Politico...Who will survive? 2014's top primaries

[Bigun]

Tell that to Mark Levin.

No need! He knows it very well but apparently YOU misinterpret what he has said!

Click on the link below and read the first line of chapter one!

http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American-ebook/dp/B00CO4IP5M/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2#reader_B00CO4IP5M

[sinkspur]

Levin knows very well there will be no "Liberty Amendments".   But another big book touting a pipe dream  sells well with his die-hard listeners, so that's why he wrote it.

[Oceander]

No need! He knows it very well but apparently YOU misinterpret what he has said!

Click on the link below and read the first line of chapter one!

http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American-ebook/dp/B00CO4IP5M/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2#reader_B00CO4IP5M

Yikes!  Talk about turning the US into something the Founders wouldn't recognize.

[Bigun]

Yikes!  Talk about turning the US into something the Founders wouldn't recognize.

Simply putting to rest the idea that he thinks there is something wrong with the original not endorsing his approach!

[Oceander]

Simply putting to rest the idea that he thinks there is something wrong with the original not endorsing his approach!

Huh?

[Bigun]

Huh?

Read what I was originally responding to and then proceed forward from there!

[Oceander]

Read what I was originally responding to and then proceed forward from there!

I did, and truth_seeker's implication is correct, at least if one goes by the book you linked to.  The Founders never intended most of the amendments Levin proposes and, in fact, contemplated at least some of them and rejected them.  For example, Levin proposes an amendment to set term limits for Supreme Court judges.  The Founders must have considered that and rejected it because they specifically provided, in Article III, section 1, that those judges were to "hold their offices during good behaviour," a provision which brooks no limit on holding that office other than bad behaviour (i.e., a lack of good behaviour) and death, which should go without saying.

That alone demonstrates that Levin is not satisfied with the original as written.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There is nothing wrong with the original.

Which version?

The original as written?

The original as amended?

The original before incorporation doctrine?

The original as interpreted by the Courts?

The original as modified by statutes?

The original as bypassed by decades of Executive Orders?

Do we roll back emancipation? Term limits? Civil rights legislation? Suffrage (actually not a bad idea)?

Conservatives play that futile game of believing that things can go back to a "better time" always defined as some time other than the present, but not as realistic as the past.

Here's the question you should ask yourself.

If the existing Constitution is, in and of itself, sufficient to stop everything that's wrong today, how in the world did it allow us to get here? 

[Bigun]

I did, and truth_seeker's implication is correct, at least if one goes by the book you linked to.  The Founders never intended most of the amendments Levin proposes and, in fact, contemplated at least some of them and rejected them.  For example, Levin proposes an amendment to set term limits for Supreme Court judges.  The Founders must have considered that and rejected it because they specifically provided, in Article III, section 1, that those judges were to "hold their offices during good behaviour," a provision which brooks no limit on holding that office other than bad behaviour (i.e., a lack of good behaviour) and death, which should go without saying.

That alone demonstrates that Levin is not satisfied with the original as written.

Obviously you either did not read the first sentence of chapter one or believe Mr. Levin a liar because HE says the exact opposite to whit:

I undertook this project not because because I believe the Constitution, as originally structured, is outdated and outmoded, thereby requiring modernization through amendments, but because of the opposite--that is, the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan.

[Oceander]

Obviously you either did not read the first sentence of chapter one or believe Mr. Levin a liar because HE says the exact opposite to whit: 

I undertook this project not because because I believe the Constitution, as originally structured, is outdated and outmoded, thereby requiring modernization through amendments, but because of the opposite--that is, the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan.

In other words, you have to raze the village in order to save the village.

You should read what you post more carefully.  Levin doesn't think the original written Constitution - the words on that piece of paper we have down in DC - is sufficient.  Rather, he thinks that those written words have to be changed in order to restore something he calls "constitutional republicanism" but which cannot be coextensive with so-called Constitutional Originalism - fidelity to the Constitution as it was originally written and with the intent of the Founders in mind - because you don't restore the original Constitution by changing the language of the original Constitution, particularly by inserting provisions the Founders rejected.  Which leads to the big question:  just exactly what does Levin mean by "constitutional republicanism"?  What are the details of this concept - how does it unpack - and why does the Constitution require amendment in order to restore this "constitutional republicanism?"

[sinkspur]

I simply have to say that I look forward to the thoughtful and detailed posts of Oceander and Luis Gonzalez.

I gain a new perspective on whatever topic under discussion by reading (and, in most cases, rereading) their work.

Thanks guys.  You and massadvj are the philosophers and seers of GOPBR and we are all the better for it.

[DCPatriot]

I simply have to say that I look forward to the thoughtful and detailed posts of Oceander and Luis Gonzalez.

I gain a new perspective on whatever topic under discussion by reading (and, in most cases, rereading) their work.

Thanks guys.  You and massadvj are the philosophers and seers of GOPBR and we are all the better for it.

 

[aligncare]

Obamacare is hated by a clear majority. Yet, if not for Chief Justice John Roberts, Obamacare would have been rejected on supreme Court review.

One Justice, one Black Robe, our Chief Justice changed, rewrote the law rather than rule on Obamacare as written. And in incorrectly rewriting Obamacare, foisted totalitarian government control over life and death.

Levin's idea is to use an amendment process contained within the Constitution, a provision by which a super majority of states can overrule clearly onerous Supreme Court decisions. And if ever that process were needed, it was with Obamacare.

For heaven sake the Constitution was once amended for prohibition. Surely we can find it within ourselves to amend it for the purpose of ridding ourselves of judicial Fiat.

[Oceander]

Obamacare is hated by a clear majority. Yet, if not for Chief Justice John Roberts, Obamacare would have been rejected on supreme Court review.

One Justice, one Black Robe, our Chief Justice changed, rewrote the law rather than rule on Obamacare as written. And in incorrectly rewriting Obamacare, foisted totalitarian government control over life and death.

Levin's idea is to use an amendment process contained within the Constitution, a provision by which a super majority of states can overrule clearly onerous Supreme Court decisions. And if ever that process were needed, it was with Obamacare.

For heaven sake the Constitution was once amended for prohibition. Surely we can find it within ourselves to amend it for the purpose of ridding ourselves of judicial Fiat.

Setting aside the particulars of Roberts' ruling on Obamacare, whose fiat would you put in place of "judicial Fiat"?

[aligncare]

The representatives closest to the people, the elected representatives in the State houses. And at that would require a supermajority for approval.

Of the two methods prescribed for amending the Constitution this one has never been used before and would require a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.

Levine's amendment idea proposes to allow the states to overrule judicial Fiat. Frankly, I like it. If you believe in federalism you can get behind this approach to the people determining their own fate – and not allowing one man, one Chief Justice, to rule over us from behind the bench.

[Oceander]

The representatives closest to the people, the elected representatives in the State houses. And at that would require a supermajority for approval.

Of the two methods prescribed for amending the Constitution this one has never been used before and would require a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.

Levine's amendment idea proposes to allow the states to overrule judicial Fiat. Frankly, I like it. If you believe in federalism you can get behind this approach to the people determining their own fate – and not allowing one man, one Chief Justice, ruling over us.

I do believe in federalism and because of that I do not believe the states should be given the power to willy-nilly overrule the Supreme Court; for one thing, it would make a mockery of the dual-sovereign structure created by the Constitution, putting the cart before the horse.  For another, how is this overruling to be accomplished?  How would this differ from the way the states already have to overrule the Supreme Court through amending the Constitution?  Will each state be allowed to unilaterally overrule the Supreme Court in whatever way it prefers, without regard to how any other state chooses to overrule the Supreme Court?  What happens if some states overrule the Supreme Court but others do not?  If there's a conflict between how two states have overruled a Supreme Court decision, who gets to decide which state's version wins?  What would stop one state from overruling that latter decision?

Further, what makes state legislators any closer to "the people" than their Representative in the House?  Also, considering the level of competence state legislatures display when they craft legislation - mostly little to none - why would you assume that same level of incompetence wouldn't be carried over to any such overruling?  As anecdotal evidence of this incompetence, the Florida legislature accidentally banned all computers when they passed a bill that was supposed to just ban all internet cafes.  The law is discussed in many places, including here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/10/oops-florida-has-outlawed-computers-and-smartphones-says-new-lawsuit.html

Were I a Floridian, I would rather not give that bunch of yo-yos veto power over the US Supreme Court.

There are so many landmines and unanswered questions there that would never get ironed out until, and unless, it was added to the Constitution and then construed by a court of competent jurisdiction; however, whenever the Supreme Court spoke on the matter, the affected state(s) could simply undo that construction, leaving things even messier than before.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote:
[[ Essentially, government is a machine that preys on the sentiments, wants, needs, and fears of the people to sustain themselves in power. To do it, the incite class and race, sentiments of entitlement and fear of the evils of an out-of-control government, even as they grow the government and help it spin out of control. They garner power by telling us that they will go fight for our ideals, when they have very little intention of actually doing that. ]]

I'm gonna be castigated for saying this, but I think the best chance this country could have for a fresh start -- and for a "new birth of freedom" -- would be for some foreign adversary to attack us and "drop the big one" on that city on the Potomac, obliterating it into ashes.

We'd lose the Smithsonian, the National Archives, and some famous monuments. But everything else there.....

As I said, a fresh start...

(with apologies to DC Patriot and any other GOP-B'ers in or near that place -- get out while there's still time!)

[Fishrrman]

[[ Levin's idea is to use an amendment process contained within the Constitution, a provision by which a super majority of states can overrule clearly onerous Supreme Court decisions. And if ever that process were needed, it was with Obamacare. ]]

They could do it right now, by calling a convention of the states, and by proposing and then ratifying a simple ammendment that repeals the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, dissolves all regulations related to same, and dismisses all federal employees hired for enforcement.

If a Constitutional Amendment could be passed to repeal Prohibition, one can be passed to repeal ObamaCare.

Actually, taking this route may become the ONLY possible way to fully repeal ObamaCare and return to the status quo that existed before it.

[aligncare]

I am by no means an expert in the amendment process, but the way I heard it Levin made a very cogent case for state legislatures convening to propose an amendment repealing Obamacare. The Constitution gives us this option.

Republicans in Congress as configured don't seem capable of unburdening us from Obamacare.

[Rapunzel]

I am by no means an expert in the amendment process, but the way I heard it Levin made a very cogent case for state legislatures convening to propose an amendment repealing Obamacare. The Constitution gives us this option.

Republicans in Congress as configured don't seem capable of unburdening us from Obamacare.

Not a one of them... and I'll take what a constitutional attorney (Levin) has to say about this issue.

[Bigun]

I am by no means an expert in the amendment process, but the way I heard it Levin made a very cogent case for state legislatures convening to propose an amendment repealing Obamacare. The Constitution gives us this option.

Republicans in Congress as configured don't seem capable of unburdening us from Obamacare.

Republicans in congress don't WANT to unburden us from Obamacare, at least not yet they don't! They want to let it hang out there and beat the democrats who passed it into a bloody pulp first and to HELL with what that costs the nation in the meantime! 

[Oceander]

I am by no means an expert in the amendment process, but the way I heard it Levin made a very cogent case for state legislatures convening to propose an amendment repealing Obamacare. The Constitution gives us this option.

Republicans in Congress as configured don't seem capable of unburdening us from Obamacare.

You do realize, don't you, that a convention isn't limited to a few narrow, predetermined issues?  Article V of the Constitution provides that "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments, ...."  Suppose that conservative/republican legislatures in 34 states applied for such a convention, and that Congress then called such a convention.  Presumably every state would then be entitled to send delegates to this convention, although it's not clear whether participation in such a convention is limited to state delegations only (I would guess that this would be a matter of the rules the convention managers would draw up for running the convention).  At that point, all hell breaks loose and every proposal under the Sun will be run up the flag, including many that would give pause to a lot of the conservatives/republicans who originally applied for the convention.  The end result could very well look nothing like what was envisioned by the legislatures that applied for the convention in the first place.  Do we, do you, really want to take a risk like that?  I don't.

[Oceander]

Republicans in congress don't WANT to unburden us from Obamacare, at least not yet they don't! They want to let it hang out there and beat the democrats who passed it into a bloody pulp first and to HELL with what that costs the nation in the meantime! 

Unless they beat the democrats who passed it into a bloody pulp first, as you so eloquently put it, it will never get repealed.

[DCPatriot]

Unless they beat the democrats who passed it into a bloody pulp first, as you so eloquently put it, it will never get repealed.

Exactly, so we've got to get middle America aware by letting them experience firsthand how expensive and totalitarian your health-care will be under Obamacare.

And on the same token I would be against stopping unemployment benefits.  It hurts the GOP brand and provides fodder for their candidates.

Truth is there's no difference between $17 Trillion and $23 Trillion.  NONE of it is ever going to be paid back.  So I would have let it ride until I controlled all 3 branches.


Then we can all take a hot shower.

[Oceander]

Exactly, so we've got to get middle America aware by letting them experience firsthand how expensive and totalitarian your health-care will be under Obamacare.

And on the same token I would be against stopping unemployment benefits.  It hurts the GOP brand and provides fodder for their candidates.

Truth is there's no difference between $17 Trillion and $23 Trillion.  NONE of it is ever going to be paid back.  So I would have let it ride until I controlled all 3 branches.


Then we can all take a hot shower.

I wouldn't go so far as to say there's no difference between $17 Trillion and $23 Trillion, but as a strategic move to put the republicans in a position where they have a much better chance to try and stop things from getting to that point, I wouldn't disagree with your main points.