Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Liberty Amendments
In our discussion of the merits of a Convention of States, HVTs notes that Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments, was released eight days after the Convention of States Project’s website went live in August 2013. “Levin and our group,” he writes, “were travelling on parallel tracks that have since merged.”
These are the amendments Levin proposes:
- Establish twelve-year term limits for members of Congress and the Supreme Court;
- Repeal the 17th Amendment;
- Allow either Congress or the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision within 24 months with a three fifths vote of the members of both houses or the states;
- Require a federal budget to be enacted by May or impose an automatic across-the-board 5 percent cut, and the budget may not exceed total tax receipts or 17.5 percent of GDP;
- Place a 15 percent limit on the amount of income taxes collected from natural and legal persons, change the tax-return filing date to the day before federal elections, and ban federal estate, value-added, or sales taxes;
- Require every federal agency to be reauthorized every three years in a stand-alone bill or else expire, and require a seven-member House committee to approve all regulations with an economic burden greater than $100 million within six months or cancel implementation of the regulation;
- Limit the Commerce Clause to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between the states, and specify that it does not extend to activity within states (whether or not it affects interstate commerce) or to compelling an individual to participate in commerce;
- Extend the protection against seizure of private property to require compensation for regulations that reduce market value or interfere with the use of property in an amount exceeding $10,000;
- Change Article V so that any constitutional amendment, proposed by anyone, will be adopted if it is ratified by two thirds of the states;
- Require a 30-day waiting period between agreement upon the final version of any congressional bill (engrossment) and the final vote to approve it, and allow three fifths of the states to override any federal statute or any federal regulation with a cost exceeding $100 million within 24 months of passage or approval;
- and Require valid photo ID and proof of citizenship to register and vote in all federal elections, in person or by mail, and limit early voting to 30 days before the election (except for active-duty military personnel).
For those who don’t have the book, Jeffrey Lord offers a clear summary of the rationale behind the proposals.
Do you agree that separately or together these amendments might be the right recipe for curbing the runaway power of the federal government and restoring the role of the states?
Do you agree that–perhaps–such a plan could forestall our future as toast?
If not, why not?
Would you add others?
Published in General
Yes, indeed . . . the question is not IF there will be amendments, but if those amendments will continue to be done informally to the liking of Leftists, using judicial interpretation, Executive usurpation and national legislation as the ratification method. Or will we instead stand up to this creeping Left-totalitarianism and insist that amendments be done formally, in accordance with Article V? Every time we do nothing about informal amendments, we informally ratify them.
Bryan – the problem isn’t ‘not following what we have’ . . . it’s that they follow the Constitution as interpreted by fellow Progressives. We must amend the language in places so as to eliminate ambiguities and forestall the Left’s deliberate obtuseness. Generally, it’s where language or concepts are vague (what is “General Welfare”? What is “Necessary & Proper”?) that doors have been opened to Left wing manipulation and to furthering the Left’s agenda.
I’ve tried to think about how these changes fit together. I see no architectural understanding of the Constitution such that it needs amending. Mr. Levin seems to be saying, the Constitution is too good for us, we need to limit the harm we can do to it. This may be true, but it is deeply undemocratic, which is enough to kill any chance of such changes being passed by electorates that are used to politicians or courts modifying the constitution, which they then sanction by re-election.
Making it easier to amend the Constitution, however, is democratic, because those likely to change it are the people & they are likely to keep trying to change it through the generations. An unchanging constitution is essentially aristocratic. Whether this change would encourage democratic changes & which those might be I cannot say–I have not thought about it enough. My suspicions, however, lead me to ask, what if FDR could have changed the text of the Constitution, too, not just the Court, the laws, & some parts of the state? How would opposition to his principles–the Second Bill of Rights–retain any legitimacy?
I think conservatives should be dedicated to constitutionalism & to the renewal of the Constitution as an understanding of the necessary limits on popular gov’t, but I think Mr. Levin presupposes all that & then offers these ideas. But everything depends on what is assumed–on people electing politicians who want to dedicate the country to constitutionalism. How accomplish that, though?
What is it with conservatives obsession with term limits for legislators. They don’t work at the state level so it is insanity to think they would work at the federal level. This is just a conservative twist on a bleeding heart liberal mentality. We don’t care what the results are it just make it sounds like we are reducing power of the government.
Now term limits on judges that I like. However this idea would need to be tested at the state level first to see the results. However since most states have some sort of election or retention election of judges I really don’t know how predictive this test would be.
I really think we need to limit constitutional amendments that are proven to work at the state level or worked in the past. If it has not been tested at the state level it is an unproven idea and could be a disaster. Making laws and especially constitution amendments with-out fulling understanding the implications in a complex system is just plain stupid. The best way to do that is test them at a smaller level.
You don’t have to win. Think of it as a campaign to highlight an issue or two. The voters would be forced to concentrate on something a dramatic as a Constitutional Amendment. The media couldn’t ignore it. I’m talking politics, not economics or law. A political campaign in each state, the effect of which is a nationwide campaign. Liken it to Referendum X in State Y. Voters get excited and pass the proposed amendment. Then the Federal Circuit Court finds it unconstitutional stealing the victory. Still, it won a majority. Under Article 5 the courts have no power of review. Project that on to all or some of the states and you have one hell of a chance to educate the ignorant and put some fire under the butts of those who still care about the country.
Some of the more thoughtful arguments against the Liberty Amendments are very sound. However, they are based on prospects for success. It’s true that the amendment process is very tough these days, but Article 5 is still the only avenue for change. The legislative route is a dead end. Don’t repeal it de facto by fear of using it. Levin is not politically naive and he’s a constitutional scholar. His scheme is an outline for change. My thought is that it could set the stage for candidates who couldn’t sell it on their own in individual campaigns.
In my state judges are routinely on the ballot and I don’t think any are every voted off. I, for one, always vote against any judge unless I personally know AND like him/her. That happens rarely. They still stay on the bench.
Why do you conclude term limits don’t work at the state level? What would have to occur to demonstrate that they are working?
Well said!
Here’s a debate on whether it can be done & whether it should be done, an Article V convention to amend the constitution. In favor is Mr. Mike Harris, who is famous, & against is Mr. Larry Arnn, who runs Hillsdale college.
I’m against it, so I’ll just summarize the argument against:
1.It’s never been done & it is not clear why it would be more necessary or less difficult today than previously.
2.Americans are very divided on the important political problems facing the country, & if they cannot have political agreement, they cannot have constitutional agreement. Amending the Constitution historically follows winning a political fight but is not itself part of the victory.
3.Conservatives today have a reasonable chance of winning through the political process–difficult as it may be, these things take a great time to change the public sentiment (in a decisive election, such as 1800, 1860, & 1932). Conservatives do no, however, have any kind of advantages that would be magnified by a convention.
4.People who want to change the constitution are not the equals of the men who made the constitution. They cannot really think themselves the heirs of those men & their equals or betters. They are opening up something previously unknown, perhaps beyond what American politics has known.
I do not share Mr. Arnn’s confidence in victory, but I do share all his fears. American politics needs to improve, not the Constitution.
Mr. Techera:
I must admit – i fall short of empathy with the “Against” crowd on this. But the great Larry Arnn stepped in it at around 49 minutes …
when he said the text of the constitution is largely intact.
So, I’m calling it – Bullshit.
The text of the constitution is NOT largely intact. It’s ideas and meanings are rearranged in congress, and in the courts, and by the executive like tessellating puzzle pieces; and they never look at the box.
Mr. Luke, I’m glad you are interested in the debate, as well that it stirred something in you to comment. I’ll try to answer briefly–the text is largely intact. It is the understanding of it which is the problem. The professor was only trying to point out that it’s worth keeping the text. People who do not obey it now will not obey it more if it is changed–& it cannot be changed without their help & therefore a compromise with them is necessary.
If limited gov’t appeals to you; if you respect the originalist justices on the court; if you happen to respect the politics or principles of the Founders–where would you be without that text? For us to know how far American constitutionalism has degenerated, we need a standard against which to judge. That standard is supplied by our understanding of the largely intact text.
Titus – It makes no difference that the text is ‘intact’ if through judicial interpretation, national legislation or Executive action its meaning is turned upside down. The functional equivalent of re-writing the Constitution is happening year-in, year-out while you are busy protecting the purity of its original prose.
As I said earlier, the question is not IF there will be amendments, but if those amendments will continue to be done informally to the liking of Leftists. Your approach simply informally ratifies the changes Leftists are imposing on us day-by-day.
It’s not true the Constitution isn’t ‘obeyed’ now. The Constitution as Leftists interpret it is rigorously enforced! And it’s where the language or concepts are vague (what is “General Welfare”? “Necessary & Proper”?) that the Left is free to manipulate ‘interpretation’ to further its agenda.
Why do you suppose the Founders allowed for amendments if, as you seem to imply, we are to treat the Constitution as inerrant Holy Writ?
Dr. Arnn uncharacteristically exhibits blinkered thinking here. The point of this whole endeavor is to develop a grassroots movement at the State level in order to fundamentally transform the political equation in Washington, DC. This business of ‘it’s never happened before’ and ‘we aren’t up to the task ‘cuz the Founders were better men’ is ludicrous reasoning—which thankfully did not infect those Founders!
I am not busy protecting anything. This is not my fight, as I am not American. The closest I come to this is talking to people about politics or the stuff I did as a pol.sci youngling.
I do say, the functional equivalent is not equivalent enough. Just ask yourself, if the text is not there tomorrow, how much worse could things get immediately? & what would ever stop things from degenerating?
If you want to change the Constitution today, you must suppose there will never again be an FDR. Be prudent: If that man returns & he has all the facility you can provide him to rewrite the constitution–your kind will come to ruin you cannot seem to imagine. Only SCOTUS stood in his way at the time when it mattered. Think on that very carefully. He had to name eight men to the Court for things to go badly. But your countrymen gave him power to rule as a god far more easily, quickly, & repeatedly.
You need to revere the constitution. It is obvious you do not. This is why you are not able to see its power to resist & to teach to men like you to resist.
Your Founders looked upon themselves in a way you cannot quite understand. They wanted a great revolution, but only one–theirs. Even Madison tried to teach Jefferson that the Constitution needs reverence. Lincoln argued this in public before he turned 30. That was their opinion of you & yours. Whether you agree or not is up to you. There is truth in your bearing–your thinking you are quite the equal not only of your political adversaries, but indeed of your founders. Why you might think that in their stead you would have done as well, if not better. This is all possible. & if you win the political fight, sure, have your amendments–Lincoln certainly did, so did the progressives. But promising the grassroots changes in the Constitution without first getting by & with them a serious, lasting political victory seems to me premature at best.
I think all of us on the right hope that people who share your opinions, ambition, & confidence will win. Your future & the future of the world depend upon that victory. If you think this is the path, good luck.
^this makes the last bit seem strange.
^And again, the pragmatist is last to the battle lines.
^You’re demonstrating a lack of awareness as to the current president’s constitutional gamesmanship.
^I am curious about what leaves you with the impression of my irreverence…
[Agreed].
[My reading of the federalist and the Anti-Federalist teaches me of my mental stuntedness(we speak past one another on this point)].
[Agreed].
On this – HVTs and I are in lockstep. there must be at least one competitor. There must be at least one alternative. There must be at least one effective check on the supreme power of the sovereign national government. “Voted-for” tyrants are no less tyrannical.
I agree. But your Founders & your political regime are not certain to avoid tyranny. They’ve done a good job of it most of the time; so have the people. I do not disagree about the great dangers facing constitutionalism. I disagree about changing the constitution being the solution.
I agree the text looks sometimes like a fig leaf, if that. But other time, it allows the Court to fight against the executive / administrative state. Some times, it’s the Court that offends the Constitution–it is up to the elected branches to use the text against the Court at those times, which does not seem ever to happen, I concede.
I would say, the Constitution holds out great powers, simply because the text is almost intact, has been for a long time, & no politician dares argue publicly that it should be changed or destroyed. I would encourage you to learn how to appeal to it rather than try to change it.
But for our discussion to be serious, because of our partial agreements & disagreements, we need to revert back to the basic question. So tell me, Who do you think is responsible for the attack on constitutionalism & how has it been achieved?
A list of terribles then? (poetic license alert: slight exaggeration for effect)
John and Mitch in the house and senate have the
Power of the Purseproblem.The Spending bill Origination flimflam (Core&Shell legislation) to get ObamaCare Duely Passed…
Barack Hussein the First declaring that he will exercise law making powers, via pen&phone, and his unfaithful execution of the law(immigration+deportation)
The pending end run around the congress’ advice and consent to treaty.
The Installation of appointees to high positions while the senate was having lunch(advice and consent clause).
Unilateral amendments to ObamaCare after its Due Passage.
Exercising Military might in lybia without Congress’ authorization.
benghazi… a dereliction of duty, but a constitutionally defined duty at that (as a lowly military member … this is the worst … this makes my blood run cold with abject , unmitigated fear…)
Use of the IRS as a political weapon (not constitutionally authorized) to butt up against the first amendment.
Operation chokepoint: for the “Dept of justness” to circumvent government limitations as to it’s imposition upon citizenry.
————
now, you ask (rightly) but the courts use the constitution’s text to fight back…
To this I will retort – the only real check on the court’s discretion is their own self restraint(confessedly). And, as other federal courts are discovering, this administration may be paying mere lip-service to its desire to comply with a federal court’s findings.
Let’s not move on to comparing lists–yours will do. I do agree that a lot of these are violence to the Constitution & to constitutional politics. But the way you put it, either President Obama wins or you get a real shot at repairing this damage–as opposed to the people who have been harmed, who are, unlike the Constitution, not potentially immortal. No?
I think you are aware of the more than a few cases when SCOTUS has not only voted against the president’s will, but did it unanimously.
Further, a number of the things you detail are done in secret, lied about, unconfessed, unproclaimed–if constitutionalism is over in America, there is no need for such concealment, it is in fact counterproductive.
I would say, it is the people’s faith in the Constitution’s text that forces violence to text & practice into hiding. Maybe not forever–but for now…
I am not friendly disposed to Rep. Boehner & Sen. McConnell, though far less violent in my sentiments than many here on Ricochet seem to be. But I wish to see such men forced into a fight or out of office–I believe only political fights in public can restore to Americans the real choice between convenience & constitutionalism. I hope that things will move in that direction–but I see only partisan election fights as offering any chance of success-
I see the method of repair as being in an amending convention. As precedent of all legal kinds (right or wrong) go a long way in defining future disputes.
I am. But, i think Ayn Rand summarized my concern as i paraphrase:
what compromise can there be between food and poison?
Secret attacks are the most devastating. If constitutionalism is to continue they must be visible and unsuccessful; not hidden and victorious.
This is my favorite part: Here we differ more distinctly without disagreement, per se. I view this wish (which I share) as hoping for things to fall upward. I view the political system as corrupted in ways which mitigate the possibility of such an explicit public conversation.
The ethical fading that these men experience in office makes it impossible for us to have these conversations; these fights, in coherent terms. They can seem to us to be natural deceivers, where they see themselves as “just-doing-their-job.”
I do not see why American politics is corrupt today in a way it was not–or worse than–in the 1850s….
You may be right–but on the right, people do say, I elected so-&-so for such & such reasons, then he turned around & betrayed me–us! So that there is a serious difference; people are able to see it & get angry; & then, too, elections have changed things–though not enough for our side. I caution you–what you are talking about is not as obvious as you think, it is a prudential judgment that requires that you make your case in the most accurate & thought through way. It requires that your political judgment should become exquisite–not exasperated, damning…
About the political attacks, you are plainly wrong. It is not secrets–but the Confederacy, it is Dredd Scott & the Kansas-Nebraska Act, it is Roe, it is Jim Crow–all laws, all public actions. That’s the greatest danger.
I think this is a fair challenge: (what’s so different about politics, today?) For me, It is my reading of Voegeli’s Pity Party, Buckley’s FiringLine, and Peter Schweizer’s Extortion, which has got me thinking:
“Things have changed since the Founding.”
The Constitution’s design criteria comes from the idea that no one has the answer. Not the voters, politicians, or courts; they’re equally human. Rather, there are circuit breakers of checked and balanced power. The circuit breakers are being bypassed by many maladies:
– The 4th branch of government – The Administrative State(unconstitutional rule making power granted by the congress and affirmed by the courts).
– The supreme courts supremacy in the face of an impotent congress.
– The current executive’s unfaithfulness in the face of an impotent congress.
– etc.
I believe that there is a core problem(a mere reality) – the constitution is too far away. Who studies the debates? How many have read The Federalist and Anti-Federalist; mere footnotes. There are no torch bearers today, and so, it is becoming lost to history; our children learn less and less about it. Then the attacks come, and there’s no urgency, because there’s no victim(no principle, virtue, or quality of the constitution being assaulted.
They debated this idea to satisfaction that things could go sour and need revision without the feds’ help.
What’s so different now that we shouldn’t do it.
Did the founders get it wrong (nod to another ricochetti)?
No regime has proven indestructible; but the American regime is doing ok as yet. I do not deny the violence done. But I do say that the regime is such that it does not always require people to read old debates–only to take up the weaponry the system provides for them. Partisanship will serve the constitution so long as it exists. The more political & the more fighting the political fights get, the more the only position that can really fight progress will emerge–constitutionalism. This is not a strategy or even a prediction, but I think it should guide both.
The facts are what they are–they include both the remarkable transformations to the regime & its resilience, both on paper & in people’s minds. Americans have not reconciled themselves to progress. That part of the public mind requires excitement & action, however. If you think an Article V convention will do it, I do not have a problem with that. I think it will not–I look to partisan fights.
Like the debate you included earlier – I (of course) am convinced that I could win you over on the merits. And, I also subscribe to the definition of insanity. What’s so different about politics that it’ll change from THE method of implementation, and inculcation of unconstitutional exploits, to a remedy for the unconstitutional behavior we both abhor?
That, I cannot imagine.
Have we had brief respites, yes (less in recent years) . There’s not been much mending, at all…
True. But had it not come to a Civil war, it would have taken a long time to change what had gone wrong politically. So also with Reconstruction–had Lincoln lived, he would have done much better, but not enough in his time in office. Even if it had worked instead of ending up with Jim Crow–it would have taken more than a generation.
That the public proclamation of Progress has not been achieved suggests to me that it can still be defeated & that the way to do it has to do with what prevents that final victory. I think policy incompetence is less important here than the possibility that the Constitution be held in reverence, at least in moments of crisis-