Liberty Amendments: Run Away!

Run Away!

Update: Linked by Jeff at proteinwisdom (Thanks! – check out his discussion, too)
Linked by TheOtherMccain (thanks!)
Linked by Doug Ross (thanks!)

A continuing series of discussions of Mark Levin’s new book,
The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic

(Discussion #2 – Follow The Links!)

To understand and properly debate Mr. Levin’s Proposal, we must thoroughly understand two things:

  1. The Present Danger
  2. The Consequences of inaction

Whatever brought you to this discussion, you are already aware that something is horribly wrong in this nation. However, to better understand the situation, I suggest you take time to review the state of our economy, the dire situation of the American worker, and have a quick look at the state of our foreign policy. Then, add a refresher on the degree of economic oppression and the increase in prosecutions and delayed prosecutions due to massive over-regulation.

As for that last point, you can find many attempts by statists to flip the perception that we are over-regulated (“Hey, we’re not Greece! Woo-hoo!”). However, the rise in regulatory monitoring services proves their efforts to be pointless. The fact is, Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy has gotten a huge boost in the last five years, and has caused the average family to relinquish more and more prosperity to the regulatory state (I’ll bet you could use $200,000 or so about now!). And the creepiness factor has increased as well, with some of those regulations being imposed by abuse of the legal tactic termed, “sue and settle,” which causes regulation activity through the courts and settlement between abusers and the government—with no ability of the affected businesses and communities to comment on the process.

Meanwhile the regulators and the armies of bureaucrats—who add nothing to the GDP—continue to grow and thrive at your expense. However, the worst aspect of over-regulation is the terrifying growth in criminalization of previously unregulated activities. The odds are increasing that you are reading this article while awaiting trial (if you haven’t already been a casualty of over-regulation). As our friends on the left keep telling us, we need to stop arresting people who are just trying to survive, man!

The Present Danger is our runaway federal government. (Run away!) I trust you to see that conclusion is unavoidable.

So let’s look briefly at the Consequences of Inaction in dealing with a runaway central government. The problems are fairly obvious to any student of history. Our friends in Europe keep trying to warn us, and they insist on reminding us of some “really big” wars from back in the past century. I know; it’s hard to believe, but it turns out that things really can—and do—spin out of control rather quickly. Yes, even something as massive and complicated as the United States Federal government.

So if you’re wondering, “What’s the worst that could happen?” should we fail to get it under control, all you need do is remember this: most of the deaths from war and oppression in the Twentieth Century were due to governments that had too much power over the citizens. Add to that the fact that civil wars involve devastation on an almost unimaginable scale. It’s enough to make you want to run away!

As I wrote last week, we are in antebellum times. The difficult task is knowing how much time we have before the slide toward war becomes unstoppable. A guide here is the timeline of events leading up to the US Civil War. Take a good look at it. Clearly we aren’t at the place in time where states are actively planning secession (the first state to secede, South Carolina, passed a resolution in 1852 declaring it was “fully justified” in withdrawing from the Federal Union—nine years before the Civil War commenced). We are not even at the time where pistols are drawn on the Senate floor (eleven years before the Civil War). But I’d say we’re past the point of an Act of Congress that is considered reprehensible by most people (as was the Fugitive Slave Act). Obamacare certainly qualifies as one of the most contemptible acts of Congress in living memory.

So we aren’t quite at the point of open hostilities—yet. But history deserves your scrutiny during this crisis, because one thing has not changed in recorded history: human nature. If comparisons to Antebellum America don’t seem apropos, you can make similar comparisons to events prior to World Wars I and II. Be as dismissive as you like (and I urge you to do your own homework here, and not copy off of my paper), but my money is on history.

I took the above time and provided several links to articles that I hope you at least scan, because the above is necessary to understand my answer to the first two important questions that have arisen since the publication of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments. Our questions this week are:

  1. What happens if we try an Article Five convention of the states, and we fail to accomplish our objective?
  2. Why should we expect the federal government to honor these new amendments, should they pass, when they ignore so much of the Constitution now?
  3. An Article Five convention for proposing amendments sounds a lot like a Constitutional Convention to me? Why am I wrong?
  4. Smart people are telling me such a convention would become a runaway process (Run Away!), and would do irreparable damage to the Constitution. Why should I believe otherwise?
  5. Why should I believe states are really willing to abandon federal subsidies and support a process that puts more responsibility on their shoulders?”

1) Regarding the first: (Which was not asked here, but was asked by Jeff Goldstein at his blog) Based on what I wrote above, I believe you already have your answer. We are on a course headed generally toward war. If not actual, violent, kinetic, upheaval sorts of war, at least something that will make The Great Depression look like a holiday weekend by comparison. Free men cannot long tolerate a yoke about their neck. Here we have much in common with our friends on the left who are outraged over the NSA “wiretapping.” The Article Five process is not a clever ploy to help one political party; it is something we are honor bound to try, so that we may stave off this looming cataclysm.

This is no call to war; quite the opposite. This is recognition that the Alinskyites and Cloward/Piven-ites are relentlessly driving us toward a breaking point. A point where lives will indeed be lost, whether upon a battlefield or due to extreme conditions. Think about Detroit. Detroit matters. For your children’s sakes, look at it! As Senator Tom Coburn said recently, “I’m afraid of NOT having an amendments convention.” This is something we owe to our families; the great task that has fallen to this generation.

Failure is not an option.

2) A question about enforcement. I have pointed out in our discussions in the comments, that freshly minted Articles of Amendment in the hands of a Governor and his Legislature have a great deal of say in the enforcement process. A state government is not a vassal. Most of our states are economic powerhouses that would rank highly among other nations, if compared directly. Considering the answer to question number one is what drives this process, I’d say it is also what drives the enforcement of the outcome of the process. Nothing stops a popular uprising, so long as it is in fact, popular.

3) This question is about the type of convention. Article Five does not call for a “Constitutional Convention.” Now the guys in the back who always ask the trick questions immediately think about an amendment that erases the rest of the Constitution. Or perhaps the mythical “Unamendable Amendment.” After all, the original Constitutional Convention wasn’t supposed to create something that wiped away the Articles of Confederation, was it? (The answer to that last question is answered here by Rob Natelson, who will be mentioned again.) My answer is that the states are not going to be asked by their constituents—namely you folks, who are going to help make this process a reality—to just go flop down a request for an “anything goes” convention because we’re all bored or something. You are going to ask for a convention of the states which shall be limited to discussing and proposing amendments designed to restore the intended balance of power in the Constitution. They are going to ignore you at their peril (see the answer to question number one). Also, they cannot afford to send a clown car to the convention to jam it up with frivolous garbage at this perilous time in our nation’s history. It’s time for the adults to take charge, and it’s time for you to be strong enough and confident enough to see to it that they do.

Don’t make me come over there.

4) For the answer to question four, I direct you to Rob Natelson, who was interviewed on this topic by Mark Levin on his broadcast of August 29th, 2013. His article is titled, “The Myth of a Runaway Amendments Convention” at TheAmericanThinker. (However you should also read his followup to it at his own blog, here. I’m sorry, but I expect you all to read these. (No, actually I am not sorry. Run Away!)

5) States’ willingness to comply is the last question today. (Some of you have sort of brought this up, but I discovered that Ilya Somin, has asked it better than we have, so far.) I believe states will see the importance of restoring their sovereignty. One reason that comes to mind is the huge problem of unfunded federal mandates. States get a lot of money from the federal system. But the big states don’t get back more than their citizens put in. And they don’t get to say where that money is to go. Many times, in order to be eligible to receive that federal money, they have to first spend millions on their own. Which they do by floating bonds, many of which have defaulted. It’s a mess that smarter states have already chosen to avoid, and they are in much better financial shape for it than the states like California, which is on financial life support already. States must return to solvency by ending the federal subsidies racket.

Let me close with this link to an interview of Mark by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame.

Let’s get this done!

by K-Bob

Comment Policy: Please read our 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.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

97 thoughts on “Run Away!

  1. Conservative_Utopia K-Bob No, your first paragraph was spot on.  States like New York and California are screaming examples of excessive state government.
    The beauty is, states that did not follow California down the rabbit hole will attract people and expand their economies. This disempowers state legislators who made the state inhospitable in the first place.

  2. K-Bob Looking back, my first paragraph might sound as if I was correcting you, K-Bob.  Not the case!  (My kids get the credit for my poor edits).   What I’m getting at is how to sell the entire Liberty Amendments concept to pull us together instead of being funneled into rebellious groups as you mentioned in your last comment.  Seems like the concept of American exceptionalism and competition among the states barely exists anymore.

  3. More, regarding the Present Danger:
    By following the links to Rob Natelson’s work, you will see ( a mention of the Annapolis Convention.
    Should curiosity take you to a definition of that term, you’ll see that the Annapolis Convention was a “Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government.” Specifically, a meeting that arose in part as a response to a number of rebellions that had occurred.  Among them was (which is worth a wiki-peek).
    I feel we are definitely on the verge of small rebellions, similar to Shay’s, because the people are being pushed that direction.  This is one reason the Administration is going out of its way to paint patriot organizations and pro-individual liberty movements as “radical” and “dangerous.” They are doing their best to make it a self-fulfilling prediction. This smearing of law-abiding citizens is exact proof that we are living in dangerous times.

  4. deTocqueville1 
    OK, I waited for our friends in the NBC clause debate to jump on that high, hanging curve I threw in there, but no one bit on it.  Here is the thing they should’ve pounced on:”Each of the words we take for granted has (and had) very specific meaning”
    An NBC warrior would say, “So why won’t you take the NBC clause in the same specificity?”
    My answer is that the NBC clause is far more generic in scope than the words “general convention,” “federal constitution,” “delegate,” and other such terms, which were far more specific, and applied to an ongoing, legal use and legal definition (think of things you see in contract law, for example). They are non-complex, requiring only simple definition. The NBC clause is an ad hoc formulation, and in the Vattel treatise, arises from copious use of the imprecise concept of “natural.” So, unlike such terms as “natural law”,  a “delegate” is simply <i>someone so appointed</i>, and is not complex in scope.

    That’s the gist of it. But for those who wish to pry further…
    You’ll see “natural sovereign,” “natural citizen,” and other similar formulations throughout Vattel’s work (as well as Locke’s, and many of the founder’s), and not just in the term “natural born citizen,” –which is itself extended later to include the concept: “for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our
    birth, that gives us rights.”
    Now let’s be careful: I did not add that last bit to contest Vattel’s fairly precise  definition, but to point out that his own use of the terms involving citizenship is, of necessity, inconsistent–despite his clarity.  And I do not mean that perjoratively in any way. It is a logical situation that arises due to the fact that the key word “natural” is of a class of terms that is very ancient in concept, and covers a huge variety of intentions (such as the words, “fair”, “like,” and  “body.”). 
    The problem with such terms is that anyone determined enough, can make them appear to mean things perhaps not intended.  Think of Bill Clinton, or any lawyer wanting to alter the interpretation of the law.
    So yes, we may safely use the term “general convention” knowing it meant “a convention of the states that was not exclusive or regional,” if for no other reason that there is little to be contested in that definition.  Which is entirely not the case with something like “natural rights.”
    Unlike mathematics, language can be exquisitely confusing in its most specific, certain moments.
    This is why good poetry works, and well-written contracts are sometimes broken with astonishing ease.

  5. K-Bob Great job framing the debate, thanks.  We’re going to have to better sell the American people on a few points: 
    1. The feds have clearly proven that any economies of scale (group savings) have been OBLITERATED by corruption and inefficiency.  Besides defense, diplomacy and interstate issues, almost ALL problems can best be handled locally.   Even if the feds were to only analyze “Best Practices” among the states, we would still have too much gov’t at the state, county, city, school board and HOA levels.
    2. We must stop alienating people who happened to grow up democrat, union, etc…  We have to find common ground and work together on the issue without thinking we have to compromise our principles.  For instance, Levin and others slam the door on “environmentalists” b/c of the carbon credit scam, and in the process close the door on simple pollution cleanup or food sustainability, both major issues where conservatives offer no unified plan for results.  Can we not fight for the individual farmer again?
    3. Personal sovereignty is the new sexy.  One man, one vote, one tax.   Our direction needs to be “less is more,” i.e.,  Truly portable benefits, an end to non-profits, campaign limits on politicians- not individuals, no corporate tax or individual tax code, hence less opportunity for corrupt enforcement, or lack thereof.
    Our direction towards totalitarian rule is clearly defined.  We must remind America where the prosperity and goodwill towards men really lies, and it’s not “co-existing” in groups.  It’s unified American individuals and proud of it.

  6. Conservative_Utopia Laurel A deTocqueville1 What you are proposing is a reset.
    I’m not proposing a reset. I’m cautioning against overreaction. I don’t think we can reset and people thinking they can go all the way back to FF’s is indeed utopian-ism, be it conservative or liberal. 
    And what 80% is it that you would cut?
    You can make all the diet analogies and presumptions you like but I will still say “Proceed with caution” since we will get one bite at this apple, if we are lucky, and I would hate to see it wasted. Furthermore bad decisions from that will have a worse effect than the gradual bad decisions made over decades and they will be irrevocable.
    You missed the point about immorality entirely.

  7. Laurel A deTocqueville1 Pls don’t think that your post inspired me to “react” by cutting the gov’t by 80%.  Comparing to a 1,000 lb diet is actually a gross under-estimation given our 17T debt, and 100T+ unfunded liabilities.  
    Yes immorality is a huge problem, but what makes you think we can even come close to a “reset”?  We have to change direction and work for decades to unscrew this DC-centric Leviathan and get back to sovereign states and individual rights.  The FF’s didn’t have that problem.

  8. KzPage ther eis more – related to what the feds do through Sustainable development (EPA and HUD) and soon through resilient cities (FEMA and DHS)

    “Whereas, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the
    states through the manipulative process of both funded and unfunded federal mandates, and  most of
    which are unfunded to a great extent, and 
    “Whereas, the federal government has pursed confiscatory taxation of citizens in the states by returning funds collected from states and municipalities which align with federal overreach, and withholding the return of confiscated funds from those states and municipalities who resist federal overreach.”

  9. OK, now that I got that sorted out, I did just that….signed up, downloaded the Handbook, and raring to go.

  10. OOops, never mind… I found  it.   “Convention of States” dot com and THEN go  to the “Take Action” link.  Got it.  But the link is still broken, FYI.

  11. KzPage Bill in Tennessee  Sorry, the “TAKE ACTION” link above just leads back to this conversation thread.  What is the correct URL for “TAKE ACTION”?

  12. Bill in Tennessee NPC1 Yes Bill reagan was a great speaker, too bad that it went over too many heads.
    I don;’t know if you agree, but I always love to hear Newt speak also, he’s just like a sniper, right on target most of the time, more often on, than not. Too bad he helped ruin his own career, but this country is in dire need of great leadership, and verbalize it in a style that people can understand and get behind. Other than what the country has gotten used to, let’s go with NO MORE LIES. I can live with that, and I’m sure so can you, right?.
    Ok, I can dream, Can’t I ?:)
    P/S CNN is starting a new program, I think it’s called’ firing line’  and Newt was on it. I was channel surfing and happened to see them making the announcement, but did not get the details as to when or             day/time.

  13. Bill in Tennessee KzPage  
    Ilya Somin’s article (under question five) contains links to the info you’re wondering about.

  14. Bill in Tennessee  
    I know what you mean. I thought about that for just a moment before composing what I wrote above.  I’m not sure if things move appreciably faster when it comes to this kind of collapse.
    I mean, we can all live-tweet it and live-blog it as it happens.  But the dislocations, the organizing, the gathering in groups, etc has only really been sped up by automobiles, so the timetable may be more like pre-WWI.
    Then there’s the “deliberation” time.  Look how long it’s taking congress to do anything these days. Civilizations could rise and fall before they get down to brass tacks on the budget.

  15. Bill in Tennessee Bill you need to join Convention of States . com ( I think I’ve been giving ppl the wrong web name this is the right one). 
    They are going to be rolling out a grass roots project very soon. 
    Via ConventionOfStates In part: 
    1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
    2. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention.  The goal is to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state legislative district (that’s 3,000 districts).  We believe this is very doable. Only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed.
     Interested individuals are encouraged to join our growing grassroots movement by signing up on the  page. There, individuals can pledge to contact their legislators and will be notified when important volunteer opportunities arise. These opportunities include: Volunteering to contact your legislators to support a Convention of the StatesVolunteering to attend a legislative hearing to support a Convention of the StatesAgreeing to volunteer for the next campaign for a legislator/candidate who supports a Convention of the StatesDonating to candidates/legislators who support a Convention of the StatesDonating to CSG to support this project
    For those interested in doing more, Convention of States will soon open the application process for leadership positions across the country. Consider applying to be a District Captain, Legislative Liaison, or State Director, and check back for updates on the Take Action page.
    For more go to their site. I also found some great youtube vids from a July ALEC meeting they had. (search group name on YT) You can also learn who the opposition is via YouTube vids too. There are a lot of them including The John Birch Society. And just to let you know Mark Levin and Convention of States site dispels all of the myths.  
    We have a way out.
    Hope you join me

  16. deTocqueville1 Laurel A That is only a symptom of a greater problem. Acting as a country isn’t the problem…immorality is.
    That is why more than one FF said our Republic was suited to a moral and just society. From what I am seeing is people are only hitting a reset button and eventually this country will end up back in the same place or worse.

  17. Bill in Tennessee  
    It’s a matter of getting together with a group in your state.  It’s fine if you hunt around for some existing group, but really if all you do is get a bunch of friends and neighbors to agree to petition your district rep, you can probably meet with him or her as a group and then do followup mailings.
    It doesn’t matter if the rep has already seen other folks about it.  Just get his or her time anyway.
    This week I hope to have a little help in tracking this stuff.

  18. odin147 Not necessarily. Laws can be rigged, and have been rigged, to make it look and seem like a free market but in reality it isn’t. Insurance alone is a prime example of that. While by law your car insurance company is required to represent you in the event of an accident. In reality they are representing themselves first and foremost while you are legally required by federal and state law to abide by the decision and representation. In the end it is you who will pay. Remember no man can wear two hats…and yet we have let the insurance industry do so legally. Exact same thing happens in malpractice insurance.
    So you have the appearance of free market but it is a free market in a rigged system. Internet is becoming the next rigged system and quite rapidly. It’s being absorbed by the current system in place.

  19. Conservative_Utopia Laurel A That is patently absurd. Sorry but we can be in great danger of swinging to far the other way or overreacting…which is precisely what you did in regards to my post. You actually prove my point.

    While I am a federalist there is no doubt at all that the anti-federalists has some valid points…hence the reason most people read both. And when deciding on a Constitutional convention I think it would behoove people to revisit that debate.

  20. Sorry to monopolize the floor, I promise to not bombard this thread with my musings, but I was thinking about K-Bob’s article above, particularly the “antebellum” portion and “So we aren’t quite at the point of open hostilities—yet.”    Having looked back at previous conflicts over the past hundreds of years, both at home and in Europe, it occurs to me that these historical moments played out over years and decades, manly because communications then were so slow (horseback, word of mouth, poor roads, etc.).  
    Another factor (and this is purely my opinion), I think our  ancestors
    were more deliberative people, and  it took them longer to come to a life-altering conclusion such as what we are pondering.  From diaries and books I have read from ancient times, people simply deliberated more, and at greater length, about things. 

    Today we have near instantaneous communications and ideas, memes, and fads spread much more quickly.  Does anyone do it Gangnam Style anymore? …and that was what, 6 months ago?  Today we tend to react to the news, to new modes of thinking, rather quickly.
    So, should we reevaluate the “not at hostilities” part in light of living in a faster moving, instant communication environment?   From back-channel talk I have been hearing for over a year now, I know people who are long past open hostilities, eager, in fact, to “bring it on.”   I’ve advised caution, but I sense the  mood of the country and my region… “hostilities” doesn’t quite capture the essence of what people are feeling right now.  I smell rebellion in  the air.

  21. KzPage  Can you quantify that statement?  …as in, how many states rely on the fed to operate?  We probably couldn’t rely on  them to be in the 3/4’s ratifying any amendments, but I’d like to know how many of them there are….and hoping it’s not a majority!  But in reality, any money supporting state X has to come from state Y, the fed doesn’t really have a private stash of cash, it gets the funds they are so generous with from us. 
    In a not-to-distant time, it will be instructive to watch those states scramble for funding if an Article V convention is successful.  Maybe they’ll hold bake sales.  Or sell off their excess children.  Or offer to work for food….oh, now THERE’s a concept.

  22. K-Bob warpmine KzPage  Hehehe… if it comes to that, call me, I’ll be glad to serve on a Security Detail  for an Article V Convention.

  23. Here’s a not-so-idle question for the group.  OK, I’ve written to my state representatives and laid out the basic thesis of “The Liberty Amendments” and even sent them the PDF of Chapter 1.  Now with my reps, here in Tennessee, they are republicans and for the most part Conservative, as far as I can tell from their voting records.  You’d think I would be “preaching to the choir.”  But a letter from one lone constituent, one they don’t know and who might just be a kook for all they know, is hardly a ringing endorsement.  
    I’m hoping there are other Tennesseans out there who contact them so that it reaches critical mass and they HAVE to pay attention to it.  At what point do state level politicians start paying attention to issues like this one?  The one response I’ve gotten back so far (from Sen. Stacy Campfield) sounds like he’s treating it as a fringe issue.  His response was terse  and almost dismissive.

    In our various states across America, how do we reach that critical mass such that our state leaders begin to take it seriously?  It appears that the Tea Party here is making it an issue, but I sincerely hope other groups with some clout and political  standing begin raising this Article V idea. 
    Maybe I’m not seeing the big picture yet, but so far it appears we are all acting as individual citizens, and we know that individual  citizens are easy to ignore in today’s politics.  I know the book is now #1 on the NYT best seller list, but that is no  guarantee that it will come to the attention of the people it needs to, the state governors and  representatives.  Anyone?

  24. NPC1Bill in Tennessee  
    Of course that reminds me of one of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes:  “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

  25. Bill in Tennessee  Your analysis is right on, just remember, dead fish go with the flow. Plus it’s not that some people are not smart, it’s just that everything they think about is wrong.

  26. crakpot Nothing new here that this Nation didn’t already have, Once,  But let slip from their fingers.It took over a hundred years to get to where we are today. The only gains made were to the politician, that kept promising ‘free lunch’ for everybody. The ‘freeloaders’ got what they want, and the politician got what they want. “Dead fish go with the flow.”

  27. K-Bob Bill in Tennessee   Ha!  As we say in another group I’m a long-time member of, ‘You might as WELL pray for God’s will… it’s what you’re going to get anyway.”   Thanks, K-Bob, I’m glad to be here.  
    And to answer you and others above, no, I don’t get much form my associates — purported Conservatives — in the way of antisemitism, but I do hear it from time to time.  You know, the old “Zionist conspiracy” stuff, but mostly from older folks.  
    Further, no, I don’t hear any alternate ideas from the folks who denigrate Levin’s personal life.  It’s apparently enough for some Deep Thinkers to toss out an unthinking  ad hominem attack and then not have to think  about the deeper implications of the idea itself.  
    There is a strong moral, almost Puritanical, streak that runs through Conservative ranks.  I’m sure that comes mostly from the religious right… I have no quarrel with the religious right, although I do have a different approach to spirituality than most of them do.  I would like to think that Conservatism is a huge tent (like it used to be said of the GOP), but I also notice that we tend to cluster in  special  interest groups….one issue folks.  Second Amendment purists; religious right purists; pro-life purists, etc.   I am on board with most of the agenda (2nd Amendment, etc.), a bit ambivalent on some others, and have little interest in still others, but still consider myself solidly Conservative.  If I had to pass a purity test, I’d probably fail about 15% of it.  But then again, I can’t think  of a single leftist issue that I’m in accord with….and working as I do on a huge Southern college campus, I have to guard every spoken and written word.

    But I fail to see how anyone, particularly anyone purportedly Conservative, can  look at “The Liberty Amendments” and NOT get excited by the prospect of an epic David and Goliath fight, one in which David (us) has an upper hand.  Ah well, I can’t change anyone but myself.  Again, to all…glad to be here.

  28. Also, two areas wherein I didn’t link articles above.  One is the difficult-to-quantify cultural rot in which we are swimming. I refer to the ongoing (Warning, Stacy brings the edge to “edgy”). Pay particular attention to the closing paragraph.

    Also, I left out the race-hustlers this time.  You know all about them, and the calls for race war.

  29. Looks like we’re I’ll put a thank-you to freeper Kolath in an update.
    I don’t know if Jim Robinson has weighed in on this subject yet. I hope the freepers  are with us (most of the threads over there about the book have mostly positive comments, as far as I’ve seen).

  30. warpmine K-Bob KzPage  
    Oh, barack and company would probably plan their own version of the Reichstag fire. But we have guns, and we’re totally in the right to do this, so we’d see arrests of anyone interfering.

  31. K-Bob KzPage Dawned on me that since the Federales are so predisposed as to not using the constitution as the official guide when making law(end around) would they even recognize these conventions as being lawful. Just perhaps Obama would have them all arrested or put in the sight of a gun much like Lincoln did to MD General Assembly.

  32. sp4x2 You have just given an excellent example of what is termed a “phase change.”
    And you are absolutely right.

  33. nomorerinos No_BlahBlah  
    I think the good news is that there’s no time limit placed up the states to complete the “application” part of the deal.  If it takes fifty @#$% years to get it done, then so be it.
    I’m more optimistic that it won’t take that long.  People are fed up with congress on both sides of the aisle.

  34. Cyclopsjack  
    Well I intend to have fun with it.  I’ll bet it was extremely cool to be one of the Founders.  Even a back-bencher.
    we’re where it’s hap’nin’

  35. KzPage  
    Looks good. People seem to ignore that the states can (and most definitely should) include that last line.

  36. deTocqueville1 Thanks!
    The articles by Rob Nadelson are good reading.  Especially the one explaining why the delegates at the Constitutional Convention did not exceed their authority.  It explains how the states instruct and send delegates to a convention of the states.  Also things like regional conventions versus  general.  Each of the words we take for granted has (and had) very specific meaning.  I can see why Levin used Nadelson’s research to guide and possibly influence his own.

  37. No_BlahBlah  
    Well, the pressure on other states comes from wanting to be part of the cool kids.  If everyone sticks to their knitting and focuses on their own statehouse folks, and we get more states on board, you’ll see more success with more difficult states.
    I expect some state like Texas to bang out a resolution so fast we won’t be ready for it.  Other states like Indiana may take some serious arm-twisting.
    But this is a case where there are more of us than THEM, so the pressure is by us at the State level.  And it’s got to be easier to do that than try and pressure some little prince in the US Senate.

  38. Laurel A Thanks for bringing up the links.  I had to go back and double check each one to make sure I didn’t mess them up. Upon doing that, I ended up reading more in-depth at each article, and I swear I got madder and more incensed the second reading.  Especially the article about Delayed Prosecutions.  That’s turned into a major effort by the Administration to do things where Executive Order won’t work, or they want to hide it.

  39. Bill in Tennessee  
    In almost every “Mark Levin” post by scoop, we get at least one drive-by claiming he’s only trying to sell books.  No open anti-Jewish stuff here yet, that I recall (and I rarely run into that anywhere outside of the more rabid Luap Nor fans, and of course leftists–who seem to hate Jews reflexively).
    In particular, though, anytime someone steps up with an actual IDEA of some sort on the right, you’ll always find a few others who disagree strongly, and are willing to smear rather than argue the points.  I think those sorts of people are found in any group larger than a handful, though.  Some folks are just more visceral.
    By the way, you’re doing some good work!  Thanks for throwing in with this.  As I tell the more disagreeable folks, we’re going to do this anyway, so they may as well help us get it right.

  40. Laurel A Well of course with the incestuious relationship between the litigators and those on the bench.

  41. Laurel A yes and believed in a kind of perpetual revolution which is why he was so attracted to the French debacle!

  42. Bill in Tennessee Well looks like you have 10 or so really nasty folks on that list of 200. That’s only 5%! By the way did any one of them provide any evidence of the claim(s) made?

  43. Laurel A I believe that acting ‘as a country’ has been the problem. The EPA, the IRS, Departments of Education, Agriculture and Interior are just a few examples of tyrannical and pervasive governance. There is nothing wrong with states going their own way and people who are attracted to one and not another can move freely. When there is an omnipotent, intrusive and abusive government liberty is dead.

  44. Laurel A Sounds like worrying about looking skinny after a 1,000 pound diet.  But it brings up a good point: 
    Can we actually shed enough federal legislation and enforcement to allow the states to once again COMPETE?  Not only on policy and fiscal sustainability, but on how much authority they can remand back to the individual.  People still have their vote, their voice and their dollar to influence the states.  
    If we were to cut the feds back 80%, we would be in a much better place indeed, and still have too much regulation by the state, county, city, school board and HOAs.  We’ve got a LONG way to go.

  45. Via ConventionOfTheStates . Com
    Application for a Convention of the States Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution
    For a Convention to Propose Amendments Restraining the Abuse of Power by the Federal Government
    Whereas, the Founders of our Constitution empowered State Legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government, and
    Whereas, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending, and
    Whereas, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent, and
    Whereas, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, and
    Whereas It is the solemn duty of the States to protect the liberty of our people— particularly for the generations to come, to propose Amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States under Article V to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power,
    Be it therefore resolved by the legislature of the State of ______:
    Section 1. The legislature of the State of ______ hereby applies to Congress, under the
    provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a
    convention of the states limited to proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on
    the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and
    limit the terms of office for its officials.
    Section 2. The secretary of state is hereby directed to transmit copies of this application to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate and to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and copies to the members of the said Senate and House of Representatives from this State; also to transmit copies hereof to the presiding officers of each of the legislative houses in the several States, requesting their cooperation.
    Section 3. This application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made applications on the same subject.

  46. KzPage   Well, since I tend to be somewhat loquacious in my responses, and life is short, I think I’m just  going to have to ignore these complaints and focus my energies on those who are salvageable and who will work with us.  I have long since stopped signing petitions ans such stuff.    Those days are past, we need to get onto something that works.  This seems like the most civil and peaceful way to achieve our ends, although I have mused on darker paths in the past…. as I’m sure most of us here have.

  47. As I read links and listen to interviews with Levin my one concern is too much federalism. For example one state deregulating drugs that it’s neighboring state does not can put an undue burden on the neighboring state. Another example is one state driving on left side of the road while another state drives on right.
    We must react as a country but we must also not overreact as a country as well.

  48. I Have one concern . With some states receiving so much fed money, it’s gonna be a hell of a fight. Some states get almost hold their money from the fed. THAT’S a lot of goodies!

  49. Bill in Tennessee Yes. I find often times conservatives use the same tactics and adopt the same mindset of the left regardless of position. Must be part of the human condition.
    And Thomas Paine was a self avowed socialist.

  50. Go to convention of the states . Com
    They explain it all. They even have a “handbook” link to the right of the page.
    Your answer in short. An application.
    They have an example on the site too.

  51. Yes this is a VERY big problem. Too many ppl r calling it a CC. It is not. Best we educate the masses using the right and legal terms.

  52. I’m getting the same kind of responses .
    And it’s a shame. Seems as if people would just rather complain all day. No solutions just problems in their world.

  53. Enforcement is a problem.   This should be preemptive as much as possible, not strictly reactive.   An individual should not have to go to court or a state legislature to get his freedom back.   We need protections from government force being applied in the first place, similar to what the Bill of Rights does for those accused of a crime, applied to regulation at all levels, not just Federal.   We also need a more effective means of defunding unconstitutional laws.

     I would add to Levin’s Amendment to Limit Bureaucracy:
    – Regulation by government at all levels shall be
    recognized as a police power subject to the protections of the Constitution.
    – All regulation of impact on the rights of others,
    directly, via the environment, or otherwise, shall have the burden of
    experimental proof before issuance, with disproving experiment as an absolute
    defense against the regulation, and reasonable doubt taking precedence over
    any precautionary principle.
    – Outlaw public unions
    – Tort reform

    to his Amendment to Protect Private Property:
    – Right to exclude from private property.
    – Right to use or improve one’s property and resources
    without permission from government at any level.

    and to the Amendment to Grant the States the Authority to Directly
    Amend [and Defend] the Constitution:
    – Allow border states to secure the border, with
    compensation from Congress.
    I would add to the Amendment to Limit Taxing, [Borrowing,
    and Money Printing]:
    – Repeal the 16th
    – Abolish the Fed, cancel the taxpayers’ “debt” to it,
    and coin all “its” gold and silver in weight denominations for the people to
    – Borrow only for survival (war bonds), and pay off
    the true debt the government has accumulated, to seniors and bondholders alike,
    by the sale of Federal lands, over a 10 year period.
    – At all levels of government, if a service (such as
    education) is otherwise available from a commercial source, the taxpayer may
    avail himself of it, by denial of taxation.
    and to the Amendment to Limit Federal Spending:
    – Each budget item of spending must be justified as
    having been specifically consented to by those truly governed by it, in the
    – Congress shall give each taxpayer an itemized
    receipt for the previous year’s spending.
    – If an item of spending is found not to be
    Constitutionally authorized, no tax for that item shall be due.
    – Specifically prohibit redistribution.

  54. Report from the front line:   Having sent out a notice of this book to my email list of conservatives (about 200 of us) from around the country, and then contacting my own Tennessee state legislators, I thought I’d report on an unexpected bit of feedback I’m getting.  This was totally unexpected, but about 10 people have written me back telling me (1) Mark Levin is a terrible person, or (2) he’s not really a conservative in the Barry Goldwater mold, or (3) he’s just an opportunist trying to sell books and profit off of us, or (4) worst of all, he’s a JEW who does not have America’s best interests at heart.  WELL!!   I reminded folks that we’re not all going to agree on every subject, and that ad hominem attacks on someone does not address the intellectual points of a man’s argument.  
    In one case, for sake of argument I stipulated that perhaps Mark Levin is truly a terrible person, but I also pointed out that Thoma Paine, a brilliant pamphleteer for the American Revolution, and making complex ideas understandable to common Americans, was also an atheist and (some might say) a libertine.  
    In all cases, I have gently rebutted those who write me with such stuff that we need to look at the intellectual ideas contained in “The Liberty Amendments” and stop this circular firing squad we Conservatives tend to form every time there is a kerfuffle in  our midst.   We are becoming our own worst enemies.  Let the Left devour each other, they do it so well, we need more unanimity.
    So has anyone else run into this ad hominem balking at Mark Levin’s idea?

  55. I see the ripple effect happening with Levin’s book and I give him kudos as well as K-Bob for starting a much needed conversation. These two are saying out loud what most people only whisper.
    I vacillate between the antebellum south period and the run up to WWI…but with Syria in the offing it’s leaning towards WWI.
    ‘Sue and settle” is a method of legal intimidation that is the bastard child of lawyers and insurance companies. Take note that it has taken root in every aspect of American life as well. How do you think ACLU and SPLC intimidate people into submission? It is tyranny, and that tyranny is being done with a stacked deck.
    As I read the back and forth with the to and fro going on I wonder if people even remotely realize that we cannot afford to not try.
    Excuse me but I have some links so kindly posted by K-Bob to read.

  56. dick archer Bill in Tennessee   Great point….I was putting in terms I thought they would readily understand….but your point is well taken.   I will cease using that term.

  57. No_BlahBlah armyvet1 I do believe that much of today’s pop culture lends an advantage towards liberalism. Hollywood has a strong hold on today’s youth and by default of parental guidance has, IMHO, a stronger influence on our young. As for the electoral college, my concern lay with some states having an un-fair amount of clout. It is the only way that people like Nancy Pelosi can get elected and carry way to much power than they should hold. Still, for the lack of an alternative, the electoral college is perhaps the best system we have. I would like to see something put into place to ensure the electoral college is kept balanced. Now how this could be achieved may remain a mystery, but I think that states should be able to question how each electoral vote is cast. Thanks for the reply.

  58. The most important regulator is a consumer in a free market. Internet allows the consumer to regulate a company by making an informed choice. Internet is word of mouth in steroids, so the federal govt. is no longer needed for regulation. At best states can issue some regulations, and coordination among states in a world of instant communication is just a mouse click away. I don’t hear any conservative making this case even Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz needs to talk about overhauling federal agencies and how the Internet helps replace them.

  59. armyvet1 No_BlahBlah For the states that haven’t gone over the edge like california and illinois the easiest part will be to get states that still believe in the Constitution and the Republic to forego sending tax dollars to DC and then be forced to spend on programs at the discretion of the feds and take back legitimate state concerns and revenue.
    Personally I like the electoral college. An Amendment that would address your implied concerns would be, in addition to citizenship eligibility, payment of taxes and ineligibility for those being supported by the government.
    I’m not sure how it is skewed by hollywood and the media except by their propaganda?

  60. Worrying about failing is not going to get us off the dime besides Boehner and other cry babies are not invited.

  61. nomorerinosNo_BlahBlahI hope there are several in future years but to overcome the initial inertia will be the most difficult, just look at the history of Amendments that initiate in congress. The proposals must be short and to the point not all encompassing as current legislation tends to be.

    One issue, one Amendment. I hope there are multiples from many states so that they can go through committees to combine like minded efforts into one and then vote. A chance like this if it is even possible to accomplish won’t come along often.
    I have my short list starting with the repeal of the XVIIth.
    To your point about the tenacity of the progressives;
    Vladimir Lenin.
    They have learned their lessons well.

  62. What troubles me is the suggestion that the federal government has any right to exist beyond our authorization (‘why should be expect the federal government to honor these amendments?’) If it comes to the point of a new convention of states, the federal government is delegitimized by that act alone.
    The current federal government can be dissolved without its harming a hair of the constituiton. Congress is a creation of the constitution, which in turn is a creation of the people. Unlike Great Britain, it will not have any legitimacy anywhere.

  63. Cyclopsjack As the leviathan gets bigger, it grows poorer and will become powerless because of it’s inability to pay it’s employees. Nobody will want to work for a promissory note from a government that can’t keep it’s word. Despite the Feds monetizing the debt, the money will still be useless as all paper money is without the backing from precious metals. I suspect that the government will have issue special coupons to pay their employees with but where will the store stocks come from? They will use their might to confiscate it from the private sector and then the shooting will start. The military has already been put on the back burner and they are already forbidden to be used domestically. The National guards are technically controlled by the states. The military will cease to function on a federal level that is if they can muster enough ranks to consider it a threat to anyone. 
    Should be interesting in any event and we did warn the zombie lofo’s about the consequences of giving away freeshyt to anyone that wants it but they never listen.

  64. No_BlahBlah I don’t see this ending with one try.
    PROGS have been after control for 100 YEARS and we need to start the process to reverse this.
    One day at a time, one foot in front of the other, one person at a time.
    The philosophical “red line” proposed to us by the Framers and Founding Fathers IS being breached, so it is up to THIS generation to step up and get on with the battle with the tools they left us to fight with.
    BRILLIANT is just not a big enough word to describe F&FF’s their knowledge, and it has to be Divine Providence Mark Levin and others thinking as he does are here to Sheppard our efforts.

  65. Bill in Tennessee Excellent commentary. Please pay attention to Mark’s constant clarifying that this is not  constitutional convention. Please refer to his book or his radio show for the actual wording of this article 5 amendment process that grants states a pathway to proposing constitutional amendments.

  66. No_BlahBlah I wanted to put forth this thought with the remark you made about getting enough states to go along with an Amendment Convention. The way I see it is that states who are stuck on the preverbal Fed Govt Tit, (like California) will never agree. It is why for years I have held the belief that the entire electorate voting system gives too many votes to these Govt dependent states. The whole idea of the electoral college gives too much power to too few people. Besides the tax code, the manner in which the people’s wishes are simply ignored by those who are already in power, gives proof the current system of voting must be relooked. If you look at the manner in which Al Gore tried to lie cheat and steal his way in to power, I think any logical thinking person can see how the election system is skewed by the likes of Hollywierd and other liberal organization as a whole. Those that have to do nothing to make a living, doesn’t want or need things to change. It is hard working people that are being punished for the laziness and corruption of the; as we said it in the Army, the sick, lame and lazy. God help us all.

  67. So much doom and gloom. As Bobby would say…Don’t worry; be happy! This whole idea of a civil war is really depressing. It’s also pretty much doomed to failure. No war was ever won without good intelligence and face facts, the Federal Government—Big Brother—already knows about your dark little meetings. As things exist today there is no solution. You can run away, but what happens when the grass isn’t any greener when you arrive wherever your panicked feet have carried you to? No as it stands the USA faces an economic tailspin combined with out of control hyperinflation and at the end, a loss of relevance in world affairs. Our own dissolution is likely the key domino that will send the global markets into a similar tailspin.
    But like I said, don’t worry, be happy. What’s the worst that could happen? Global Thermonuclear War? A thousand years of darkness, torture, slavery and cannibalism? Don’t sweat it. Look on the bright side, it could be worse.

    Mark and Conservative RSers are very proud of this effort.
    Let the libertarians and “prog” trolls take their shots as the patriots here pray for the best in us!
    History in the making and WE ARE PRIVLEDGED to be a part of it.
    Let us pray and show some COURAGE and WISDOM.

  69. Please do not liken me or my circumstances to the imaginary plights aristocrat slave-owners of antebellum South Carolina.  Putting me in the same boat with John C Calhoun is the type of historical malpractice I could get from Chris Matthews and Maxine Watters.

  70. K-Bob thanks for this. I always appreciate your posts and truly can’t remember disagreeing with you.
    This proposed life vest being thrown to America by Mark is spot on with the method and intended results. I also can’t see an alternate solution short of civil war or societal disintegration. Your first question is the heart of the matter though;What happens if we try an Article Five convention of the states, and we fail to accomplish our objective?
    As I see it, the objective most likely to fail will be convincing enough State Legislators to pressure other states to form an Amendments Convention in the first place.
    Those paying attention to the speed with which society and the Rule of Law is disintegrating know the alarm has sounded and time is against us.
    Clearly though, without pain and alarm, no attempt could even be considered.
    HOW is the question, not What if in all due respect.
    This is beyond serious. It is an emergency.

  71. Question #5: The federal government likes the answer to
    appear incredibly difficult yet it is not.Boil this down to where does the money come from.The federal government takes most of the
    money from the individual citizen pools it and then makes the individual states
    dance their tune before doling anything back to the state. Where does the
    federal government make any money, Where is the federal government making a product or
    selling a service that is producing funds for our coffers; nowhere, so they print money and therefore can
    send additional funds where they wish yet those funds are part of the erosion of
    the country.Anyone here ever clean out
    a garage after years of never having a car parked in it? The first hours often
    look worse than before you started.This
    situation will have pain before it gets better, yet much less than if we stay
    the course.
    If state governors or legislators cannot see the benefit in
    stopping the financial ruin of the country, look at the states/cities in
    trouble now, they are begging for federal bailouts, if this continues who will
    they turn to?

  72. This past week I have written basically the same letter to my Tennessee state senator, representative, and Gov. Bill Haslam, all Republicans.   If anyone wants to use this as a template for your own letters, please feel free to do so.  I did get one response back already, from Sen. Stacey Campfield, a terse note saying “Good stuff but most of it is federal. I’m open to about any idea that will return power to the states.”  I wrote him back and said “not exactly, they are amendments to be imposed by the STATES on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT so as to LIMIT the federal government.   I just hope that last message gets through.  Anyway, if anyone wants to use the below text a a template for your own letters, feel free to do so:

    Senator Campfield:
    I am in your Senate District 7, residing at xxxxxxxxx,xxxxx , and I work at the xxxxxxxxxxxx campus in xxxxxxxx.I am writing about a matter
    of great importance to the State of Tennessee and to the nation.I think I understand from what I know of you
    that you may share my concern of the growing liberal (or “Progressive”)
    direction our country has been going in for the past 100 years and the profligate
    spending that is turning America into an impoverished debtor nation.We have drifted from our Constitutional roots
    to such a degree that our founders would not recognize our country; further, I think
    they would be saddened and infuriated at what we have become. America’s fiscal
    and domestic policies are quickly becoming ruinous, leading to unsustainable
    debt and an amoral society with no roots.
    However, I just recently read a new book and a new approach
    to governance, by Conservative talk-show host and Constitutional scholar, Mark
    Levin.The book is “The Liberty
    Amendments,” (currently #1 on the New York Times reading list) and it is
    nothing less than a call to the states, under Article V of the US Constitution,
    to form a Constitutional Convention, enact certain amendments laid out in the
    book, and to ultimately wrest control of power in America from the Federal
    government and return it to the states, where it rightfully (and
    Constitutionally) belongs.
    I am taking the liberty of attaching
    that book’s Chapter 1 (courtesy of Mark Levin), which lays out Levin’s basic
    premise and research into this subject.  I can think of nothing better
    than to pass some time reading these 20 pages about how we can save our
    nation.  Basically Levin is calling for a Constitutional Convention, not
    one appointed by Congress (which most people think is the only way it can
    be done), but rather one called for by the states, which the framers also put
    into Article V of the Constitution.  Two-thirds of the states (34) can
    bypass Congress and call a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution
    itself!  (By happy coincidence, 34 states, including Tennessee, have opted
    not to set up health care exchanges as called for by “Obamacare.”)It’s a long process, and it will require a major effort to talk to every
    statehouse Representative and Senator.  But the fight is to restore
    sovereignty to the states, and that is why I am writing you.  Provisions
    can be made to ensure that The Bill of Rights (our first 10 amendments) would
    be fully protected and not subject to nullification or amendment.
    I hope this idea is already being
    discussed among some state governors and legislators in other states, and it’s
    going to be a long path, but I think it’s a worthwhile goal to set.   I predict that
    many, many citizens in your district will support you in this effort, should
    you decide to join the fight.Perhaps
    Tennessee might even play a pivotal role in forming such a Convention.
    The Progressive muddle we find ourselves in today has been 100 years in the
    making.  There is a way out.  A state-enacted Constitutional
    Convention may be a peaceful, civil way to take back control of the
    Constitution and return democratic power to where it belongs, to the states and
    to We the People. 

    William xxxxxxxx

  73. I have just and read chapter 1. What I jumped on first was on pages 9-10 as follows:
    This requires, first, an acknowledgement of the federal government’s unmooring from its constitutional foundation: second, an acceptance that the condition is urgent and, if untreated, will ultimately be the death knell of the American Republic; third, the wisdom to rebalance the government in a way that is without novelty and true to the Framers’ original purpose: and, fourth, the courage to confront– intellectually and politically—the Statists’ stubborn grip on power.
    If you do not agree with that paragraph, then there is no
    need for further reading however; if you do agree (obviously I do and bought
    the book) I do not see any other recourse except for war(and
    catastrophic failure of course).The Federal government will not give up the
    power over the purse willingly.So I
    hope and pray that this idea does work.

    For me now, the question I am looking to answer is: how do
    we get the states to initiate this amendment process?

  74. 1tootall Any amendment regarding the judiciary will have to include penlites of impeachment and incarceration. Without them, you’ll still have justices doing whatever the hell they want.

  75. 1tootall Pertaining to the “they find things where none ever existed” is the controversy of natural law vs positive law where by natural law is the constitution forged to uphold that of natural law and positive law which is case law built upon precedents. As we have come to know positive law can only exist if some justice decides that they prefer to make the law themselves, legislating from the bench.

  76. Excellent discussion!!  I am especially concerned about question #2.  We have seen several completely legitimate pieces of legislation thrown out by liberal courts because…well because they can.  I think of proposition #8 in California, for example.  That was heard by a judge who had massive conflict of interest issues, and yet his judgement was upheld all the way to the SCOTUS.  Or how about the recent request by Judicial Watch to uncover the low lives visiting the president at the White House???  Completely legit, yet struck down.  I can’t imagine the left, who controls the judiciary, and if we have any more Supreme Court justices retire, will have complete control of a 5-4 majority, would allow anything like an article V challenge to stand.  They found a way to rewrite the Obamacare nonsense so it could be upheld.  How could the left let something like this that would take them out at the knees stand???  I think it would die in the courts.  They have managed to find things in the Constitution that never EVER existed, (Roe v.Wade), or things that do exist but don’t, (Commerce Clause case law). I think this would be their last stand, and they would know it, and given they ability to win AT ANY COST,  vs. our inability to even make our case, I worry a great deal about the judiciary in this endeavor.  That being said, I am all in, and will do what I can to help organize the effort in my state…PA.

Comments are closed.