Thomas Lifson talks about Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments. I want to cover some of the suggested amendments from a non-lawyer, average American’s, perspective.
There is no argument with this suggested change:
I’ve been railing against the 17th Amendment for years. The 17th was IMPLEMENTED a century ago although there is doubt that it was ratified. Those ten decades gave the country long-serving senators who legislated more of their personal agenda than did any five presidents you’d care to name. I’ve posted many messages on the topic; so I won’t go over the details here except to say that Ted Kennedy was the worst of them all. I cannot name one decent long-serving senator who counterbalanced the vindictive damage done to this country by Kennedy.
NOTE: Media rakes in billions of advertising dollars from winners & loses in those 100 senate races every six years. You figure out the odds for repealing the XVII Amendment. I make it a googolplex to one against.
I wish Mr. Levin had separated these next two:
I’m not keen on ignoring the wisdom of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson on the Supreme Court’s lifetime appointments. However, I would make impeachment a helluva lot easier rather than go for term limits. To me, easier impeachment is the better choice because a douche bag can do a lot of harm within the time of term limits. In addition, term limits throws out the good ones along with the bad.
Examples for impeaching: Legislating social policy from the bench should be an impeachable offense. Most recently, Roberts, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer would be gone for their vote on the ACA. In fact, Ginsburg would not have cast a vote. She would have been outta there the minute she said:
If you listened to the video you heard Ginsberg say a constitution means nothing if the people do not yearn for freedom and liberty, yet Baby Ruth and her kind do everything they can do to take freedom and liberty away from one group and give it another. Her views on constitutionally guaranteed freedom and liberty are nothing more than social policy —— without admitting that her Human Rights must be funded by tax dollars.
I do agree with legislative override. Unfortunately, Congress rarely shows that kind of courage as the ACA proves. For some unknown reason Congress occasionally overrides a presidential veto, but will never override a High Court decision. That might have something to do with all of those lawyers in Congress.
This next excerpt is another mixed bag:
Limits on federal spending is a good idea, but it’s dead certainty Congress will find a way to get around it.
Limits might have been possible a long time ago. Today, the parasite class is too large and too powerful.
Fifteen percent
NOTE: I’ve posted countless message about repealing the XVI Amendment. I put repeal, and withdrawing from the United Nations, as the only ways to defeat Socialism/Communism. Anything less guaranties more of the same until America becomes as mythical as Camelot.
A 15% ceiling on income has as much chance of surviving as does 17.5% of GDP. A 15% ceiling is no substitute for repealing the 16th Amendment. As I said in a previous thread:
This next one is needed if Congress and the Courts refuse to protect real property Rights from bureaucracies like the EPA:
Protection from eminent domain abuses needs a lot of work even if Congress and the Courts find the courage to slap down bureaucrats.
This suggestion is a terrific idea:
I would include early voting, and accepting campaign contributions from foreign sources.
Realistically, I don’t see the FEC enforcing any prohibitions, nor can I imagine the Department of Injustice prosecuting Democrats for violations.
Having said the above, I suggest one amendment. One that specifically attacks the parasite class. I do not know which words to use, but they should reinforce the philosophical purpose of the First Amendment regarding religion:
To elaborate on Mr. Madison, not one tax dollar should fund a government charity.
All charity should be local and voluntary
Oddly enough it was Democrat Tip O’Neill who said “All politics is local.” Yet it is the Democrat party that says the opposite about charity. They say the government funding charities with tax dollars is universal. It is so bad in this country nobody with a public voice calls any welfare state program a charity.
Coerced charity, more than anything else, shows that Socialists/Communists are afflicted with a Messianic complex. Every one of them has a perverted Good Samaritan complex if there is such a thing. I say perverted because the Good Samaritan in the Bible took care of the stranger that came into his life, while the Socialists/Communists want to wear the title of Good Samaritans so long as everyone else does the work.
Bottom line: Every Socialist suffers from the same affliction every priest in history suffered from. In their sick minds telling everyone else how to behave qualified them for sainthood. Abolish the tax on income and they’d have to earn sainthood the hard way.
Finally, most so-called Christians wallow in their love for Jerusalem Slim. They cannot have it both ways. If they accept the Good Samaritan story for what it is while they support coerced charity they must despise Jesus Christ. That’s one of the main reasons Socialists are devouring Jesus Christ. The two priesthoods are of one mind.
I do not make a practice of quoting the Bible because I’ve not read it; however, I believe that variations of this phrase appear in the Bible several times. Jesus said:
Friendly advice: Christians better start paying attention to the “. . . you will not always have me.” part.
Lay Christians obviously believe that coerced charity will eliminate the poor. Proof: LBJ’s War on Poverty clearly refutes Jesus’ wisdom, yet a substantial number of Christians support the welfare state. One cannot agree with coerced charity while proclaiming their love for Jesus.
CLARIFICATION: I do not intend to debate the teachings of Jesus Christ. I’m simply pointing out that coerced charity is the antithesis of his message.
Here’s the link to Lifson’s article:
There is no argument with this suggested change:
I’ve been railing against the 17th Amendment for years. The 17th was IMPLEMENTED a century ago although there is doubt that it was ratified. Those ten decades gave the country long-serving senators who legislated more of their personal agenda than did any five presidents you’d care to name. I’ve posted many messages on the topic; so I won’t go over the details here except to say that Ted Kennedy was the worst of them all. I cannot name one decent long-serving senator who counterbalanced the vindictive damage done to this country by Kennedy.
NOTE: Media rakes in billions of advertising dollars from winners & loses in those 100 senate races every six years. You figure out the odds for repealing the XVII Amendment. I make it a googolplex to one against.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0lFQOmb6mVs]Googol and Googolplex by Carl Sagan - YouTube[/ame]
I wish Mr. Levin had separated these next two:
I’m not keen on ignoring the wisdom of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson on the Supreme Court’s lifetime appointments. However, I would make impeachment a helluva lot easier rather than go for term limits. To me, easier impeachment is the better choice because a douche bag can do a lot of harm within the time of term limits. In addition, term limits throws out the good ones along with the bad.
Examples for impeaching: Legislating social policy from the bench should be an impeachable offense. Most recently, Roberts, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer would be gone for their vote on the ACA. In fact, Ginsburg would not have cast a vote. She would have been outta there the minute she said:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNC-kbmpscE&feature=player_embedded]US Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Tells Egyptians Don't Look to The Old US Constitution - YouTube[/ame]
If you listened to the video you heard Ginsberg say a constitution means nothing if the people do not yearn for freedom and liberty, yet Baby Ruth and her kind do everything they can do to take freedom and liberty away from one group and give it another. Her views on constitutionally guaranteed freedom and liberty are nothing more than social policy —— without admitting that her Human Rights must be funded by tax dollars.
I do agree with legislative override. Unfortunately, Congress rarely shows that kind of courage as the ACA proves. For some unknown reason Congress occasionally overrides a presidential veto, but will never override a High Court decision. That might have something to do with all of those lawyers in Congress.
This next excerpt is another mixed bag:
Limits on federal spending is a good idea, but it’s dead certainty Congress will find a way to get around it.
Limits might have been possible a long time ago. Today, the parasite class is too large and too powerful.
Fifteen percent
NOTE: I’ve posted countless message about repealing the XVI Amendment. I put repeal, and withdrawing from the United Nations, as the only ways to defeat Socialism/Communism. Anything less guaranties more of the same until America becomes as mythical as Camelot.
A 15% ceiling on income has as much chance of surviving as does 17.5% of GDP. A 15% ceiling is no substitute for repealing the 16th Amendment. As I said in a previous thread:
This next one is needed if Congress and the Courts refuse to protect real property Rights from bureaucracies like the EPA:
Protection from eminent domain abuses needs a lot of work even if Congress and the Courts find the courage to slap down bureaucrats.
This suggestion is a terrific idea:
I would include early voting, and accepting campaign contributions from foreign sources.
Realistically, I don’t see the FEC enforcing any prohibitions, nor can I imagine the Department of Injustice prosecuting Democrats for violations.
Having said the above, I suggest one amendment. One that specifically attacks the parasite class. I do not know which words to use, but they should reinforce the philosophical purpose of the First Amendment regarding religion:
To elaborate on Mr. Madison, not one tax dollar should fund a government charity.
All charity should be local and voluntary
Oddly enough it was Democrat Tip O’Neill who said “All politics is local.” Yet it is the Democrat party that says the opposite about charity. They say the government funding charities with tax dollars is universal. It is so bad in this country nobody with a public voice calls any welfare state program a charity.
Coerced charity, more than anything else, shows that Socialists/Communists are afflicted with a Messianic complex. Every one of them has a perverted Good Samaritan complex if there is such a thing. I say perverted because the Good Samaritan in the Bible took care of the stranger that came into his life, while the Socialists/Communists want to wear the title of Good Samaritans so long as everyone else does the work.
Bottom line: Every Socialist suffers from the same affliction every priest in history suffered from. In their sick minds telling everyone else how to behave qualified them for sainthood. Abolish the tax on income and they’d have to earn sainthood the hard way.
Finally, most so-called Christians wallow in their love for Jerusalem Slim. They cannot have it both ways. If they accept the Good Samaritan story for what it is while they support coerced charity they must despise Jesus Christ. That’s one of the main reasons Socialists are devouring Jesus Christ. The two priesthoods are of one mind.
I do not make a practice of quoting the Bible because I’ve not read it; however, I believe that variations of this phrase appear in the Bible several times. Jesus said:
Friendly advice: Christians better start paying attention to the “. . . you will not always have me.” part.
Lay Christians obviously believe that coerced charity will eliminate the poor. Proof: LBJ’s War on Poverty clearly refutes Jesus’ wisdom, yet a substantial number of Christians support the welfare state. One cannot agree with coerced charity while proclaiming their love for Jesus.
CLARIFICATION: I do not intend to debate the teachings of Jesus Christ. I’m simply pointing out that coerced charity is the antithesis of his message.
Here’s the link to Lifson’s article:
Last edited:
