By The Right Scoop


Zakaria wants to change the Constitution to ‘fix’ our national and senatorial elections to make them more democratic. He doesn’t like the Electoral College and he doesn’t like the fact that every state has the same amount of senators despite the population of the people. He cites that Constitution has been changed 27 times and that unlike the founders who created a new document in Philadelphia instead of using the Articles of Confederation, he just wants to make a small change to it.

Levin decided Zakaria needed a lesson in America and proceeded to explain why we hold our elections the way we do, noting that Presidents and Senators were never meant to be directly elected by the population. It was all a apart of what made us a Republic. He continued on with the issue of slavery (as cited by Zakaria) and it blossomed into a great monologue about why the founders worked so hard to create the America we know and love.

This is a lengthy piece of audio but I assure you it’s worth it. Levin is a master when it comes to the founding and makes a passionate argument for why the Constitution should remain the way it is (as it relates to our founding principles) and not altered by some leftist hack like Fareed Zakaria.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

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.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    Mark Levin…Clarity of thought and a grasp of concepts that allude the Left. TEACH, Mark!!

  • Anonymous

    What is Mark’s problem with educating WE THE PEOPLE about the words of the seventh UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE Morrison R. Waite who in the 1874 SCOTUS case of Minor v. Happersett and in his court opinion provides the original intent of America’s Founding Fathers NATURAL BORN CITIZEN clause which he says is to be born to a mother and father both of whom are U.S. citizens at the time of birth?

    This is absolutely contrary to the lie that is being spread that all a person needs to be president is to have some stupid birth certificate that is never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

    Why doesn’t Mark with all his wisdom of the U.S. Constitution explain to America why there is this discrepancy and which is correct?

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      This isn’t a birther thread and you are on notice. Keep trolling this crap and you’re gone.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B5344MYI6BXUL36ADKK3JBTPJA GJPinks

        NaNa HeyHey Goodbye… Thanks TRS…

      • Anonymous

        America’s Founding Fathers gave to you the “freedom of the press” so that you and your contemporary electronic “press” can engage in critical political commentary without fear of government reprisal. And you have just drawn a line in the sand that says you spit on the first amendment and prefer to engage in suppression, oppression and the censorship thereof of any critical political commentary regardless of how controversial it is.

        And now you are also engaging in the suppression, oppression and the censorship of a person’s Constitutional right to express political speech just because it simply disturbs you. Words disturb you! Men do not let words disturb them, except for a man who lost his manhood to political correctness! You need to be ashamed of yourself!

        The seventh UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE Morrison R. Waite said something the is very historical to the history of America and is very fitting for these times because his words put into dispute the Constitutional interpretation of what America’s Founding Fathers intended NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to mean and therefore will always make Obama the usurper’s eligibility to be president a matter of controversy worthy of a national debate and it will never go away, as you desire, until this matter has it’s day in court. You choose to help prevent this from ever happening!

        Whether you like it or not, Waite’s words are on America’s Historical Record and are a part of America’s history. I didn’t make these words up! You should be on the side of America’s Constitution but sadly instead you have chosen to spit on America’s Constitution!

        I try very hard to bring this to the attention of my fellow citizens who are not aware of this discrepancy. I do this so that this matter can someday get the proper recognition that it most certainly deserves and as a result the national civil discourse that should have been before the 2008 election can someday be a reality. You are doing your earnest to suppress, oppress and censor me and my Constitutional Rights! You are doing your best to act like the treasonous traitor that you are to the Constitution of the United States of America!

        It is you and not I that beholds the crap!

        • Anonymous

          NUTN2SAY — You are way off the mark and off the subject of what Mark Levin was discussing and correcting Fareed Zakaria had stated. That is the reason why the ‘The Right Scoop’ removed your thread because you must have gone on a harangue on the “Birther” issue. Staying on topic is what you should do instead of going on and on about an issue that has nothing to do with the subject.
          Praise to Mark Levin for so eloquently pointing out the many ways that Fareed Zakaria is so constitutionally misguided.

          • Anonymous

            No! It is you that is off the mark!

            America has an illegal president! PERIOD!

            That needs to be talked about and this three year old ignorance to the U.S. Constitution’s Presidential eligibility requirements needs to come to an end!

            Everybody that evades this very important subject of Constitutional interpretation that within itself is a matter of National Security for both you and me is …….OFF TOPIC!

            I know that I am a minority here, but it is I that is on topic! The rest of you are the one’s that is off!

            You are either part of the solution or you are the problem!

        • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

          That’s it. You’re done.

  • Anonymous

    Amen brother Levin.

  • Francine Bieganek

    I sure hope that our next president will understand as much as Mark Levin and take the Constitution serioulsy!

  • Francine Bieganek

    I sure hope that our next president will understand as much as Mark Levin and take the Constitution serioulsy!

  • Anonymous

    Mark as always hits the nail on the head with this one. What troubles me most about this talk of abolishing the electoral college is that those who advocate this rubish probably don’t realize what the outcome truly would be, for if we abandon the electoral college we will end up with a handful of states determining the outcome of each and every election, to put it another way we would have “MOB RULE.” I would also like to see the abolition of the XVII amendment and return the election of Senators back to the electors of each respective state.

    • KenInMontana

      Actually prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures, that said I would agree with abolishing the 17th.

      • Anonymous

        That is precisely what I meant, the XVII amendment changed that from the legislators of the states to the people of the states. Thus making my state of MI senators union lackeys because now they are elected by the people, or the mob rule mentality so to speak. I don’t remeber the last time MI had a republican senator. I do know that in 1975 I was in the Army and needed a Senaators intervention and I had to write to (gag) Carl Levin (D) who by the way is still a Senator from MI. I misspoke in my earlier comment about electors.

        • Anonymous

          rick0857 – You are absolutely right regarding the 17 Amendment helping to create union lackeys such as Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. The 17th Amendment needs to be rescinded so we can get back to having senators representing the best interests of the states instead of special interests.

          • Anonymous

            The only problem now is that there are only two ways to change this. 1) We get majorities in both houses to approve a Constitutional amendment (which won’t ever get out of the Senate) or 2) We have 38 State legislatures demand the Constitutional amendment. Then we still have to get the voters in 38 States to approve the amendment. That is no easy task.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Kawasaki/1798183858 Dave Kawasaki

              I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest it could be sold to voters as simple economics.

              “Would you like to see your wages doubled and your taxes cut in half? Vote for the Tell DC To Piss Up A Rope Amendment.”

            • Anonymous

              It should not be any more difficult to abolish it than it was to pass it.

              • Anonymous

                Oh but it will this was passed when frankie d. roosevelt was pres. because of some space alien mentality the people did whatever he wanted. The reason I say it won’t happen now is because of the power these senators haves. Just remember these immortal words.

                It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

                —- Daniel Webster —-

  • Anonymous

    I love Mark Levin. I am one of those few people that had a wonderful patriotic teacher who understood the founding of this country. She never spoke the word Democracy when talking about this country. She always said that we live in a Consitutional Republic. So as my children studied history and would come home and talk about our Democracy I would always say we do not have a democratic government that our founders set up a Constitutional Republic and that it is not a Democracy. It is not about the majority rule it is about a government that is true to the constitution that our fore fathers wrote to ensure liberty for all not just a few. Keep educating Mark push back against these leftist trying to destroy the greatest nation the world has ever known. Zakarie needs to go back to India and help them with thier government and leave this one alone. While we try to get ours back to the original constitution.

    • Anonymous

      I love your statement and I, too, was taught by some patriots that we have, by design, a democratic republic! not mob rule (democracy) but a wondrous thing that must be protected for the good of all.

  • blackbird

    Thank you very much, I learned something just now, thank you again for posting Mr. Levin’s radio show.

    God bless and protect all who support and defend Sarah Palin the next President of The United States of America and her family.

  • Persephone

    Hear, Hear.
    Well said, Mr. Levin!

    This is the guy, Fareed Zakaria…who thinks that we are ‘provincial’ hicks who are clinging to an “outdated document”, the Constitution.

    Every time I have listened to this guy Fareed, I have had the urge to drop kick him back to whatever sandy dirt hole he came from.
    It hurts my ears to hear his accent, together with his snooty elitist demeanor, lecturing us on how unenlightened we are!
    How dare he!
    So I cannot listen to him, for it makes me remember every profane word I have ever heard, and even start making some up, while struggling to restrain myself from deploying them in a tirade that I would surely be ashamed of.

    • LadyLiberty2000

      You may not have meant for your comment to be funny, but I have to tell you I am LOL’ing at it. I cannot stand that twit either and maybe I’m getting slap happy, but the visualization in my head of your “drop kick” comment in particular really made me laugh! Thanks! :)

      BTW, I agree with all that you said – his tone and demeanor irritate me beyond words.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Kawasaki/1798183858 Dave Kawasaki

        He should irritate you beyond words: he is an enemy of the Constitution. They won’t just give up and go away because of an election or two. The Day is approaching, and it will be a messy divorce.

        As for zakaria, he is a shining example of [1] the need for immigration standards, and [2] the sorry state of the UK.

    • Anonymous

      Word! These guys praise the originators and in the same breath slam them for coming up with an original thought that they could have not come up with in a million years. If these liberal swine matched wits with conservative dons on these issues outside of their comfort zones, we would see who gets the gist of understanding the Constitution, and who is a ninny with a bad idea.

    • Anonymous

      Word! These guys praise the originators and in the same breath slam them for coming up with an original thought that they could have not come up with in a million years. If these liberal swine matched wits with conservative dons on these issues outside of their comfort zones, we would see who gets the gist of understanding the Constitution, and who is a ninny with a bad idea.

  • Anonymous

    Mark Levin should be on PBS/NPR prime time. It is amazing how often peoples’ opinions reflect, or simply parrot the political and cultural ideas they hear on these pseudo-intellectual programs. Where is the attempt at truth? Where is the attempt to be fair and balanced?

    • Anonymous

      What part of his program do you think is pseudo-intellectual? Fareed is the pseudo-intellectual. That guy gave props to the constitution and then went on to claim that the constitution should be amended to account for a popular vote? What an idiot! That is the exact opposite of what the founders had in mind. This nation doesn’t need to rescind to a barbaric government of majority rule. If a majority of people in this country don’t pay any taxes, they will have no reservation in making wealthier individuals give up more of their liberties to fund their inadequacies. I don’t want peasants, who for the most part are: uneducated, unemployed, hostile, and sport low IQs, telling me to pay more of my hard earned cash to fund their bad behavior. Every dictator in the history of the world has used the poor to wage class warfare; this is no surprise. The founders knew this, which is why we have the electoral college. And as Fareed’s ignorant commentary suggested; he believes we should have a democracy instead of what we currently have- A REPUBLIC! Fareed should match wits with a constitutional pit-bull like Mark. Poor boy would be ripped to shreds.

    • Anonymous

      What part of his program do you think is pseudo-intellectual? Fareed is the pseudo-intellectual. That guy gave props to the constitution and then went on to claim that the constitution should be amended to account for a popular vote? What an idiot! That is the exact opposite of what the founders had in mind. This nation doesn’t need to rescind to a barbaric government of majority rule. If a majority of people in this country don’t pay any taxes, they will have no reservation in making wealthier individuals give up more of their liberties to fund their inadequacies. I don’t want peasants, who for the most part are: uneducated, unemployed, hostile, and sport low IQs, telling me to pay more of my hard earned cash to fund their bad behavior. Every dictator in the history of the world has used the poor to wage class warfare; this is no surprise. The founders knew this, which is why we have the electoral college. And as Fareed’s ignorant commentary suggested; he believes we should have a democracy instead of what we currently have- A REPUBLIC! Fareed should match wits with a constitutional pit-bull like Mark. Poor boy would be ripped to shreds.

      • Anonymous

        I was referring to the pseudo-intellectuals on PBS/NPR/CNN. I agree with Mr.
        Levin’s position. Fareed is filled with incorrect knowledge. He has been
        mis-educated.

        • Anonymous

          Oh sorry! I feel like an a-hole.

    • Anonymous

      Tell us your original thoughts KODONOVAN. You don’t have any. If a teacher, in this case, Mark Levin, can’t be proven wrong, due to his mental prowess, why not learn from someone that can’t be refuted by living and breathing constitution babblers? I would choose to be right historically, than dumb currently. Match wits?

    • Anonymous

      Tell us your original thoughts KODONOVAN. You don’t have any. If a teacher, in this case, Mark Levin, can’t be proven wrong, due to his mental prowess, why not learn from someone that can’t be refuted by living and breathing constitution babblers? I would choose to be right historically, than dumb currently. Match wits?

    • Persephone

      Are you talking solely about Mr. Levin?
      Or are you referring to Fareed Zaharia with your remarks about ‘pseudo-intellectual’?

      Because there is nothing ‘pseudo’ about Mr. Levin’s intellect.

      Whereas…if you were referring to CNN’s Fareed Zacharia, I would have to concur.

    • Anonymous

      OMG! I love it!! pseudointellectual.

      I have had a boat load of you “superior” minds telling us what to do when you can barely tie your own shoes. Your families are in extreme disarray and you would lecture to us about superior thinking?

  • Anonymous

    Mark was wrong about individual rights, because there aren’t just the two sources of individual rights, ie. 1. From Men (What Progressives believe), or. 2 From God (What Conservatives believe)

    There is a third way…

    3. Inferred by man’s nature as a rational being – They are conditions of existence required by his nature for his proper survival.

    For more details, look up “Individual Rights” on the Ayn Rand lexicon.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MIDZJ5WEZQ7VVB4UYAU5Z3HM2I spliff

      From God is the same thing as your #3. The Founders called it our Creator.

      I know people think Christian = Conservative, but you couldn’t have swallowed that MSM meme any faster.

      • Anonymous

        Tell that to Mark Levin. He can’t even consider someone a Conservative, unless they believe that Individual Rights come from God.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1110181228 Kittie Peacock

          If you do not believe our rights come from our creator and do come from our Government you are giving up your Rights.

      • Anonymous

        Tell that to Mark Levin. He can’t even consider someone a Conservative, unless they believe that Individual Rights come from God.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly. Economists, such as Von Mises, and philosophers, such as Ayn Rand, spoke of man’s individual, rational mind leading to the development of liberty and individual rights, that created the freest nation on the Earth. Of course, many of the founders used the term “endowed by the Creator” to explain the derivation of American’s rights, but they should have taken more claim to the fact that they created this free environment by discernment, wisdom, and above all, rational thought. This country is state of the art, and I am proud to be apart of it. If Christians believe that these rights are from God, so be it; I am proud to live among such wonderful people!!

    • Anonymous

      Exactly. Economists, such as Von Mises, and philosophers, such as Ayn Rand, spoke of man’s individual, rational mind leading to the development of liberty and individual rights, that created the freest nation on the Earth. Of course, many of the founders used the term “endowed by the Creator” to explain the derivation of American’s rights, but they should have taken more claim to the fact that they created this free environment by discernment, wisdom, and above all, rational thought. This country is state of the art, and I am proud to be apart of it. If Christians believe that these rights are from God, so be it; I am proud to live among such wonderful people!!

  • Anonymous

    See, Fareed was born in India. He, through his roots, has known submission to foreign powers and government control. Just like Europeans and other parts of the world, they have known submission and oppression. In a way, their minds are groomed to be willing to submit to government control or foreign imperialism. Americans know no such mentality, because since our inception we have conquered oppression and never submitted to it. In a book I read about the horrible atrocities of socialism and communism, it makes this point clearly. When Americans hear people talking of submission to government, we naturally get angry and zealous, because we have never bowed down, unlike Indians, Europeans, Chinese, etc. It is hard to tell a people that have known no defeat to take their submission medication. Can’t wait until we are forced to take it!!!

    • Anonymous

      This is eloquent and sooo true. I have noticed the very same thing, especially when we are asked to listen to the oh so superior Brits who think they know better than we do. They have no clue about freedom and the wonderful, beautiful, indomitable American spirit.

    • Persephone

      Nicely said, Stevenbiot.

      Defiance against Tyranny is in our collective DNA…at least those of us whose ancestors have been here for many generations.
      It is also contageous.
      And it seems to creep into most of the immigrants who were not a part of the original Fight for the freedoms they now enjoy.

      So, I have faith…that when pushed too far, we will push back in a mighty way that will make the minions of Tyranny run scurrying for the dark nether regions from whence they came.

      • Anonymous

        Speaking of Tyranny, check out the Heritage Foundations 2011 Federal Budget Report. You are going to cry yourself to sleep tonight.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RJZJBNPP5SCTHV7VUJII2S5MTU nnnn

    The real goal of F.Zakaria and those like him is to enable a faction of population to take over the country in the future . This is why they need Constitution changes. History shows this never ends well .

    • Anonymous

      Exactly. When the government is directly chosen by the number of individuals in a society, the poor will always overwhelm the middle and upper classes; thereby, reducing the liberty of the upper two classes to improve the lot of the lower class, which by the way never happens. This is mindless and contrary to liberty and individualism. Rule by dictators relies on the poor getting a popular vote.

    • Anonymous

      Watch Idiocracy. This movie is reality in less than fifty years.

  • Anonymous

    Mark should have also stated that our government is spending 5% on defense spending, which is in its enumerated powers, and 10% on entitlement spending, which isn’t in its enumerated powers. I wonder if Fareed would welcome a debate on this subject and its constitutional basis?

  • Anonymous

    We should keep entitlement spending to no more than 2% of GDP, and I am being generous. We do that for a decade and then lower it to 1%, which I will be satisfied with it staying.

  • mvy

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
    In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
    The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

    In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections. Thus, the United States is a republic, not a democracy.

    The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BTZ3F4C6AKOEIB3DIWWDLP4RLA Allan

      Why would this not have to be enacted through an amendment to the Constitution? You’re saying that if California votes for A but all the rest of the States choose B, California is then compelled to make all their electors vote for B based on what the other States want? There is nothing in the Const. that speaks to how the States must elect a President therefore it is left up to the States by the 10th Amendment. So how do you institute a plan to force all the States to elect the President the same way with no Constitutional authority, except by an amendment?

      • mvy

        Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

        The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

        The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

        Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

  • mvy

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

    The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.

    The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

    The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, but under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

    • Anonymous

      To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political awareness. Here are a few relevant quotes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

      “A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment.” — Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

      “The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates.” — Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

      “The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” — Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

      The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a “tyranny of the majority.” In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public. I didn’t write this, but I agree. The founders wanted states to have rights and not allow tyranny to occur by one group of people dominating another like a “democracy,”

      • Anonymous

        The “ignorance” statement is true, but directly due to our government’s full intention to dumb down the population. The president’s budget for education in 2011 is 3%. Half of the budget is for entitlements. Our government relies on a dumb majority overtaken by bumper sticker slogans to cast their votes, plainly speaking, for liberals, who play the same old song of give me, give me, give me. This is why we need state control over the presidents election and not popular vote.

        • mvy

          The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

      • mvy

        States have the exclusive power to decide how to award their presidential electors.

        The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

        In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Later, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states.

        The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

  • http://profiles.google.com/larry.gibby Larry Gibby

    Zakaria is just another garbage spewing raghead bent on on our destruction so it makes sense that he is one of Obamao’s consultants. It is amazing that the left can breed some many of these filthy rats.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bill.evelyn Bill Evelyn

    The electoral college is crucial to representative government. First, it only pertains to the Presidential election. Second, it allows smaller states to have a republican form of representation in the Presidential elections. Third, it keeps 50.1% from taking over the country … as Mark said.

    • mvy

      The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

      The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

      The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.

      The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

      The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

      12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.

      These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.

      In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%;

      In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

      The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, but under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

  • http://twitter.com/jstablehand Stable Hand

    Wiki: Zakaria was born in Mumbai (then Bombay), Maharashtra, India, to a Konkani Muslim family.[3] His father, Rafiq Zakaria, was a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and an Islamic scholar. His mother, Fatima Zakaria, was for a time the editor of the Sunday Times of India.

  • http://twitter.com/jstablehand Stable Hand

    FYI via Wiki: Zakaria was born in Mumbai (then Bombay), Maharashtra, India, to a Konkani Muslim family.[3] His father, Rafiq Zakaria, was a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and an Islamic scholar. His mother, Fatima Zakaria, was for a time the editor of the Sunday Times of India.

    Natch

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Erb/100000392858015 Greg Erb

    God Bless the Great One!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1110723918 Dana Nate-Doffin

    Dear Mark,

    I wish you had been a professor at my University years ago! I would have enjoyed the class so much more.

    Sincerely,
    Dana

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1110723918 Dana Nate-Doffin

    Dear Mark,

    I wish you had been a professor at my University years ago! I would have enjoyed the class so much more.

    Sincerely,
    Dana

  • Anonymous

    As usual, Mark is dead on target with his response.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ross.blankert Ross R Blankert

    gee, I thought they taught American history in school. I thought that teachers explain everything just so and present the great work our founders did. July 4th should be chastise your teacher day if they are not teaching the real history and reasons our government is the way it is. If your representative or Senator does not know the history of the country and what their job really is, they need to be replaced by those who do know.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nightprowler76 Joe Neal

    I really need a copy of this

  • http://www.facebook.com/nightprowler76 Joe Neal

    I really need a copy of this

  • http://twitter.com/Mark_Meed Mark Meed

    This is very, very good. Critics who obsess on Levin’s style entirely miss his deep understanding of the Constitution and the Republican form of government. This is as informative an 18 minutes on both subjects as you are likely to encounter.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=682986776 David Freedman

    The faction of the population, about which Mark speaks, in their ability to recklessly or emotionally directly vote for a president, is absolutely critical. If you consider that almost 50% of the population does not pay taxes, yet recieve the benefits of citizenship, and they are motivated to vote to keep it that way, it would be almost impossible to have a fiscally conservative President elected. It would be better if we were even more of a republic!

    • mvy

      Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
      http://tinyurl.com/46eo5ud

      Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote ” include:

      Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

      James Brulte is a Republican who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

      Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

      Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

      Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

  • http://twitter.com/Sonshine7733 Carol Ann Rockwell

    TY Mark for setting Zakaria straight about America’s elections. We do not want anyone tampering with our Constitution! We are a Republic….and we love it!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689443214 Carol Ann Markley Rockwell

    TY Mark for setting Zakaria straight about America’s elections. We do not want anyone tampering with our Constitution! We are a Republic….and we love it!

  • Anonymous

    God asks you to voluntarily GIVE at least 10% of your earnings… how is it that government feels entitled to TAKE 50% of a person’s hard earned wages ???

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Marshall-Field/100001984212591 Marshall Field

    I love Mark Levin,,,he’s part teacher, part lawyer, part professor, and sometimes even part comedian. Put it all together and you have a brillant talk show host who I listen to daily. His comments about the Constituition and our liberty are priceless…please keep preaching, Mark.

  • http://profiles.google.com/vclayborn Vivian Claybron

    Finally somebody explained the American election system, so I could understand it, and a lot more.
    Thank you, mr. Levin. Maybe I should thank Fareed Zakaria too, for provocing you to this excellent lesson in American History, which I intend to share, if fb permits.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shane-Borgess/581016453 Shane Borgess

    God Bless Mark Levin. It’s time we cast a second Liberty Bell and carve 18 minutes of Mark Levin on it.

  • Anonymous

    I am all for legal immigration. I myself am the product of Scotch/Irish immigrants. But I can’t grasp the reasoning of someone like Zakaria who, we have to assume, immigrated to this country from India because of the freedoms established by the constitution… then spend his life as an American citizen degrading and denigrating the document and the freedoms and opportunities it offers…as all true leftist do. If he is so dissatisfied why not return to his country of birth.

  • Anonymous

    Zakaria is wrong on his very first point. He claims the Constitution has been amendemnded twenty seven times. That is wrong. The Constitution has been amended only seventeen times. The Bill of Rights was a part of the original Constitution.

  • Anonymous

    Until left-leaning Americans value the history that Levin explained here more than they do their assistance checks from Obama’s “stash,” the Constitution is in imminent danger of being scrapped. And once that happens, tyranny will happen very quickly.