Mark Levin talks about his new book with an expert panel on Hannity – The Liberty Amendments

Mark Levin appeared on Hannity (on 08.16.13) along with a great expert conservative panel for a full hour special to discuss his new bestseller, The Liberty Amendments (Kindle), and the solutions for America covered therein.  For anyone who is not familiar with Mark Levin, he is an attorney, radio talk show host, Constitutional expert and served as part of Ronald Reagan’s team.  Great questions from the panel and a great discussion with Levin.

Levin said, “We are living in a ‘Post Constitutional World’”, but reminded us that the Founders of our country and writers of the Constitution gave us article 5… for just such a time.  Many conservatives have been afraid to go move forward with a Constitutional Convention to reclaim the Republic, but as Levin pointed out… what is there to be afraid of?  The other side already has and does what they want.  He said there are, of course no guarantees of the outcome, but he said he does know what the outcome will be if we continue going down the road we are now on.  Mark offers what he call the Liberty Amendments and a pathway for Americans to take to save the Republic.

Only 20% of America consider themselves to be liberals or Progressives.  40% consider themselves to be Conservatives.  And the other 40% are pretty much disengaged.  Yet the 20% are wagging the dog…

Watch highlights below:

Mark Levin–Hannity Special on the Liberty Amendments 1

Video:  Mark Levin On Sean Hannity - The Liberty Amendments Part 1

Mark Levin–Hannity Special on the Liberty Amendments 2

Video: Mark Levin On Sean Hannity - The Liberty Amendments Part 2

Video: Mark Levin On Neil Cavuto - Fox News - The Liberty Amendments

Human Events: Radio host Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, is one of the most focused, accessible, and aggressive political books you’ll ever find. Levin’s thesis is that the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government, the states, and the American people has been distorted beyond the ability of conventional politics to repair. After all, if the power of the legislature has been diminished relative to the executive, the executive has dispersed its disproportionate power into unelected bureaucracies, and the states are increasingly powerless vassals of Washington, then there is no way for the peoples’ representatives in Congress or state houses to draft laws that would correct the situation. The entire point of this century-long quest to centralize power was to remove it from the clumsy hands of foolish American citizens. We are spectators to a game show in Washington. We might be able to vote a few of the contestants off the show, but we have no control over the rules of the game.

Levin aims to change the rules of the game… or, more properly, reset them, to restore the brilliant system put in place by America’s Founders. With the situation explained and his goals set forth in a few introductory pages, he executes the rest of his book with the planning and precision of a SEAL team taking an objective. Each of his proposed “Liberty Amendments” is laid out in a brief chapter that explains its importance, sources it to the writings of the Founding Fathers, and anticipates the more reasonable objections that would likely be raised. Little time is wasted on the unreasonable objections, for Levin does not intend to address an audience of the stupid, greedy, or hysterical. He also knows his statist adversaries are not interested in rationally discussing the death of the Leviathan they nourished for generations.

A Constitutional reset is necessary because the progressive project is a cascade of lost freedoms, designed so that each step is irreversible, and every inch of ground taken by the State is claimed forever. The distribution of power to unelected bureaucrats is a key element of this process. One of the Liberty Amendments “sunsets” all federal departments and agencies, unless Congress reauthorizes them every three years by majority vote. Every big-ticket Executive Branch regulation would be subjected to review by a joint congressional committee. This amendment would pull the plug on the unstoppable federal bureaucracy, forcing every department to perpetually justify its existence, and terminating President Obama’s beloved practice of circumventing Congress to legislate by decree.

Another Liberty Amendment likewise reins in the judicial branch, setting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court opinions with a three-fifths vote, without risk of presidential veto. Three-fifths of the state legislatures can also join forces to knock down a Court decision. That’s a recurring theme of the Liberty Amendments: the restoration of both congressional and state power. As Levin repeatedly reminds us, nothing worried the Founders more than the rise of a despotic national executive, such as the one we have now. The original states never would have signed on to a federal government that turned them into puppets. There were strong logical arguments against these outcomes, which power-hungry progressives understood quite well, back when they first set about overturning the Constitutional order. Modern progressives don’t think they need to understand those arguments any more, because the foundation of the total State has been laid, and the clock can never be “turned back,” as one of their favorite slogans has it. This should leave them at a severe intellectual disadvantage, if the Liberty Amendments become a topic of national debate.

Some of Levin’s proposed amendments are intended to clarify language that already exists in the Constitution, such as the much-abused Commerce Clause – lately interpreted as a warrant for unlimited federal control of all human activity, although the Founders most certainly did not intend it to be taken that way. Our language has changed over the centuries, always in a way that expands the Left’s desire for centralized control. The authors of the Constitution would find our current understanding of the word “commerce” to be utterly deranged – indeed, they might even ask what the point of their Revolution was, if “interstate commerce” was to become a writ for powers beyond the wildest dreams of daft old King George.

Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power, making it easier for states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation. Levin also makes a compelling argument against the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of United States senators. Senators were supposed to be instruments of the state legislatures, while the House of Representatives would be filled by popular vote. I have never read a better explanation for why this was important, and how it gave state governments a vitally needed hand in the crafting of federal legislation.

I’ve also seen no better case made for term limits on Congress, as Levin astutely points out that not only do Jurassic representatives-for-life distort the distribution of power in Congress, but they invest a great deal of our national energy (and funding!) in maintaining their 85-percent-plus re-election rate. Surely some of those “safe” districts would merely replace Retiring Party Drone A with New Party Drone B, but as it stands, far too many representatives discover they can most easily secure lifetime tenure by representing the Leviathan State instead of their constituents, tapping the federal treasury to purchase reliable voters.

The reason all of these goals must be accomplished through Constitutional amendment is that any other instrument of legislation or representation can be twisted to the purposes of the central State. Levin makes an irrefutable case that we long ago passed the point of no return for reforming our bloated, degenerate, dying federal government by winning a few elections. The people who rigged this system made certain to armor it against future dissent from unhappy voters – one man, one vote, one time, every step of the way, with each new progressive “achievement” promptly declared more immutable than the tattered old scrap of parchment kept under glass at the National Archives. Having studied the provisions for a Constitutional convention, Levin is convinced that the high bar for state ratification of any proposed amendments will keep it from becoming a carnival of kooks. The kooks are winning anyway. What could they get by amending the Constitution that our eternal bureaucracy and despotic executive branch aren’t giving them, one lost liberty at a time?

If you want to bring the ship of state into drydock, instead of slightly adjusting its course, The Liberty Amendments provides an excellent set of schematics. Levin’s strategy is the only way for the American people to have a say on all the things we’ve been told we don’t get to vote on any more. Reading this book will help you appreciate the terrible magnitude of what we have lost, and the intractable nature of an arrogant system that dictates to us instead of representing us, appropriating the language of “democracy” to dignify what really amounts to quelling dissent against whatever the ruling class wants to do next. And if you’re not already a Constitutional scholar of Mark Levin’s caliber, you might be surprised to learn just how accurately the supposedly out-of-touch and obsolete Founders predicted everything happening today. Why, reading Chapter Eight of The Liberty Amendments, you’d think John Adams was taking daily delivery of the New York Times through a time warp. I suspect he and his peers would have little argument with Levin’s recommendations.

Rush: Levin's book can help save the country

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin eyed as 2016 GOP debate moderators

Levin, The Liberty Amendments, Book Signings

• Saturday, August 17, 12pm - Book Revue - Huntington, NY
• Sunday, August 18, 11am - Bookends - Ridgewood, NJ
• Saturday, August 24, 10am - Barnes & Noble - Tysons Corner, VA
• Saturday, September 7, 1:30pm - Reagan Library - Simi Valley, CA -  Mark Levin to give a lecture and book signing at the Reagan Library on September 7th.

Mark Levin’s Books

The Liberty Amendments (Kindle)

Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America (Kindle)

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (Kindle)

Technorati Tags: Books,Founding Fathers,Ronald Reagan,Constitution,education,Sean Hannity,Fox News,Mark Levin,Saving America,freedom,liberty,educate yourself,Liberty Amendments,Levin,new book,Fox,presidential libraries,Rush,Hannity,Constitutionalist,patriotism,standing up,Reagan

The Conservatives" Movie Trailer: A Generation Awakens

Video: "The Conservatives" Movie Trailer: A Generation Awakens

Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg, Monica Crowley, Walter Williams, Stephen Moore, and Peter Schweizer star in Young America's Foundation's upcoming movie, "The Conservatives."

Technorati Tags: Mark Levin,Michelle Malkin,Jonah Goldberg,Monica Crowley,Walter Williams,Stephen Moore,Peter Schweizer,Young America's Foundation,movies The Conservatives,conservatives,conservatives stand up,America wakes up,Ronald Reagan

The Blaze: House votes to Repeal Net Neutrality!

I am delighted to see them forging ahead w/promises to repeal.  Keep the faith. Posted on the Blaze at 5p.m. ETWASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans adamant that the government keep its hands off the Internet passed a bill Friday to repeal federal rules barring Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with traffic on their networks.

Republicans, in voting to repeal rules on “network neutrality” set down by the Federal Communications Commission, said the FCC lacked the authority to promulgate the rules. They disputed the need to intervene in an already open Internet and warned that the rules would stifle investment in broadband systems.

“The FCC power grab would allow it to regulate any interstate communication service on barely more than a whim and without any additional input from Congress,” said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., sponsor of the legislation. The Internet, he added, “is open and innovative thanks to the government’s hands-off approach.”

But in what has become a largely partisan battle, the Democrat-controlled Senate is not expected to go along with the House. Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said he was “disappointed that House leadership wants to undo the integrity of the FCC’s process and unravel their good work.”

Even if it cleared Congress, the White House has threatened to veto a bill it said puts in doubt whether “the democratic spirit of the Internet will remain intact.”

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said nullifying the FCC rules would “give big phone and cable companies control over what websites Americans can visit, what applications they can run and what devices they can use.”

The vote to pass the bill, mainly along party lines, was 240-179.

The FCC rules were adopted on a 3-2 vote last December after years of debate over the federal role in ensuring a free and open Internet. The FCC’s three Democrats voted in support and its two Republicans opposed.

While generally seen as a compromise between technology companies fearing provider limitations on their access to the Internet and the big phone and cable companies insisting they need flexibility to manage Internet traffic, the rules drew a quick legal challenge from Verizon Communications Inc., which said the FCC had overstepped its authority.

A year ago a federal appeals court also ruled that the FCC exceeded its authority in sanctioning Comcast Corp. for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic Comcast said was clogging its network.

The rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, including online calling services such as Skype and Web video services such as Netflix that could compete with their core operations. They require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content.

They do give providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with network congestion and unwanted traffic as long as they publicly disclose those practices. They do not specifically ban “paid prioritization,” where a provider might charge more for faster transmission of data, but they outlaw “unreasonable network discrimination.”

Wireless carriers are also barred from blocking access to any websites or competing services, but they are given more leeway to manage data traffic because wireless systems have less network bandwidth.

Even supporters acknowledged that the rules are mainly about preserving the status quo of a system that is generally working well.

But absent the rules, said Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., “there would be a major shift in power on the Internet to the broadband providers from the content providers.”

He said there was legitimate fear among nonprofit and religious groups that they would be consigned to a lower tier because they could not pay a higher price for premium service. “So your Web page from Nike might load faster than your Web page from the Catholic Church because, if there was tiered access, who would be more likely to pay for the speed of the access?”

He also cited the actions of autocratic states such as China in blocking Internet content in saying the government must make clear that providers cannot discriminate against customers because of political or philosophical differences.

—

The bill is H.J.Res. 37  -  Online:  Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Source: 

• Posted by Whackamole on April 8, 2011 at 5:22pm in Elections, Issues, News, & Politics
• Send Message View Discussions

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-votes-to-block-net-neutrality/

The Hate for Sarah Palin

By Mark Levin - March 14, 2011

The corporate hate for Sarah Palin at Politico is obvious. The latest is here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51218.html

But if you google Politico and Palin, the evidence of a Politico agenda is overwhelming. And the manner in which Politico’s editors pursue their hate-Palin agenda is to cherry-pick the individuals they quote to make the point they want made.

A couple of quick things: 1. As I demonstrated last week, remarkably George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980.  In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan.  Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election.  For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will.  It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan's presence on the national scene for many years.  2. Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale.  Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective. I certainly do not begrudge, but in fact encourage, liberals becoming conservatives or Democrats becoming Republicans.  Reagan was a Democrat who famously changed parties.  But I do not believe that individuals touted by a left-wing "news" site as two of the leading conservative intellectuals, who stunningly opposed Reagan's candidacy while both were of mature age and mind, are necessarily reliable barometers in this regard.  The "non-intellectual" voters knew better.  3. It is apparent that several of President George W. Bush's former senior staffers are hostile to Sarah Palin, including Karl Rove, David Frum, and Pete Wehner, to name only three. (Even Barbara put her two cents into the hate soup!)  Pete is a good friend and a very smart guy.  That said, Bush's record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse.  In fact, the Tea Party movement is, in part, a negative reaction to Bush's profligate spending (including his expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs).  And while Bush's spending comes nowhere near Barack Obama's, that is not the standard.  Moreover, Bush was not exactly among our most articulate presidents, let alone conservative voices.  I raise this not to compare Bush to Palin, but to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner.  (If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements.  No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.)

This is not to say the folks cherry-picked by Politico are without accomplishment and merit.  They clearly are accomplished.  But that's not the point.  Most were not involved in either the Reagan Revolution or the Tea Party movement, and were not, to the best of my knowledge, early outspoken supporters of either.  What is necessary is a fulsome debate on each candidate's substance and policy positions.  Most of these Politico stories are little more than excuses to attack Palin, intended to damage her early on in case she should decide to run.  This has been going on for some time now.  If she is as weak as some think, why the obsession?  Why the contempt?  Moreover, Palin has used social media and other outlets to comment substantively on a wide range of issues and policies.  In fact, she has spoken on a wider array of issues than Youtube governor Chris Christie, popular among most of these folks, and her positions have, for the most part, been solidly conservative.  (Christie's positions on numerous issues important to conservatives are all but ignored by some of those complaining about Palin; indeed, the same could be said of potential presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitch Daniels, among others.)  My purpose in mentioning Christie here is to juxtapose the demands by "the intellectuals" on one politician versus another.  Their inquisitiveness seems influenced by their political bias.  That's not unusual, but it requires underscoring lest their opinions be viewed or promoted as objective.

As a Reaganite pre-dating Reagan’s 1976 candidacy, the contempt for Palin does, in fact, reminds me of the contempt some had for Reagan, especially from the media and Republican establishment, although no comparison is exact. I’ve not settled on a favorite would-be presidential candidate, but I also know media hit-jobs when I see them. I am hopeful more conservatives will begin to speak out about this or, before we know it, we will wonder why we are holding our noses and voting for another Republican endorsed by “the intellectuals” but opposed by a majority of the people.

A Tale of Two Speeches: Sarah Palin and Barack Obama on the Tragedy in Tucson

The Audacity of American Exceptionalism

Fear Factor: Palin Derangement Syndrome

See:  Journolists: The Truth of Media Fraud Confirmed