FULL INTERVIEW: Mark Levin discussing new book The Liberty Amendments on Hannity

Mark Levin was on Hannity tonight to discuss his new book The Liberty Amendments: Resorting the American Republic which, in short, is about how the Constitution gives the power to the states to take us from a post-constitutional society back to a constitutional republic.

You can watch the full interview below:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Stehekin912

    Counting the days until my copy of the book arrives!

  • clubgitmo

    Levin is simply brilliant. We must do something to take back this country.

  • 57thunderbird

    I have learned more about the Constitution from Mark,then I have ever learned from any other,including self study.Thank you Mark,and thank you RS for posting Marks comments.With men such as Mark on our side how can we not be victorious in restoring the republic.

  • Orangeone

    57thunderbird Me too. But there is one thing I know, don’t touch our Constitution while there is a Marxist in power or even in the country.  That is exactly what they want and like elections they will take control and destroy it.

  • Orangeone

    clubgitmo Do you trust your state gov’t to touch the constitution?  I don’t.

  • clubgitmo

    Orangeone clubgitmo Understood, but at this point what choices do we have anymore? This country has more than fundamentally changed.

  • mike3e4r7

    I definitely think Mark is on to an idea that could be what we’ve been looking for – a way to out flank the federal government in order to reduce its power. Mark is right. A head on assault, especially with the leftist media we have today, probabolly won’t work. This may be the last chance to reform the federal government before civil unrest sets in.
    In my opinion, we should focus first, on the low lying fruit, so to speak. Don’t try to get everything passed at once. Have seperate conventions for each amendment, and start with those amendments that are most likely to garner support from blue states. I would start with trying to get a term limit amendment submitted first, because that is one that even alot of Democrats would agree with. After that, a balanced budget amendment, again, because it is the most likely one to gather bipartisan support.

  • CDS_in_Manitoba

    I own most of Mark’s books (I don’t have the one about his dogs) and I can’t wait for the latest one to arrive at my home sometime soon.  America is fortunate to have someone as intelligent (and humorous) as Mr. Levin.  The founding fathers of your country were also very wise.
    It may be very difficult to fix the USA, but at least it is possible.  I wish that I could say the same thing about the rest of the world, including my country.  The Canadian constitution is so messed up and difficult to fix that it may never be corrected, unless something major happened (like Quebec separating).  We badly need a Mark Levin or a Benjamin Franklin North of the border.
    Best wishes, my American friends / neighbours.
    p.s.  I have spent so much more time following American politics than Canadian politics in the past half-decade or so.  Was I born in the wrong country?

  • welltempered2

    If this meeting of the states happens remember that Mark Levin’s amendments a s well as  Rachel Maddow’s  could be considered. I would take that chance so long as term limits could and would get passed…even by liberal states. That alone would be a incredible game changer.

  • rapidcraft

    Me too and Amen!

  • RReaganRepublic

    reconstituting, reenforcing of the original intent, purpose, and construct of
    limited govt, returning power back into the hands of We the People, via an
    alternative means to go around the Fed govt, whom refuses to adhere to the US
    Constitution, to listen and abide by the Will of the People.
    individual and the States must have, and does have a countermeasure answer to
    an overreaching centralized powerful Federal govt, as a buffer of protection,
    ie; recourse, which is what’s needed, and what must be achieved if we are to
    save America as a US Constitutional Republic from these insidious, odious,
    seditious, subversive liberal statist masterminds / Democrats / Socialist
    Marxists from either political party, as Mark Levin has so stated.
    But it can
    only be achieved if the people of and in each State, have the will and
    determination to do so, to set in motion and accomplish this task.
    There will
    be no doubt that the statists / Socialist Marxist Democrats / Obamacrats will
    attack it, and obstruct it in every form, by any and every means at their
    disposal. That’s because they know this would completely disembowel, remove
    power and authority from their control, to rein down unabated subversive
    manipulative govt tyranny upon the people and states of this Nation.
    attitude is and has always been- “So what are you going to do about
    it”..   Now we will answer them
    with- This is what we the people are going to do about it.

  • ernst1776

    welltempered2 Stop being afraid!

  • ernst1776

    “… the constitution and the liberty that flows from it.”  Mark Levin is amazing!

  • neieio

    Orangeone clubgitmo

  • ScottEKissee

    welltempered2 Madcows might be considered, but state representatives know that the people would throw them out on their collective asses if they vote for some whacked out liberal philosophy. It is a lot easier to throw out a local state rep then it is anyone at the federal level.

  • 12grace

    Anyone that loved freedom and America loves Levin!

  • 1tootall

    Wonder if holder and his cronies will deem this to be unconstitutional … What a strange battle that would be. Can’t wait to see how this will proceed!!

  • strangernfiction

    Just throwing this out there. Why amend something that the PTB ultimately ignore when necessary? I’m all for anything that reduces the size of Fedzilla, but ultimately it’s going to take States simply saying no. That’s just where we are at, and there is no value in sugar coating things. False hope is as dangerous as no hope.

  • 57thunderbird

    CDS_in_Manitoba You may have been born in the wrong country.:-) Thank you for your support friend.

  • PVG

    So shines a light in a dark weary world….. God bless you Mark Levin!!

  • 57thunderbird

    The Constitution has been reinterpreted by the SCOTUS to the point of not being recognizable as the original document.

  • 57thunderbird

    Orangeone clubgitmo I hear ya,but we must start somewhere.Besides it would take a 3/5 majority of the states to ratify any amendments.Much easier said than done

  • hrh40

    Restoring not Resorting in the first sentence. 🙂

  • gsmith_62

    Mark’s the best!  Only problem, when a super majority of the states are needed to pass these, what are the odds given Obama won easily last election?

  • nomoreo

    57thunderbird Orangeone clubgitmo  Just to clarify, 3/4 of the states (38 of them) would have to ratify the Amendment. It takes 2/3 (or 34) state legislatures to make application for an Article V Convention in order for it to be held

  • 57thunderbird

    nomoreo 57thunderbird Orangeone clubgitmo Oops!Thanks for that.

  • 57thunderbird

    strangernfiction Every time the states say no,the federal govt. threatens to withhold federal money for one thing or another,and the states cave because they have their hand out.We need to vote in people in our states that feel as we do.

  • Binderpower

    God Bless you Mark!   You are the voice of true reason.  You are the voice of God loving, freedom loving, hard working loving, patriots that love this country and what it truly stands for!  Liberty!

  • Orangeone

    clubgitmo Orangeone A Constitutionalist in the WH, removal of the progressives and the RINOs from Congress.

  • Orangeone

    57thunderbird Orangeone clubgitmo Take a look at the blue map, the voter fraud reports and how quickly legislatures flip. Look at the so-called Voter ID laws and what qualifies for “identification”.

  • Orangeone

    nomoreo 57thunderbird Orangeone clubgitmo How do you count Puerto Rico and the other territories.  There is not a chance that Obama and Holder haven’t predicted this move and already have their plan in place.  Do you really think the adding of tens of millions of illegal aliens and their chain migrators is for any reason other than to destroy the economy and take over State legislatures? And it will happen before year’s end.

  • K-Bob

    welltempered2 The proposed amendments come from the state legislatures, so proposals that contradict others simply won’t make it through the process.
    Remember, the states will then get a chance to ratify the product of the convention.  It’s not a continuing merry-go-round of crap.

  • StandProudNow

    Luv you, Mr Levin!!

  • K-Bob

    Well, it’s not really the same problem.  barack won on elector count. California has the most electors of all the states, so just being an insane lefty candidate for President automatically gives you a big pile of electors from California, New York, and Illinois. This is why elections lately have always pretty much come down to Florida and Ohio.
    But with an Amendment’s three-fourths requirement for passage, of the fifty states, 37 or 38 state legislatures have to vote for ratification.
    In other words, instead of getting a big pile of electors, California’s state legislature gets only one vote. Same as Rhode Island.
    It still won’t be easy.  http://ivn.us/infographics/2013/02/07/which-party-controls-the-state-legislatures-and-governorships/.  So we’d need to get TEN more legislatures to vote for ratification (assuming all republicans-led legislatures vote for it).
    The trick is, state legislatures need to see how the amendments will give them more power. We need to convince big-government statehouse  politicians that passing these things will give them the power they so desperately crave, and to heck with giving it all to the Senators and Representatives.

  • K-Bob

    By the way folks, this difficulty is exactly why it WILL NOT be a free-for-all, like some are imagining here.  You are not going to get state legislative bodies to pass all sorts of crazy crap that gives power to anyone but themselves. I don’t care how many Maxine Waters types there are, and worse (if you remember Scoop’s recent posts on the clowns in the Colorado legislature, you’ll know what I mean). They may be statists to the core, but they are also power-hungry to the core, and that means if they get a chance to grab some power back from the Federal system, they are likely to go for it.
    So some stupid amendment saying “gay marriage is the law of the land” is less likely to get them excited as one that says “it’s up to the states.”
    So the free-for-all alarmism is not really applicable.  Levin isn’t proposing a “Constitutional Convention” (which would actually be illegal without some sort of successful revolution, prior).

  • 1tootall

    I don’t have the book yet, and I wonder who from the state must approve those in attendance at this convention?  If current establishment is involved, how does that change anything?  I speak of Pennsylvania where the state GOP is every bit as questionable as the dems.  And I’m sure it’s similar in other states.  So if the establishment jerks send their homeys, (as they do with electors) how is the outcome going to be different?  Thoughts anyone???

  • RighteousCrow_JustCaws

    Interesting point:  purpose of the states is to act as a buffer between the individual and the government.  How far from that have we fallen?  At least 50%, from my point of view.

  • The red states alone could change it. We’ll never get it all back, but we can make a significant dent in the Boehner-Reid-Obama agenda. —http://regularrightguy.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/california-wee-wee-and-poo-poo-go-coed/

  • Laurel A

    I especially like Senators being elected how FF’s intended. I guess I will watch Hannity Friday.

  • PNWShan

    About the issue of term limits and continuity. Because laws and processes are so complicated, newly elected representatives would find themselves heavily relying upon staffers, who would live in DC. They would be just like the bureaucrats: unelected and more powerful than the representatives.

  • 1tootall

    Hogwash. Drivel. Fight or get out of the way.

  • cafe_colada

    PNWShan They already do, even the ones who’ve been in office forever. No difference on that issue. Big difference on the committee system though, and by extension, spending authority, and by extension, power an influence.

  • cafe_colada

    regularrightguy True! Amendments can be approved by 3/4 of STATES! Not 3/4 of electoral college delegates.

  • cafe_colada regularrightguy Not easy but very doable. Drop by the blog sometime, cafe. —http://regularrightguy.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/california-wee-wee-and-poo-poo-go-coed/

  • patriot76

    PNWShan Sorry to tell you. If a bill is written by congress as Levin outlined in his book – it would have to be short by nature (understandable by the general public – no more 2000 page laws) and have to in the public forum frozen with no editing or amendments for minimum of 30 day before it could be voted on. This by its nature will allow new members to follow them and remain in continuity with the Constitution.

  • conventionofstates

    Levin’s book is an extraordinary work, but it’s also a call to action. Citizens for Self-Governance has launched the Convention of States Project to turn Mark’s call into reality. Visit http://conventionofstates.com for more information and to find out how you can help fix what Washington, D.C., has broken.

  • heiming