The Liberty Amendments - How the States Could Take Back America and Restore the Consitution

[maxparrish]

Mark Levin recently wrote a book proposing the Liberty Amendments. The purpose of said amendments are to return the Constitution to its "Liberty" roots, and to impose the traditional expectations of balanced budgets, to create a smaller and more limited government, and to restore Congress to its intended role as law maker (rather than passing that function off to regulatory agencies under the executive). It also intends to empower the States to have more control over the impositions of the federal government.

While he has started speaking at meetings of State Legislatures, encouraging them to support a Constitutional Convention, no one expects it to happen. Still, it is a step in the right direction and is suggestive of what the GOP landslide could accomplish (if they were not so dull minded.).

I cannot find an on-line source that is more than a summary. So here is my summary of his proposed amendments, paraphrased from his recent book:

- An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
No person could serve more than 12 years in Congress, regardless if such service were in the House or Senate exclusively or combined.

- An Amendment to Restore the Senate.
All Senators will be chosen by their state legislatures, as prescribed by Article I.

- An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
No person may serve on the Supreme Court more than 12 years. One third of the justices will be chosen every fourth year. The President will nominate a person as a Justice and the simple majority of the Senate shall be required for approval.

And upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court - it is not subject to Presidential veto.

- An Amendment on Federal Spending.
This amendment will require Congress to adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration. If Congress fails to adopt a budget prior to Oct 1 or the President fails to sign a budget into law an automatic 5 percent, across the board, reduction in expenditures from the prior year budget shall be imposed. Outlays may not exceed tax and fee revenues, nor exceed 17.5 percent of the GDP. Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding parts this Amendment by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call.

- An Amendment on Federal Taxation
No more than 15 percent of a natural or legal persons yearly income can be collected. The tax filing deadline shall be the day before elections to federal office. No estate tax shall be permitted. Congress cannot institute a value added or sales tax, or any other tax in kind or form.

-An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone re-authorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $ 100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.
The Committee shall make no change to the regulation, either approving or disapproving the regulation by majority vote as submitted.

-An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise
Congress interstate regulatory power shall only be a specific grant of power so as prevent states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several States. Congress’s power to regulate Commerce will not extend to activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.

-An Amendment to Protect Private Property
When any governmental entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for a public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property , interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $ 10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.

-An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
The State Legislatures, whenever two-thirds shall deem it necessary, may adopt Amendments to the Constitution. Upon adoption of an Amendment, a State Legislature may not rescind the Amendment or modify it during the six-year period in which the Amendment is under consideration by the several States’ Legislatures.

-An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Check Congress
There shall be a minimum of thirty days between the engrossing of a bill or resolution, including amendments, and its final passage by both Houses of Congress. Upon three-fifths vote of the state legislatures, the States may override a federal statute. Upon three-fifths vote of the state legislatures, the States may override Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $ 100 million after said regulations have been finally approved by the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee [see An Amendment Establishing How the States May Amend the Constitution].

- An Amendment to Protect the Vote
Citizens in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documents demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a prerequisite for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress. Early voting in any general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall not be held more than thirty calendar days prior to the national day of election except for active-duty military personnel, for whom early voting shall not commence more than forty-five calendar days prior to the national day of election.

Where registration and/ or voting is not in person but by mail, citizens must submit an approved citizen-designated photo identification and other reliable information to state election officials to register to vote and request ballots for voting, no later than forty-five calendar days before the primary or general elections for President, Vice President, or members of Congress. Registration forms and ballots must be returned and signed by the voter and must either be mailed or hand-delivered by the voter to state election officials. If delivered by a third party, the voter must provide written authorization for the person making the delivery and the third party must sign a statement certifying that he did not unduly influence the voter’s decisions.

 

[Metaphor]

And upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court - it is not subject to Presidential veto.

In other words, Levin thinks the separation of powers was a bit silly, and matters of law should be decided by a popular majority instead of a majority of legally-trained professionals specifically selected to understand the law.

Also, how does amending the Constitution restore it? Or is it a profound paradox, like a religious belief that you have to submit yourself entirely to God's will to be truly free?

 

[Jayjay]

I used to listen to Mark Levin's nasal rants on radio for the entertainment factor. He's about as crazy as Glenn Beck.

 

[untermensche]

This is the wish list of the oligarchs.

Reduce democracy and decrease the amount of government interference in the pollution and spoilage of the planet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A whole bunch of shit.

 

[maxparrish]

And upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court - it is not subject to Presidential veto.

In other words, Levin thinks the separation of powers was a bit silly, and matters of law should be decided by a popular majority instead of a majority of legally-trained professionals specifically selected to understand the law.

Also, how does amending the Constitution restore it? Or is it a profound paradox, like a religious belief that you have to submit yourself entirely to God's will to be truly free?

To the contrary, Levin thinks the separation of powers concept has been severely eroded. He is clarifying language, and adding new protections (and checks and balances) against the lack of planning for a reckless and imperial 'law making' court, the grasping despotic executive, and the federal encroachment on state power.

For example, the commerce clause was effectively turned to pixie dust by the FDR intimated Supreme Court, which turned the clause's simple and plain meaning on its head with a sophistic and ludicrous reading (e.g. which is why States now have no right to legalize marijuana). Levin's amendment is written to make sure the historic and honest meaning is re-established, by explicitly telling the courts the intended limits of the commerce clause to that of commerce between the states (and not granting them the right to regulate in-state production and distribution of any product or service).

The amendments are necessary because the statists have, step by step through the courts, turned every clause of the Constitution into a literary exercise of hazy sophistry - all to justify the removal of historic liberties and to remove the Constitutional limits to federal government power. Moreover, these amendments are intended rein in forces that were largely unknown or of minor impact at the time of founding, but have now grown to the point they have rendered the intended Constitutional roles and liberty protections nearly meaningless.

On example: the "new branch" of government, the unelected bureaucrats and their agencies. This vast regulatory empire does Congresses actual law making, so the Liberty Amendments “sunsets” all these unelected federal departments and agencies, requiring Congress to reauthorize each one every three years by majority vote. Every big-ticket Executive Branch regulation ("law") would be subjected to review by a joint congressional committee. As such, these amendments would cease President Obama’s newly discovered power to circumvent Congress to legislate by decree.

Finally, the amendments address Constitutional weakness and provide mechanisms to enforce that the branches to do their jobs (and only their jobs)...especially in taxes and spending.

It is a vision of the Republic, restoring much (but not all) of what should have not been lost.

 

[lpetrich]

Mark Levin recently wrote a book proposing the Liberty Amendments. ...

If one wants to return the US Constitution to its original 1788 form, one can always do so. But be prepared for the Vice President being the Presidential candidate who got the second most votes. Anyone for an Obama-Romney Presidency?

- An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
No person could serve more than 12 years in Congress, regardless if such service were in the House or Senate exclusively or combined.

Are you willing to accept Republicans being booted out of office by term limits? That's happened to three Republican Presidents so far, though it's happened to one Democratic President and it will soon happen to another.

- An Amendment to Restore the Senate.
All Senators will be chosen by their state legislatures, as prescribed by Article I.

What's so great about doing that?

- An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
No person may serve on the Supreme Court more than 12 years.

Are you willing to accept Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas getting booted out of the Court by term limits?

- An Amendment on Federal Spending.
This amendment will require Congress to adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration. If Congress fails to adopt a budget prior to Oct 1 or the President fails to sign a budget into law an automatic 5 percent, across the board, reduction in expenditures from the prior year budget shall be imposed.

Including "national defense"?

- An Amendment on Federal Taxation
No more than 15 percent of a natural or legal persons yearly income can be collected. The tax filing deadline shall be the day before elections to federal office. No estate tax shall be permitted. Congress cannot institute a value added or sales tax, or any other tax in kind or form.

If you're young and not against taxes, you have no heart.
If you're old and still against taxes, you have no brain.

The politicians could get around that by decreeing "fees" for various services.

-An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone re-authorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Does that apply to "national defense"?

More seriously, the politicians could get around that with standing votes, votes to be automatically applied in the future.

-An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise
Congress interstate regulatory power shall only be a specific grant of power so as prevent states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several States. Congress’s power to regulate Commerce will not extend to activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.

So anything goes when it's a business that does it, no matter how criminal?

-An Amendment to Protect Private Property
When any governmental entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for a public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property , interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $ 10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.

NIMBY's will LOVE this one.

-An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
The State Legislatures, whenever two-thirds shall deem it necessary, may adopt Amendments to the Constitution. Upon adoption of an Amendment, a State Legislature may not rescind the Amendment or modify it during the six-year period in which the Amendment is under consideration by the several States’ Legislatures.

What's so special about the state legislatures?

I will concede that it will make the US Constitution easier to amend, making it more like the state constitutions and the constitutions of most other nations.

-An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Check Congress

I don't see the point of that.

- An Amendment to Protect the Vote
Citizens in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documents demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a prerequisite for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.

Why a state government? If it's a Federal election, then it should be subject to Federal laws, not state ones.

 

[lpetrich]

While we are at it, let's have this one:

A law or other measure may only be passed by Congress if it has received no "No" votes.

 

[Metaphor]

To the contrary, Levin thinks the separation of powers concept has been severely eroded.

It is beyond my verbal prowess to articulate how utterly, bombastically, feverishly, screamingly deluded it is to think that the best way to preserve the separation of powers is to allow one power to own and control another. Did Levin read 1984 and think it was a documentary on good governance? Slavery is freedom indeed.

He is clarifying language, and adding new protections (and checks and balances) against the lack of planning for a reckless and imperial 'law making' court, the grasping despotic executive, and the federal encroachment on state power.

Oh, I see. So he's not restoring -- he's renovating and upgrading. I understand why he would want to use the word 'restore' though -- it doesn't sound nearly as egomaniacal and radical. I believe George Lucas 'restored' Star Wars to his 'original vision' -- I understand that to have gone quite well.

For example, the commerce clause was effectively turned to pixie dust by the FDR intimated Supreme Court, which turned the clause's simple and plain meaning on its head with a sophistic and ludicrous reading (e.g. which is why States now have no right to legalize marijuana). Levin's amendment is written to make sure the historic and honest meaning is re-established, by explicitly telling the courts the intended limits of the commerce clause to that of commerce between the states (and not granting them the right to regulate in-state production and distribution of any product or service).

Why have courts at all, if they're not to be trusted? Since they already turned the 'simple and plain' meaning on its head once, what on earth is to stop them doing it again? Oh, that's right: Levin intends to destroy the separation of powers and simply let Congress and the Senate decide.

The amendments are necessary

Necessary for what, precisely?

because the statists have, step by step through the courts, turned every clause of the Constitution into a literary exercise of hazy sophistry - all to justify the removal of historic liberties and to remove the Constitutional limits to federal government power. Moreover, these amendments are intended rein in forces that were largely unknown or of minor impact at the time of founding, but have now grown to the point they have rendered the intended Constitutional roles and liberty protections nearly meaningless.

It sounds like Levin should be proposing razing the Constitution and writing a new one, if 'every clause' is now meaningless. That's what they do with houses where renovation is simply not worth it.

Finally, the amendments address Constitutional weakness and provide mechanisms to enforce that the branches to do their jobs (and only their jobs)...especially in taxes and spending.

You know, I'm no expert on American Constitutional Law, but I must have missed the memo where the founding fathers intended federal spending to be no more than 17.5% of GDP. The should have fired the copy editor! Imagine leaving that out.

It is a vision of the Republic, restoring much (but not all) of what should have not been lost.

It's the vision of an egomaniac without the cajones to call for revolution.

 

[Blahface]

We need to rewrite the constitution from scratch in a format that leaves as little ambiguity as possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If we are looking for ways to reform government, how about a different approach:

A third house whose sole job is to act against abuse. A mere 1/4 of the vote is enough for them to act:

1) They can partition any bill that consists of unrelated things. This forces a new vote on the pieces--no more tying things to must-pass legislation.

2) They can ask an appropriate court to look at the constitutionality and legality of a measure--basically the same thing that can happen now with court challenges but there's no need for a plaintiff. It also includes an automatic stay of the measure. As a check against abuse someone whose track record in voting to scrutinize things that are eventually upheld is bad enough gets booted from office.

 

[maxparrish]

It is beyond my verbal prowess to articulate how utterly, bombastically, feverishly, screamingly deluded it is to think that the best way to preserve the separation of powers is to allow one power to own and control another. Did Levin read 1984 and think it was a documentary on good governance? Slavery is freedom indeed....Oh, I see. So he's not restoring -- he's renovating and upgrading. I understand why he would want to use the word 'restore' though -- it doesn't sound nearly as egomaniacal and radical. I believe George Lucas 'restored' Star Wars to his 'original vision' -- I understand that to have gone quite well.

As I mentioned, by being explicit he is protecting and restoring the original intent of liberty clauses from the long history of abuse and usurpations of the Courts. For example, the amendments to the commerce clause, the public use property taking clauses. He is also returning branches back to their proper roles. The courts, the bureaucracy, the imperial presidency have all gone rogue, severely eroding Congresses power to represent the people and crippling the States protections against federal power. These clarifications and the addition of the missing check and balance against the courts will not give any one branch total power, but return them to their proper, balanced, and intended Constitutional roles.

As an aside, I am sure you are familiar with systems of parliamentary sovereignty (e.g. the UK) where their one does allow one power to rule over the executive in the form of a Prime Minister, and at times over the courts by a simple majority. Clearly that is not what Levin is proposing.

Why have courts at all, if they're not to be trusted? Since they already turned the 'simple and plain' meaning on its head once, what on earth is to stop them doing it again? Oh, that's right: Levin intends to destroy the separation of powers and simply let Congress and the Senate decide.

The courts, even if they were not making constitutional decisions, are necessary for all other kinds of matters of statutory law. torts, and contracts. However, because they do rule on Constitutional questions and because they are not to be fully trusted (as we do not trust the executive) they are in need of an effective check and balance.

First and foremost what prevents the courts from mystical readings into brief phrases is elaboration; the explicit clarification that cuts off arbitrary and poetic readings. The courts could, of course, dare to make a greater mockery of the Constitution by ignoring the text in total but that is politically more difficult; especially so when added State and Congressional over-rides by super majorities can provide a slap down. Just as the President has the veto power over Congressional legislation (over-ridden by a super majority) so should Congress and the States have a super majority veto power over the courts.

It sounds like Levin should be proposing razing the Constitution and writing a new one, if 'every clause' is now meaningless. That's what they do with houses where renovation is simply not worth it. You know, I'm no expert on American Constitutional Law, but I must have missed the memo where the founding fathers intended federal spending to be no more than 17.5% of GDP. The should have fired the copy editor! Imagine leaving that ...It's the vision of an egomaniac without the cajones to call for revolution.

As the Constitution has been "razed" and reconstructed by 27 amendments already, the call for new amendments is more than sufficient and justified for the purposes of a long overdue updating - after all, American liberals are quite fond of whining about how unfair it is to be "ruled" by the laws written by those 18th century dead men. So then, what could be more appropriate than a Constitutional Convention? Or are you, as it seems, against using legal processes for Constitutional revision because they don't have "the cajones to call for revolution"?

And you are correct, the founding fathers could not conceive of a national government capable of taxing anyone's income (which required an amendment in the 20th century) and envisioned a minimal state - the sort of government that was but a few to several percent of the GDP till the early 20th century. Levin is not proposing (although he should) we role back income taxes or return to the minimal state. He is merely providing long-needed checks against the endless and reckless growth of the state, and the usury takings of the government.

 

[arkirk]

This is the wish list of the oligarchs.

Reduce democracy and decrease the amount of government interference in the pollution and spoilage of the planet.

Even Loren acknowledges this is a "whole bunch of shit." Laws calling for an end to regulation? State's rights? Rich people's rights? Oh well, it would be a nice Christmas Present for the oligarchs. Why not just disband the government altogether and have feudalism?

 

[Metaphor]

As I mentioned, by being explicit he is protecting and restoring the original intent of liberty clauses from the long history of abuse and usurpations of the Courts. For example, the amendments to the commerce clause, the public use property taking clauses. He is also returning branches back to their proper roles. The courts, the bureaucracy, the imperial presidency have all gone rogue, severely eroding Congresses power to represent the people and crippling the States protections against federal power. These clarifications and the addition of the missing check and balance against the courts will not give any one branch total power, but return them to their proper, balanced, and intended Constitutional roles.

The separation of powers is supposed to be the check and balance. Explicitly writing out the separation erodes that check. I am not familiar with any system that allows a bicameral parliament to overturn a court decision merely by voting and saying it was wrong. The mind boggles at how you think that would even work in practice.

As an aside, I am sure you are familiar with systems of parliamentary sovereignty (e.g. the UK) where their one does allow one power to rule over the executive in the form of a Prime Minister, and at times over the courts by a simple majority. Clearly that is not what Levin is proposing.

Is he or isn't he proposing that a joint sitting of the House and Senate could override any Supreme Court decision by a 2/3 majority?

First and foremost what prevents the courts from mystical readings into brief phrases is elaboration; the explicit clarification that cuts off arbitrary and poetic readings.

So why did this not prevent them reading into the commerce clause something you think goes entirely against the plain meaning of the clause?

So then, what could be more appropriate than a Constitutional Convention? Or are you, as it seems, against using legal processes for Constitutional revision because they don't have "the cajones to call for revolution"?

Who said I was against the legal amendment of the American Constitution?

I'm not the one claiming to be able to read the mind of slave-owning dead men from the 18th century, and parlaying off the good will indoctrinated into every American child on the sacredness of the Constitution by calling for its 'restoration'.

Constitutional amendment should be governed by reason, not the 'original vision' of the drafters.

And you are correct, the founding fathers could not conceive of a national government capable of taxing anyone's income (which required an amendment in the 20th century) and envisioned a minimal state - the sort of government that was but a few to several percent of the GDP till the early 20th century.

The founding fathers' lack of imagination is no reason to remain hewn to their vision. It's a reason not to.

 

[Underseer]

Of course when rightists talk about "restoring" the constitution, they mean "restoring" it to something it never was and establishing an aristocracy to rule over us. They want to "restore" things to the way they were before the constitution.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court - it is not subject to Presidential veto.

Would there be any sort of time limit to congress overriding a decision?
I mean, i've been married for just about 30 years. It would be rather unnerving if every election cycle there was a potential that the new Congress would vote to repeal Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban my marriage.

Of course, on the other hand, there'd be a certain thrill to celebrating our 50th anniversary illegally...And telling our kids that their parents are living in sin.

Oh! Hey, would i have to pay her alimony if the marriage is annulled through constitutional disaction? Or just call the cops and say there's a black woman claiming to be my wife and she won't leave...?
That's probably too easy. I'll just wait until she buys medication on my insurance and have her arrested for insurance fraud by claiming to be my dependent.

 

[Keith&Co.]

1) They can partition any bill that consists of unrelated things. This forces a new vote on the pieces--no more tying things to must-pass legislation.

Would this apply to the budget? Can they chisel out each bit of pork to ask the whole House or Senate to approve?

 

[Togo]

Eh, this is just a wish-list of laws. If all these measures could get popular support, they'd be law already. They can't, so the author suggests trying to write them in as super-special laws that are part of the constitution and thus can't be so easily repealed. What's the point?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

If we are looking for ways to reform government, how about a different approach:

A third house whose sole job is to act against abuse. A mere 1/4 of the vote is enough for them to act:

1) They can partition any bill that consists of unrelated things. This forces a new vote on the pieces--no more tying things to must-pass legislation.

In my state we can't have bills on unrelated things. It makes for better laws.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I used to listen to Mark Levin's nasal rants on radio for the entertainment factor. He's about as crazy as Glenn Beck.

Glen Beck isn't crazy, he is an act. Mark Levin is an idiot. "I don't want green jobs! I want red white and blue jobs!"

I don't understand how anyone can listen to him. He doesn't actually say anything. At least Limbaugh talks about something.