Mark Levin's new book; "The Liberty Amendments" http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/more.php?m=56&r=42&mode=3&is_corp=0 From following link: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/levin-rescue ..."Enter Dr. Mark Levin with his new book, "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic". Levin is a Constitutional scholar â and he shines. He argues passionately that the federal government can be brought under control only if new limitations are thrust upon it by its citizenry. He proposes a Constitutional convention, not one called by Congress but one impaneled by two-thirds of state legislatures, and which would require a three-fourths margin to pass any new amendments. It is the lesser known of the two options provided by Article V of the Constitution. What should a Constitutional convention tackle? Levin offers eleven amendments for consideration, with appropriate subdivisions, each carefully researched and each designed to reduce the power of the state. Term limits for Congress is the first liberty amendment Levin offers. It is in my view also the most important. Only when there are limits (12 years of service) will Congress be populated by men and women driven only by the call to service, not the siren song of power. The millions delivered by special interests for the re-election of incumbents who, in turn, reward said interests with billions in grants, contracts, tax shelters and the like â will cease. Levin calls for other limitations on Congress. He proposes an amendment to limit federal spending and another to limit taxation, the combination, which will restore fiscal sanity while devolving power from the state. He offers an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment, returning to the Article 1 mandate that Senators be chosen by their state legislators. What about the Supreme Court? "(S)hould five individuals be making political and public policy decisions and imposing them on every corner of the nation ... as they pursue even newer and more novel paths around the Constitution in exercising judicial review?" Levin points to the obvious: Sometimes mistakes are made (Roberts, anyone?) and America shouldn't be punished for the rest of that jurist's life. He proposes 12-year term limits for them, as well. What can be done to control, even reduce the size and scope of the bureaucracy? All federal departments and agencies must be re-authorized by Congress every three years or be terminated â that's what..." Next on my reading list. Mark will be doing a one hour live audience Hannity Fri night on FOX (not sure of time). No doubt he will discuss these great ideas on how to return the power to the people.
"Term limits for Congress is the first liberty amendment Levin offers. It is in my view also the most important. Only when there are limits (12 years of service) will Congress be populated by men and women driven only by the call to service, not the siren song of power. The millions delivered by special interests for the re-election of incumbents who, in turn, reward said interests with billions in grants, contracts, tax shelters and the like â will cease." I'm leaning towards net-worth limits to achieve this. All those millions mentioned can still be delivered in 12 years.
I think term limits is the best, and possibly most important idea. If we had those, perhaps the other proposals would not be as necessary.
That's a softball question, Lucrum. You should know the answer! I'm appalled! Its an amendment to limit spending. That shows me that Levin, for all his popular appeal, is limited in intellect. Such an amendment would be disastrous, unless the future is knowable with certainty. Imagine if in 2008 the U.S. had had a balanced budget amendment as part of the constitution requiring that the budget be balanced each fiscal year, No deficit spending, no net borrowing in other words, no new debt. What a mess that would have created. Of course such is completely untenable and we would have had to ignore it. We can't have amendments that hamstring economic flexibility and guarantee our hands will be tied in case of a future disaster. I'm sure you know that the constitution requires that we honor our debts making the annual fracas over the debt ceiling a purely political exercise. That statute is made superfluous by the constitution.
Perhaps we should wait until we see the entir idea. In my budget, I limit spending here so I can increase it there, and I never go into debt to increase my spending (used to, and it wasn't pretty). I understand your point, but currently I believe spending in the gov is flat out reckless.
Yes, of course we all agree with that. That's being responsible! But you can be responsible and still have your car brake down, be struck by a tornado, and develop lymphoma, and then have a three-year legal battle with your insurance companies. I will always agree with waiting to to see the entire idea, however. That's always good advice.
Having an emergency fund is a good idea. I have one of those, too. Problem with congress is; they would use emergency funds for non emergencies. Especially around election time.
Bull shit. If Washington would stay out of the mortgage business. If federal regulators would do their fucking jobs. If we had a sound fiscal policy. 2008 and the like would never have happened in the first place. Congress/Washington keep meddling where they don't belong. Keep creating problems and disasters that only then SEEM to require even more disastrous measures to solve their fuck up. No we would not have "had to" ignore it. We could and should have let the chips fall where they may. Again, if we already had these amendments in 2008 we wouldn't have had a disaster to contend with in the first place,. True, but then we shouldn't be nearly $17 trillion dollars in debt to begin with either. These amendments, not that there is a chance they'll ever become law, would also make the "annual fracas over the debt ceiling" ancient history.