Book "The Liberty Amendments"

[FirefightnRick]

Anyone else read it yet?

Thousands lined up this weekend to get their copy signed by Mark Levin.

Rick

Rick

[GTWT]

It's a well written book, some of which I agree with some that I don't. Levin's amendments are:

1. Term limits, including for justices.
2. Repealing Amendment 17 and returning the election of senators to state legislatures
3. A congressional supermajority to override Supreme Court decisions (overruling what could be a stacked court)
4. Spending limit based on GDP
5. Taxation capped at 15%
6. Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights
7. Power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote.

1. Term limits - seems like a good idea. However, there are positives about having folks in office long enough to understand the system. Sam Rayburn would have been missed. Also, I resent the hell out of anyone telling me I can't vote for someone. This amendment would do that.

2. Repeal 17th amendment - I agree that every state should decide how its senators will be elected.

3. Congress can override Supreme Court - No! The Supreme Court's role is to decide what is constitutional. Congress is too focused on the short-term & has a strong tendency to be ideological. How anyone can look at the current Congress & think these clowns should be able to trump the Constitution is beyond ludicrous.

4. Spending limit. I would rather see us spend money wisely than to have to put artificial limits on a budget. I know - 'wisely' ain't part of the equation.

5. Tax cap - No. This needs to be flexible. I would consider a flat tax sans all deductions, exemptions, & such.

6a. Limiting Commerce Clause - Yes. Federal role has grown too large.

6b. Strengthening private property rights - No. Too much abuse of 'common good' has taken place in the name of 'private rights'.

7. Power of state to override federal statute. Yes.

Thoughtful book & interesting topic/ Thanks FFR.

[KRAM1]

Agree...good read. Levin does some nice work.

[Mean Green 93-98]

3. Congress can override Supreme Court - No! The Supreme Court's role is to decide what is constitutional. Congress is too focused on the short-term & has a strong tendency to be ideological. How anyone can look at the current Congress & think these clowns should be able to trump the Constitution is beyond ludicrous.

I haven't read the book, but I thought I might chime in on this comment. It seems that you are almost using "Supreme Court" and "Constitution" as synonyms. The Constitution is the authoritative document by which the U.S. is governed, and the Supreme Court has the power to interpret portions of the Constitution on a case-by-case basis. Deciding what is constitutional was not an original purpose of the Supreme Court, although it has been fairly well-established for a couple of centuries now. At any rate, the three branches of government were created so that there could be checks and balances on each branch. However, there are no real checks on the judicial branch, especially on the Supreme Court. And it is naive to think that the Supreme Court is completely above partisan ideology.

I don't think any branch or chamber should be able to trump the Constitution, but I do believe there need to be some kind of checks on the judiciary.

[GTWT]

Hi MG93-98,

No the Supreme Court isn't above being ideological but it is encouraging how often the court (or rather its members) manage to rise above ideology. The most recent example is Chief Justice Roberts' decision regarding The Affordable Care Act. Was it legislation Roberts liked? No. But in his opinion, whether good or bad, it was constitutional.

There should be, and there are, congressional checks on the judiciary, but that shouldn't extend to Congress taking on the court's role of deciding what is constitutional and what is not.

[UNT90]

Hi MG93-98,

No the Supreme Court isn't above being ideological but it is encouraging how often the court (or rather its members) manage to rise above ideology. The most recent example is Chief Justice Roberts' decision regarding The Affordable Care Act. Was it legislation Roberts liked? No. But in his opinion, whether good or bad, it was constitutional.

There should be, and there are, congressional checks on the judiciary, but that shouldn't extend to Congress taking on the court's role of deciding what is constitutional and what is not.

Or was Roberts the ultimate idealog by approving of health care, which he knew was HIGHLY unpopular, in the hopes of influencing the presidential election?

Little did he know republicans would nominate McCain lite and the one man who couldn't run on the health care issue.

Stupid Republicans.

[gksmith]

How could it influence either election (2008 or 2012)? The decision on Obamacare was this year.

Basic Government from high school - the three branches are checks and balances against each other. I realize the State of Texas elects its state supreme court justices, but the last thing we need to do is politicize the US Supreme Court further. The justices have a history of staying above the ideological arguments and be impartial. I am sure almost everyone can point out a few cases here and there over the entire history of the court where justices played politics but the better ones stayed away from that. As a whole the court has stayed away from politics and done a good job.

Can you imagine the ciaos if the justices had to run for election every 2-4 years?

I agree with term limits for Senators and Representatives. The people who are against it are the ones in power at the time. There should not be "career politicians."

[FirefightnRick]

How could it influence either election (2008 or 2012)? The decision on Obamacare was this year.

gk it was March of 2012.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx

Is it possible your thinking of a portion of the Voting Rights Act that was struck down this year?

Rick