(this is a very well done and simple explanation of the predicament we are in, and really the ultimate answer to it . . many people, including me, realizes that so much/all of the laws, actions and beaurocracies being used against the people are unconstitutional . . but do not really know "why" or "how" they are unconstitutional. . . . as well as the snakes everywhere who put themselves out there as "patriotic" and "conservative" on the radio, tv, etc, and get a following (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Mark Levine, etc, etc) that ultimately are working for the globalists, whether they realize it or not . . the answer is to NOT CHANGE the Constitution, but to enforce it . . which would eliminate practically ALL of the tyranny . . simple, but very, very difficult . . . )
MARK
LEVIN'S "LIBERTY" AMENDMENTS: LEGALIZING TYRANNY
For
100 years, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated to
it in our Constitution.
What
should we do about it? Should we reclaim our existing
Constitution and put an end to the usurpations?
Or should
we “modernize”the Constitution by delegating to the federal
government the powers it has usurped – so as to legalize what is
now unconstitutional?
Mark
Levin begins “The Liberty Amendments” by saying he doesn’t
believe the Constitution requires “modernization through amendments”.
But he then proposes a series of amendments, six of which modernize our
Constitution to delegate to the federal government most of the
powers it has usurped during the last 100 years.
And
each of his six amendments does the opposite of what its title promises
.I’ll show you.[1]
Levin’s
amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” [p 99-100 of
his book]
George
Washington’s cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary
of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General. Those functions
are authorized by our Constitution.[2]
But
today there are numerous agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal
government. Where is the constitutional authority? What Article, Section,
and Clause authorizes the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy,
Labor, Transportation, HHS, HUD, DHS, EPA, SBA, etc., etc., etc.?
There
is no constitutional authority! Accordingly, all these agencies are unconstitutional
as outside the scope of the powers delegated in our Constitution.
Well
then, a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy”
would demand that these agencies be closed,and their functions returned
to the States and The People, right?
But
Mark Levin doesn’t do this. Section1 of his amendment legalizes
all these agencies.It says:
“All
federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and
agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization
bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives
and the Senate.”
As long
as Congress periodically “reauthorizes” the agencies–
they remain.
Levin’s
amendment thus changes the constitutional standard for whether an executive
agency lawfully exists from whether it carries out an enumerated
power [as in Washington’s Cabinet] to whatever the President
wants and Congress agrees to. Do you see?
Now
look at Section 2 of Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal
bureaucracy.” It says:
“All
Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million,
as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the
Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint
Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight
Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.”
Article
I, §1, of our Constitution says only Congress may
make laws.[3]
But since Woodrow Wilson, executive agencies in the federal government
have been churning out regulations which govern all aspects of our lives.
These comprise the now gigantic Code of Federal Regulations.
All
these regulations are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1![4]
Well
then, one would expect that a person who wanted to “limit the federal
bureaucracy” would demand the repeal of existing regulation sand
an end to all future rulemaking, right?
Not
Levin!Section2 of his amendment legalizes all existing regulations
and the rule making process. Levin’s “fix”
is merely to form a congressional committee to review certain regulations
before they are imposed on the American People.
And
so,federal executive agencies will continue to churn out millions of pages
of regulations – but now, they will be constitutional
because Levin’s amendment makes it all lawful.
Do you
see? Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and does
the opposite of what he claims.
Levin’s
amendment “to limit federal spending”(p 73 -74)
Our
Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers.
If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated
to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects
on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our
Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated
powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue
the federal government generates or the size of the GDP.Do you see?
The
reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government
has ignored the limits –already set forth in the Constitution -
on its spending.
Well
then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would
demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict
spending to the enumerated powers, right?
But
Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes
all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated
powers. It says:
“Congress
shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first
Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget
to the President for consideration.”
Levin’s
amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President
and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever
they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President
to lawfully spend money on whatever they
want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution
doesn’t authorize it.
Furthermore,
Levin’s amendment does nothing to control
federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to
limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections6 &
7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise
the national debt.[5]
Levin’s
amendment “to limit federal taxing” (p 75)
Our
Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to levy taxes
so that Congress and the President will have the funds to spend on whatever
they want.
Congress
may lawfully levy taxes only to raise the funds
to carry out the enumerated powers. Article I, §8, clauses 1 &
2 say:
“The
Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and
general Welfare of the United States …” [and] “To
borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”
Immediately
after clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers
we delegated to Congress for the Country at Large.[6]
Add
to this short list of enumerated powers, the “housekeeping
powers” itemized elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., the census);
the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art.II, §1, next
to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list;
and you see the purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy
and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money, for the Country at Large.[7]
So!
Congress should not be levying taxes except to generate revenue
for its constitutional functions. If Congress restricted
its spending to those few powers delegated in the Constitution, the federal
government would need very little money from us.
One
would expect that a person who wants to“limit federal taxation”
would demand that the federal government stop taxing to raise money to
spend on unconstitutional purposes, right?
Not
Levin! While his amendment limits the federal income tax to 15% of income
– it institutionalizes the present practice where Congress lays
& collects taxes for any purposes whatsoever.[8]
Levin’s
amendment “to protect private property” (p 137)
The
federal government has no lawful authority to own land
for any purpose other than those enumerated in the Constitution: Article
I, §8, next to last clause, permits the federal government to own
the District of Columbia [which was not to exceed “ten Miles square”],
and Places purchased with the Consent of the State legislatures for the
erection of forts, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings (e.g., federal
courthouses, post offices) to carry out the enumerated powers.
The
federal government has no lawful authority to own national parks,
grazing areas, forests, and such.[9]
And
the federal government has no lawful authority to restrict peoples’
use of their own land. Now here in our Constitution did we delegate that
power to the federal government! Accordingly, all federal laws and regulations
(EPA,etc.) which pretend to restrict an owner’s use of his land
are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.
Furthermore,
the States’ and local governments’ powers
of eminent domain and other “takings” of private land are
addressed in their own State Constitutions and laws. This
is NOT a federal issue!
But
Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” changes
all of the above. It says:
“When
any governmental entity acts not to secure a private property right
against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for
a public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation,
which taking results in a market value reduction of the property, interference
with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner
exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property
owner for such losses.”
Levin’s
amendment:
Changes
the constitutional standard for federal ownership of lands from
carrying out an enumerated power to what ever someone
in the federal government deems a “public use”
[which can be anything];
Legalizes
what are now unconstitutional holdings of lands by the federal government
– such as grazing lands;
Legalizes
“takings” by regulation – restrictions via regulations
on the use of private lands - by all levels of government;
Takes
from the States and The People their retained powers over eminent domain
and regulatory takings, and makes it a federal issue under the control
of the federal government;[10]
and
Provides
that as long as a taking does not reduce the value of the property
by more than $10,000, the governments don’t have to pay the property
owner one red cent. So! If your local or State or federal government
takes some of your land, or restrict its use by regulation,Levin’s
amendment requires compensation to be paid if the “taking”
exceeds $10,000. If the government decides that your loss is less than
$10,000, you eat the loss. The amendment legalizes government
theft of private property.
Levin’s
amendment “to protect the vote” (p 183-184)
Before
our Constitution was ratified, the States qualified & registered voters.
Qualifications were set forth in their State Constitutions, and requirements
differed from State to State. This power was expressly retained
by the States with Art. I, §2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution.[11]
The
four voting amendments reduced this retained power of the States, and
delegated to the federal government power to stop States from
denying suffrage to citizens on account of race (15th Amendment),
sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment),
or age for citizens eighteen years of age or older (26th
Amendment).
Except
as restricted by these four amendments, the States retain their pre-existing
power to set qualifications for registering citizens to vote, as long
as they do not deny it on account of race, sex, failure
to pay a tax, or age for those 18 years or more. States remain free to
deny registration on other grounds –
such as conviction of a felony or illiteracy. And of course, States retained
power to restrict voting to citizens!
But
the retained powers of the States to set voter qualifications for registration
were diminished far beyond the scope of the amendments, due to usurpations
by the federal government, and because the States forgot that
they retained at Art. I, §2, cl. 1 most of their original power to
qualify & register voters.
So!
What should we do about non-citizens voting? Here is a novel idea: The
States should man up and reclaim their powers retained by Art.
I, §2, cl. 1; tell Eric Holder to take a hike; require all
currently registered voters to provide proof of citizenship; and refuse
to register new voters unless they provide proof of citizenship. Enforce
the Constitution we have!
But
Section 1 of Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote”
says:
“Citizens
in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce
valid photographic identification documents demonstrating evidence of
their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which
the voter resides, as a requirement for registering to vote and voting
in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and
members of Congress.”
Levin’s
amendment (it has 5 Sections) rewards the federal
government for unlawfully forbidding States from requiring applicants
to prove they are citizens, by transferring more power over voter qualifications
& registration to the federal government.[10]
But
Levin’s amendment does even more harm than vesting in the federal
government a power it already usurped - it ushers in a national
ID card. Who thinks the feds won’t dictate the contents of the card
and keep copies? [Do you really think a national ID card is a
great idea?]
To add
insult to injury, Levin’s amendment doesn’t even prohibit
non-citizens from voting – it merely requires citizens
to get an ID card before they can register to
vote. Non-citizens are not required to get ID cards. The supreme Court
(which will now lawfully have judicial power over this issue)
will decide whether aliens can vote.
Levin’s
amendment “to promote free enterprise” (p 117)
In Federalist
No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist
No. 42 (11th&12th paras), Hamilton & Madison explain the original
intent of the “interstate commerce” clause: It is to prohibit
States from imposing tolls &tariffs on articles of merchandize as
they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.
Until the mid-1930’s, this was widely understood. Here is a
full proof of the original intent of that clause and the story of
how the supreme Court usurped power over interstate commerce.
The
original intent of that clause is still the supreme Law of the Land![12]
So the States must man up and enforce that original
intent. They must ignore - nullify - all pretended federal laws, regulations,and
judicial opinions which are contrary to that original intent.
Levin’s
amendment “to promote free enterprise” says:
“SECTION
1: Congress’ power to regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant
of power to the federal government to regulate and control economic
activity but a specific grant of power limited to preventing states
from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several states.”
“SECTION
2: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce does not extend to activity
within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does
it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce
or trade.”
Section
1 broadens the powers of the federal government from
prohibiting States from imposing tolls &tariffs on articles of merchandize
as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and
selling, to prohibiting the States from doing
anything which “impedes” commerce and trade
between and among the States.
Many
things can be said to “impede” commerce and trade. And who
will decide what “impedes” and what doesn’t “impede”?
Five judges on the supreme Court.
Section
2 mentions two instances where Congress’ power to regulate Commerce
does not extend. This is dangerous because of the legal
maxim, Expressio
Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion
of the other).
Accordingly,
Congress’ power to regulate commerce would extend to other instances.
Which ones? We don’t know - the supreme Court will decide –
on a case by case basis.
Conclusion
Levin’s
amendments legalize - make constitutional - the very abuses they purport
to correct, nullify the natural rights of the people, and fundamentally
change the constitutional design.
Even
though our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this
federal government lawless! The true rule of law is still on our side,
but not for much longer if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be re-written.
Endnotes:
1.
Telling the Truth about a person’s proposals isn’t “demonizing”
him. People angrily reject valid criticism of Levin’s proposals
because they have made an idol of him. If their loyalty were
to Truth - instead of to their idol - they would want to be set straight.
2.
Article II, §2, and:
Secretary
of State: Art. I, §8, cl. 3
Secretary of Treasury: Art. I, §2, cl.3; Art.I, §8, cl. 1; Art.I,
§9, cl.4-7; Art. VI, cl. 1
Secretary of War: Art. I, §8, clauses 11-14
Attorney General: Art. I, §8, cl. 6, 10&17; Art.III, §§2&3;
Art. IV, §2, cl.2
3.
Article I, §1, says: “All legislative Powers
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States…” [emphasis mine]
4.
They are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated
to the federal government.
5.
I explain the problems with “balanced
budget” amendments here.
6.
These are the enumerated powers over the Country at Large listed at Art.
I, §8:
•
Clause 3: regulate “commerce” [For the
Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
• Clause 4: uniform laws on naturalization and
bankruptcies;
• Clause 5: coin money & regulate its value,
and fix standard of weights & measures;
• Clause 6: punish counterfeiting;
• Clause 7: establish post offices & post roads;
• Clause 8: issue patents ©rights;
• Clause 9: set up federal courts inferior to the
supreme court;
• Clause 10: punish piracies & felonies on
the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
• Clauses 11-14: war, letters of marque & reprisal,
Army & Navy, and rules for the military
• Clause 15-16: the Militia.
7.
The anti-federalists objected to Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & 2. They
claimed:
“…the
power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to
pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare
of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise
every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense
or general welfare.”
James
Madison answered in Federalist
No. 41 (last 4 paras) that clauses 1 & 2 permit Congress to levy
taxes & borrow money only to carry out the
enumerated powers! Madison said:
“Had
no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been
found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the
authors of the objection might have had some color for it…But what
color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects
alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even
separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? … Nothing is more
natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain
and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an
enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general
meaning … is an absurdity…” [boldface mine]
So!Article
I, §8, cl.1 is merely a “general expression,” the meaning
of which is “ascertained and limited” by the clauses which
“immediately follow” it.In other words, clauses 1 & 2
grant to Congress the power to raise money; and clauses 3-16 enumerate
the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus
limiting clauses 1 & 2. Do you see?
8.
Levin’s amendment also corrects – on behalf of the feds -
the following: When the 16th Amendment was ratified, “income”
apparently didn’t include “wages.” Accordingly,
it would be unconstitutional to force people to pay “income”
taxes on “wages” - and such would thus be a proper object
of nullification by States. But Levin’s amendment legalizes the
status quo and rips this remedy from the States.
9.
When our Constitution was ratified,the new federal government acquired
(from its predecessor) the Western Territory (Federalist
No. 7, 2nd & 3rd paras, and Federalist
No. 43 at 5.) over which the new federal government was delegated,
by Art. IV, §3, general legislative powers.As the Territory was broken
up into new States, the general legislative powers would expire and sovereignty
[except as to the few powers delegated exclusively to the new federal
government] would be transferred to the new State.
10.
Amendments to the Constitution generally increase the
powers of the federal government: They usher in implementing
federal statutes & executive agency regulations, and judicial power
over the issue is transferred to the federal courts. Art III, §2,
cl.1, says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases …
arising under this Constitution …” Do you really not see?
11.
Article I, §2, cl. 1, says:
“The
House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second
Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in
each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the
most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” [boldface
mine]
So!
Whoever votes in elections for their State House, is eligible to vote
for members of the federal House of Representatives. See also Federalist
No. 57 (5th para) & Federalist
No. 52 (2nd para).
12.
Article VI, cl. 2, the “supremacy clause”, states that only
our Constitution, federal laws made “in Pursuance”
of the Constitution, and Treaties made “under
the Authority of the United States”, shall be the supreme Law
of the Land. Supreme Court opinions are NEVER part of the supreme
Law of the Land! But we have wrongly made them the
only Law of our Land.
Publius Huldah
is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a
law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in
political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She
now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist
Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how
federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced
it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h
E-Mail: publiushuldah@gmail.com
