“Liberty Amendments” by Mark Levin – my thoughts.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American-Republic-ebook/dp/B00CO4IP5M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387467088&sr=8-1&keywords=mark+levin

So I finished the “Liberty Amendments” by Mark Levin, I sincerely think everyone should read these and hopefully try to get them enacted. I did have some questions though, hence the post. I hope somehow it filters up to the Great One, it is that time of the season for hope right? Anyway…

The main point of the book of course is to propose amendments to the Constitution to curtail the out-of-bleeping-control government. And since Congress neither has the will or inclination, as he quotes “an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments curtailing its own tyranny”, it’s up to the States to return power back to the People. (So call your local reps today.)

After reading though I do have a thought or two. Or twelve.

Chapter Four: Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices

First off, I do agree that court cases should be reviewed. After all the left keeps touting that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”, yet the decisions by the Supreme Court are so sacrosanct they remain for all perpetuity? Tell that to Dred Scott.

I disagree with Section 8 though, which essentially allows the States to override a Supreme Court decision, however it must be done, by either Congress or the States, within 24 months after the decision. I feel that this allows the minority to “run out the clock” on cases that are past that point. So suppose this gets approved on say January 1st, 2015. All cases up to December 31st, 2012 can’t be touched including ObamaCare? You can conceivably have a small number of states purposefully holding the process hostage to get past that limit, right? How then do we get rid of those acidic rulings?

What I propose, in addition to the amendments put forth in this chapter, is that provisions for review of court cases up to the date of passage of the amendment (say the January 1st, 2015 as an example), where sure at that point any and all cases passed afterwards would be of that probation. However during the deliberations of these amendments a secondary committee would be formed where each state could put on a list of the fundamental court cases, even if it’s been during the past century. That way not only ObamaCare could be up for review, but Roe v. Wade, heck maybe even Marbury v. Madison if the case is made.

What would happen is each state brings in their pet court cases, they explain before the committee the validity of each case, either a simple majority or super-majority (depending on how the rules are set up) would then agree to be put on the list. This way they could weed out the trivial cases. The cases would then go on the list in order of the number of States that had the same case, secondary order in reverse chronological order:

States Case

48 Abbot v Costello (1998)

47 Laurel v Hardy (2002)

47 U.S. v Widget, Inc. (2001)

On down to

3 Happy v Golucky (1972)

So then let’s just say for number’s sake that list is a total of 100 cases. These cases would then go to the State Legislatures as the book described for review and an up-or-down vote in whatever manner the State provides (ballot initiatives, etc.). Now since resources are limited for the States they could select say the top 20 for that year. The following year might be only 10, and so on. They would of course have to vote on that group, not jump around the entire list, although they could choose to approve some of that batch and not the rest.

I would also disagree with the “24 months” clause that’s suggested. Since the announcement by the Supreme Court could possibly be near the end of a State’s legislative calendar (granted a Governor could recall back into session, but we shouldn’t count on the whims of a Governor) how about instead we have it as two full consecutive legislative sessions for a State. This also allows any State such as Texas, with only one session every two years, to be able to be a part of the conversation. So yeah, the other States would essentially be “waiting” for Texas, however as long as their votes are in during their two sessions what does it matter?

Now what about States that drag their feet? California might like ObamaCare, so they’ll just stall. Well by agreement by all in the committee, all cases that are approved on that list would essentially be as though the Court had not made the decision and fall back to the previous lower court’s ruling. You want that applicable law or ruling? Best not to stall then. Well then what if a State puts on a law and no State goes near it, even after it’s been passed onto that list? There’s a five year expiration, after five years from the acceptance of that list by the States no approval or disapproval by the States (say that Happy v Golucky for example), then it returns to post-decision.

This also give a sense of urgency to these court cases. Many of these were outright power grabs by the Federal government away from the States, so the State legislatures might want to put lesser matters on the back burner, just suggesting.

Lastly a section should be added that all deliberations, decisions, and arguments to the Supreme Court will only encompass within the territorial lines of the United States. Absolutely no foreign law or precedent will be introduced or considered otherwise it will automatically make the decision null and void.

Chapter Five: Limits to Federal Spending and Taxing

I wish to add the following:

Spending

Section 7: Added “And approved by three-fourths State Legislatures (since they’ll have to pay for it)”

Section 9: The National Debt shall not exceed, as a combined whole, more than 30% GDP, unless voted by three-fourths Houses of Congress, to be Paid and Closed no later than two fiscal years. No additional debt is allowed until two fiscal years after Closed. (The 30% is negotiable, but the point is, set it.)

Section 10: Continuing Resolutions shall be in effect no longer than thirty (30) days of passage. Only one (1) Continuing Resolution is applicable per Congressional term. Any and all legislation passed during a Continuing Resolution is null and void. Any and all tax collection will be suspended during a Continuing Resolution and will only continue once a budget is passed. (Simple. Pass the budget.)

Section 11: All salaries and operating expenses for Senators and their staff shall be paid directly by their individual State. All expenses shall be submitted for payment according to State policy and law. Any increases in salary will therefore be at the discretion of the Governor, State Legislature and applicable law and statute. (This stops the practice of Senators perpetually voting for their pay increases.)

Chapter Six: Limits on Bureaucracy

Section 5: Wouldn’t this just be an incentive for the committee members to rubber-stamp and just vote “yes”? “Hey, we’re forced to do this, everyone just agree to say yes and we’ll get lunch?”

Chapter Seven: Promote Free Enterprise

We absolutely need Chapter Seven. Today.

Chapter Eight: Private Property Protection

There should be a “Double Jeopardy” protection for private owners, if the government with unlimited resources could keep coming after coming after coming after…….a private owner.

Chapter Eleven: Protect the Vote

Real simple. Any evidence of voter fraud will mean the Republican candidate wins. All votes made by those without ID will be cast towards the Republican candidate. See how fast the left runs away from this.

I would also suggest other amendments.

First, we need something to clarify the First Amendment and the so called “Separation of Church and State” that we’re being bludgeoned based on a lie. Not exactly sure how to word it, something along the lines of “No agencies, whether government or private, shall prohibit the free exercise or expression of Religion.”

Secondly, since we’re seeing treaties and UN policy suborning Constitutional protections as well as Federal and State law, there should be an amendment that no treaty will subordinate the Constitution, Federal and State law, as well as the sovereignty of the U.S. and States. If the treaty is in line with what the People believe, then fine, amend the law and Constitution. Why should we have countries that are hostile to U.S. interests determine policy, such as the Second Amendment, that clearly wouldn’t pass Constitutional muster?

Anyway I hope this helps, and I hope you’re able to respond. Thank you.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?