This OP could easily be several pages long, but I'm going to keep it brief. So, bear in mind that it will by no means be complete.
The US Constitution is one of those things that generally doesn't seem to get a lot of attention from average people most of the time. My take on the reason why that's probably the case is because it's like owning a pretty darn reliable car; every time you get in, it starts right up. Consequently, since it works, aside from putting gas in it, you tend not to think about it too much.
Be that as it may, I have heard plenty of people who are more politically attuned than the average person say that they love the US Constitution. I understand perfectly since I'm one of those people who falls somewhere on the center/left. But with all due respect to anyone and everyone's political leanings, I don't think I've ever heard any group say that they love the US Constitution more often than conservatives. Hell, Junior High School girls don't love horses (or even unicorns) as much as conservatives love the US Constitution to hear them tell it.
With that said, A few years ago, I started to notice that the number of conservative complaints about what was and wasn't constitutional seemed to going up...sharply. It seemed as if when they didn't like something, it wasn't merely "a bad thing" in some way, deserving of some kind of policy solution. It wasn't even simply illegal as in some kind "this-is-a-violation-of-the-law." Neither was it some kind of a jurisdictional oversight or conflict of some kind where one legal authority might be "dropping the ball" in some way, thereby allowing a problem to go unsolved. No, to listen to conservatives tell the tale, X (whatever that X happened to be) was CLEARLY unconstitutional as far as they were concerned. This list just seemed to grow, and Grow, and GROW until it seemed as if the charge was automatic anytime conservatives discovered something they didn't like. This seemed to happen whether it was something that was being done that they thought should NOT be done, or it was something that wasn't being done that they thought SHOULD be done. As a result, within a few short years it seemed as if everyone who considered himself to be a conservative was suddenly a constitutional scholar who was eminently qualified (at least as far as they were concerned) to look at any law or any governmental practice to determine whether it passed constitutional muster.
Oddly enough, right around the same time it seemed as conservatives wanted all kinds of things to be done that clearly fell outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I'll just list a few in order to make the point. Extraordinary rendition, the suspension of habeous corpus, deploying US military troops on the border all come to mind although I don't have any intention of getting into a long drawn out discussion on each and every one.
Now, I sit back and I take this all in over the course of a few years, and I try not to get TOO worked up about it because I kinda know how people are in general. People get a bee in their bonnet about something, and they generally look for an avenue that will allow them to get what they want. To that end, they can come up with any number of arguments (justifications) that will allow them to get to point B (getting what they want) from point A (not having what they want). The arguments don't even have to make sense half the time because people are more interested in having A rationale for something than they are in what IS actually a rational argument.
But it's just gotten so damn silly in the last few years following the election of Barrack Obama since it seems as if anything the President does gets the full blown constitutional argument.
Okay, that's the history. Now for the premise of the thread.
Now the conservative debate seems to have entered a new(er) phase. It's the faze where the US Constitution MUST be changed. I'm not talking about some kind of restoration of constitutional principles as was previously the argument (regardless of how meritorious it may or may not have been). Now the argument is that we've got to CHANGE the constitution. One of the biggest purveyors of this idea is conservative hero, Mark Levin, who is pushing hard for a Convention of the States under Article V of the US Constitution for the purpose of amending the constitution. He's even written a book about it called The Liberty Amendments which doesn't just propose one or two changes. He envisions TEN Amendments to the Constitution. I'll even list them for the sake of simplicity without offering comments about any of them.
1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.
2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.
3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.
4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.
5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.
6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.
7) Limiting Federal power to take private property
8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.
9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.
10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.
Mark Levin s Liberty Amendments RedState
Okay, it's been a long haul. But after all this time (I mean the last few years, not the length of this OP), how can conservatives honestly say that they LOVE the US Constitution if they're so set on making so many fundamental changes to it? Doesn't that seem like a fundamental contradiction?
The US Constitution is one of those things that generally doesn't seem to get a lot of attention from average people most of the time. My take on the reason why that's probably the case is because it's like owning a pretty darn reliable car; every time you get in, it starts right up. Consequently, since it works, aside from putting gas in it, you tend not to think about it too much.
Be that as it may, I have heard plenty of people who are more politically attuned than the average person say that they love the US Constitution. I understand perfectly since I'm one of those people who falls somewhere on the center/left. But with all due respect to anyone and everyone's political leanings, I don't think I've ever heard any group say that they love the US Constitution more often than conservatives. Hell, Junior High School girls don't love horses (or even unicorns) as much as conservatives love the US Constitution to hear them tell it.
With that said, A few years ago, I started to notice that the number of conservative complaints about what was and wasn't constitutional seemed to going up...sharply. It seemed as if when they didn't like something, it wasn't merely "a bad thing" in some way, deserving of some kind of policy solution. It wasn't even simply illegal as in some kind "this-is-a-violation-of-the-law." Neither was it some kind of a jurisdictional oversight or conflict of some kind where one legal authority might be "dropping the ball" in some way, thereby allowing a problem to go unsolved. No, to listen to conservatives tell the tale, X (whatever that X happened to be) was CLEARLY unconstitutional as far as they were concerned. This list just seemed to grow, and Grow, and GROW until it seemed as if the charge was automatic anytime conservatives discovered something they didn't like. This seemed to happen whether it was something that was being done that they thought should NOT be done, or it was something that wasn't being done that they thought SHOULD be done. As a result, within a few short years it seemed as if everyone who considered himself to be a conservative was suddenly a constitutional scholar who was eminently qualified (at least as far as they were concerned) to look at any law or any governmental practice to determine whether it passed constitutional muster.
Oddly enough, right around the same time it seemed as conservatives wanted all kinds of things to be done that clearly fell outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I'll just list a few in order to make the point. Extraordinary rendition, the suspension of habeous corpus, deploying US military troops on the border all come to mind although I don't have any intention of getting into a long drawn out discussion on each and every one.
Now, I sit back and I take this all in over the course of a few years, and I try not to get TOO worked up about it because I kinda know how people are in general. People get a bee in their bonnet about something, and they generally look for an avenue that will allow them to get what they want. To that end, they can come up with any number of arguments (justifications) that will allow them to get to point B (getting what they want) from point A (not having what they want). The arguments don't even have to make sense half the time because people are more interested in having A rationale for something than they are in what IS actually a rational argument.
But it's just gotten so damn silly in the last few years following the election of Barrack Obama since it seems as if anything the President does gets the full blown constitutional argument.
Okay, that's the history. Now for the premise of the thread.
Now the conservative debate seems to have entered a new(er) phase. It's the faze where the US Constitution MUST be changed. I'm not talking about some kind of restoration of constitutional principles as was previously the argument (regardless of how meritorious it may or may not have been). Now the argument is that we've got to CHANGE the constitution. One of the biggest purveyors of this idea is conservative hero, Mark Levin, who is pushing hard for a Convention of the States under Article V of the US Constitution for the purpose of amending the constitution. He's even written a book about it called The Liberty Amendments which doesn't just propose one or two changes. He envisions TEN Amendments to the Constitution. I'll even list them for the sake of simplicity without offering comments about any of them.
1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.
2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.
3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.
4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.
5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.
6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.
7) Limiting Federal power to take private property
8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.
9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.
10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.
Mark Levin s Liberty Amendments RedState
Okay, it's been a long haul. But after all this time (I mean the last few years, not the length of this OP), how can conservatives honestly say that they LOVE the US Constitution if they're so set on making so many fundamental changes to it? Doesn't that seem like a fundamental contradiction?
Last edited:
