberties.Mark modestly insists that these proposals are not set in stone and that he is trying to launch a national conversation to consider the amendment process and specific amendments.In terms of the viability of our current system as originally crafted, we are in perilous times. Let our national conversation begin, and let us thank Mark Levin for initiating it.

Levin is one of North America's leading political philosophers. This book is well grounded in history and philosophy and, as usual, displays an uncommon ability to simplify the complicated - a sure sign that the author knows his stuff.Highly recommended, even if you are not American.

This is a must read for everyone 15-16 years and older...It should be an eye-opener for everyone living in the West and enjoying the life and freedoms of the the civil society. Do not take these for granted...read the book and turn the tide back...

*A full executive summary of this book will be available at newbooksinbrief dot com, on or before Tuesday, September 24.When the early states came together to discuss the possibility of establishing a confederacy, they did so with a great deal of hope, but also a great deal of trepidation. The hope was that a federal government might be formed that could handle the few issues that were common to all the states but which could not be dealt with by the states individually. The fears, on the other hand, were that this government might come to gain an enormous amount of power; that this power might come to be concentrated in the hands of very few; and that the federal government as a whole might end up overreaching its purview and meddling in affairs that ought rightly to be left to the states and the various local governments (if not individuals themselves).Thus the constitution was framed in such a way that the power of the federal government would be split between 3 separate branches—each acting as a check-and-balance on the power of the others. And the power of the federal government as a whole was limited to certain specific areas—all other areas being left expressly to the power of the states and local governments (and individuals).Over the past century, though, this original arrangement has largely been undone. Indeed, after numerous constitutional amendments—and loose interpretations of the constitutions itself—each of the branches of the federal government has, by turns, usurped (or been left with) more power than it was ever meant to have, and the federal government as a whole routinely involves itself in matters far from federal in nature—to the extent that it now insinuates itself into virtually every aspect of life, political, economic, and social.For author and commentator Mark R. Levin it’s time we reversed this situation. For while those who made for the changes may have thought they were strengthening the nation, the fact is that the changes have contravened the very wise principles upon which the nation was built, and the practical results have been nothing but negative. Specifically, the changes have left the nation with nothing but ever-increasing taxes, ever-mounting debt, and ever-more soft tyranny for some with ever-reduced freedom for everyone else.And the reform we need, according to the author, runs more than legislation-deep. It is reform that needs to happen at the very source: it is the constitution itself that must be reformed. For only radical constitutional reform can undo the radical and misguided reform that has come before.Specifically, Levin proposes 11 constitutional amendments. They include: 1) term limits for members of congress; 2) election of Senators to be returned to state legislatures; 3) term limits for Supreme Court Justices (and the opportunity for federal and state legislatures to override Supreme Court decisions with a super-majority); 4) limits on federal spending (with an eye to curbing federal debt); 5) limits on taxation; 6) limits on how much power the executive branch can delegate to the federal bureaucracy; 7) limiting the federal government from interfering with economic activity that does not pertain to interstate or international trade; 8) requiring the federal government to compensate property owners for the devaluation of property caused by federal regulations; 9) allowing the states to amend the constitution directly (without having to go through Congress); 10) granting states the right to overturn the laws and regulations of Congress with a super-majority; 11) requiring voters to produce photo identification at election booths.Of course, the federal government cannot be expected to make the proposed changes itself (since many of the amendments entail limiting this government’s power). Thankfully, though, it needn’t; for as the author points out, provisions exist under Article V of the constitution for it to be amended not just at the instigation of Congress, but at the instigation of a state-led convention—which is precisely what Levin is pushing for here.Having great respect for the constitution (and its framers) myself, I am glad to see a book that reminds us of the values and principles that went into it, and that stands up for these values and principles. My issue with the book, though, is that Levin spends as much time and energy defending Republican Party policy issues (albeit covertly) as he does defending liberty as it was conceived under constitutional republicanism. The book would have made a much cleaner argument had the author stuck to his constitutional reform effort, without coloring it Republican red. Still, the main argument is strong and deserves our time and attention. A full executive summary of the book will be available at newbooksinbrief dot com, on or before Tuesday, September 24; a podcast discussion of the book will be available shortly thereafter.

Precisely - but not completely - what the U.S. needs! Nothing will change until we get an Article V convention!

AMAZING book highlight a solution for politics in America today!