MARK
LEVIN'S "LIBERTY" AMENDMENTS: LEGALIZING TYRANNY By Publius Huldah, April 19, 2014, NewsWithViews.com
For 100 years, the federal
government has usurped powers not delegated to it in our Constitution.
What should we do about it? Should we reclaim
our existing Constitution and put an end to the usurpations?
Or should we “modernize” the
Constitution by delegating to the federal government the powers it has usurped
– so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?
Mark Levin begins “The Liberty
Amendments” by saying he doesn’t believe the Constitution requires
“modernization through amendments”. But he then proposes a series of
amendments, six of which modernize our Constitution to delegate to the federal
government most of the powers it has
usurped during the last 100 years.
And each of his six amendments does
the opposite of what its title promises .I’ll show you.[1]
Levin’s
amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” [p 99-100 of his book]
George Washington’s
cabinet had four members: Secretary of
State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General. Those
functions are authorized by our Constitution.[2]
But today there are numerous
agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government. Where is the
constitutional authority? What Article, Section, and Clause authorizes the
Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Labor, Transportation, HHS, HUD,
DHS, EPA, SBA, etc., etc., etc.?
There is no constitutional
authority! Accordingly, all these agencies are unconstitutional as outside the
scope of the powers delegated in our Constitution.
Well then, a person who wanted to
“limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand that these agencies be closed,and
their functions returned to the States and The People, right?
But Mark Levin doesn’t do this.
Section1 of his amendment legalizes
all these agencies.It says:
“All federal departments and
agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually
reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority
vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
As long as Congress periodically
“reauthorizes” the agencies– they remain.
Levin’s
amendment thus changes the constitutional standard for whether an executive
agency lawfully exists from whether it carries out an enumerated power
[as in Washington’s Cabinet] to whatever the President wants and
Congress agrees to. Do you see?
Now look at Section 2 of Levin’s
amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy.” It says:
“All Executive Branch regulations
exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the
Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be
submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the
Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to
their implementation.”
Article I, §1, of our Constitution
says only Congress may make laws.[3]
But since Woodrow Wilson, executive agencies in the federal government have
been churning out regulations which govern all aspects of our lives. These
comprise the now gigantic Code of Federal Regulations.
All these regulations are unconstitutional as in violation of
Art. I, §1![4]
Well then, one would expect that a
person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand the repeal of
existing regulation sand an end to all future rulemaking, right?
Not Levin!Section2 of his amendment legalizes
all existing regulations and the rule making process. Levin’s “fix” is
merely to form a congressional committee to review certain regulations before
they are imposed on the American People.
And so,federal executive agencies
will continue to churn out millions of pages of regulations – but now, they will be constitutional
because Levin’s amendment makes it all lawful.
Do you see? Levin’s amendment legalizes
the status quo and does the opposite of what he claims.
Levin’s
amendment “to limit federal spending”(p 73 -74)
Our Constitution limits federal
spending to the enumerated powers.
If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to
Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on
which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit
spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the
size of the GDP.Do you see?
The reason we have a crushing debt
is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits
–already set forth in the Constitution - on its spending.
Well then, a person who wanted to
“limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the
federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?
But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1
of his amendment legalizes
all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated
powers. It says:
“Congress shall adopt a preliminary
fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following
fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”
Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the
unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget”
and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit
Congress and the President to lawfully
spend money on whatever they
want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t
authorize it.
Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal
spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending
to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections6 & 7 permit Congress to
suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt.[5]
Levin’s
amendment “to limit federal taxing” (p 75)
Our Constitution doesn’t permit the
federal government to levy taxes so that Congress and the President will have
the funds to spend on whatever they
want.
Congress may lawfully levy
taxes only to raise the funds to
carry out the enumerated powers. Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 say:
“The Congress shall have Power To
lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and
provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States …”
[and] “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”
Immediately
after clauses 1 & 2 follows the list
of enumerated powers we delegated to Congress for the Country at Large.[6]
Add to this short list of enumerated powers, the “housekeeping
powers” itemized elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., the census); the salaries
authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art.II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1,
cl. 1, and others on the civil list; and
you see the purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect
taxes, borrow money, and spend money, for the Country at Large.[7]
So! Congress should not be levying taxes except to generate revenue for its constitutional
functions. If Congress restricted its spending to those few powers
delegated in the Constitution, the federal government would need very little
money from us.
One would expect that a person who
wants to“limit federal taxation” would demand that the federal government stop
taxing to raise money to spend on unconstitutional purposes, right?
Not Levin! While his amendment
limits the federal income tax to 15% of income – it institutionalizes the
present practice where Congress lays & collects taxes for any purposes
whatsoever.[8]
Levin’s
amendment “to protect private property” (p 137)
The
federal government has no lawful authority to
own land for any purpose other than those enumerated in the Constitution:
Article I, §8, next to last clause, permits the federal government to own the
District of Columbia [which was not to exceed “ten Miles square”], and Places
purchased with the Consent of the State legislatures for the erection of forts,
dock-Yards, and other needful buildings (e.g., federal courthouses, post
offices) to carry out the enumerated powers.
The federal government has no
lawful authority to own national parks, grazing areas, forests, and such.[9]
And the federal government has no
lawful authority to restrict peoples’ use of their own land. Now here in
our Constitution did we delegate that power to the federal government!
Accordingly, all federal laws and regulations (EPA,etc.) which pretend to
restrict an owner’s use of his land are unconstitutional as outside the scope
of powers delegated.
Furthermore, the States’ and local governments’ powers of eminent domain and
other “takings” of private land are addressed in their own State
Constitutions and laws. This is NOT a federal issue!
But Levin’s amendment “to protect
private property” changes all of the above. It says:
“When any governmental entity acts
not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property
owners, but to take property for a public use from a property owner by actual
seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction
of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss
to the property owner exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully
said property owner for such losses.”
Levin’s amendment:
Changes
the constitutional standard for federal ownership of lands from carrying out an enumerated
power to what ever someone in the federal government deems a “public
use” [which can be anything];
Legalizes what are now unconstitutional holdings of lands by the
federal government – such as grazing lands;
Legalizes “takings” by regulation – restrictions via regulations on
the use of private lands - by all levels of government;
Takes from the States and The People their retained powers over
eminent domain and regulatory takings, and makes it a federal issue under the
control of the federal government;[10] and
Provides that as long as a taking
does not reduce the value of the property by more than $10,000, the governments
don’t have to pay the property owner one red cent. So! If your local or
State or federal government takes some of your land, or restrict its use by
regulation,Levin’s amendment requires compensation to be paid if the “taking”
exceeds $10,000. If the government decides that your loss is less than $10,000,
you eat the loss. The amendment
legalizes government theft of private property.
Levin’s
amendment “to protect the vote” (p 183-184)
Before our Constitution was
ratified, the States qualified & registered voters. Qualifications were set
forth in their State Constitutions, and requirements differed from State to
State. This power was expressly
retained by the States with Art. I, §2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution.[11]
The four voting amendments reduced
this retained power of the States, and delegated to the federal government
power to stop States from denying suffrage to citizens on account of
race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), or age for citizens eighteen years of age or older (26th Amendment).
Except as restricted by these four
amendments, the States retain their pre-existing power to set qualifications
for registering citizens to vote, as long as they do not deny it on
account of race, sex, failure to pay a tax, or age for those 18 years or
more. States remain free to deny registration on other grounds – such as conviction of a felony or
illiteracy. And of course, States retained power to restrict voting to
citizens!
But the retained powers of the
States to set voter qualifications for registration were diminished far beyond
the scope of the amendments, due to usurpations by the federal government, and because the States forgot that they retained
at Art. I, §2, cl. 1 most of their original power to qualify & register
voters.
In Arizona’s Proposition
200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications &
Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument, I
show how the federal government infringed upon the States’ retained powers over
voter qualifications & registration; and how the two judges in that case wrongly ruled that Arizona could
not require applicants for registration to provide proof of citizenship!
So! What should we do about
non-citizens voting? Here is a novel idea: The States should man up and reclaim their powers retained by Art.
I, §2, cl. 1; tell Eric Holder to take a hike; require all currently
registered voters to provide proof of citizenship; and refuse to register new
voters unless they provide proof of citizenship. Enforce the Constitution we
have!
But Section 1 of Levin’s amendment
“to protect the vote” says:
“Citizens in every state, territory,
and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification
documents demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state
government for the state in which the voter resides, as a requirement for
registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for
President, Vice President, and members of Congress.”
Levin’s amendment (it has 5
Sections) rewards the
federal government for unlawfully forbidding States from requiring applicants
to prove they are citizens, by transferring more power over voter qualifications
& registration to the federal government.[10]
But Levin’s amendment does even more
harm than vesting in the federal government a power it already usurped - it
ushers in a national ID card. Who
thinks the feds won’t dictate the contents of the card and keep copies?
[Do you really think a national ID card is a great idea?]
To add insult to injury, Levin’s
amendment doesn’t even prohibit non-citizens from voting – it merely requires citizens to get an ID card before they can register to vote.
Non-citizens are not required to get ID cards. The supreme Court (which will
now lawfully have judicial power over this issue) will decide whether
aliens can vote.
Levin’s
amendment “to promote free enterprise” (p 117)
In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (11th&12th paras), Hamilton & Madison explain the
original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause: It is to prohibit States
from imposing tolls &tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are
transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. Until the
mid-1930’s, this was widely understood. Here is a full proof
of the original intent of that clause and the story of how the supreme Court
usurped power over interstate commerce.
The
original intent of that clause is still the supreme Law of the Land![12] So
the States must man up
and enforce that original intent. They must ignore - nullify - all pretended
federal laws, regulations,and judicial opinions which are contrary to that
original intent.
Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise”
says:
“SECTION 1: Congress’ power to
regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant of power to the federal government to
regulate and control economic activity but a specific grant of power limited to
preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the
several states.”
“SECTION 2: Congress’s power to
regulate Commerce does not extend to activity within a state, whether or not it
affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or
entity to participate in commerce or trade.”
Section 1 broadens the powers of the
federal government from
prohibiting States from imposing tolls &tariffs on articles of merchandize
as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling, to prohibiting the States from
doing anything which “impedes”
commerce and trade between and among the States.
Many things can be said to “impede”
commerce and trade. And who will decide what “impedes” and what doesn’t
“impede”? Five judges on the supreme Court.
Section 2 mentions two instances
where Congress’ power to regulate Commerce does not extend. This is dangerous because of the legal maxim, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio
Alterius (the expression of one thing is the
exclusion of the other).
Accordingly, Congress’ power to
regulate commerce would extend to other instances. Which ones? We don’t know -
the supreme Court will decide – on a case by case basis.
Conclusion
Levin’s amendments legalize - make
constitutional - the very abuses they purport to correct, nullify the natural
rights of the people, and fundamentally
change the constitutional design.
Even though our Constitution is not
being enforced, it still declares this federal government lawless! The true
rule of law is still on our side, but not for much longer if we foolishly allow
our Constitution to be re-written.
© 2014 Publius Huldah - All Rights
Reserved
Endnotes:
1. Telling the
Truth about a person’s proposals isn’t “demonizing” him. People angrily
reject valid criticism of Levin’s proposals because they have made an
idol of him. If their loyalty were to Truth - instead of to their idol - they
would want to be set straight.
2. Article
II, §2, and:
Secretary of State: Art. I, §8, cl.
3
Secretary of Treasury: Art. I, §2, cl.3; Art.I, §8, cl. 1; Art.I, §9, cl.4-7;
Art. VI, cl. 1
Secretary of War: Art. I, §8, clauses 11-14
Attorney General: Art. I, §8, cl. 6, 10&17; Art.III, §§2&3; Art. IV,
§2, cl.2
3. Article
I, §1, says: “All legislative Powers
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States…” [emphasis mine]
4. They are also unconstitutional as outside the
scope of powers delegated to the federal government.
5. I explain
the problems with “balanced budget”
amendments here.
6. These are
the enumerated powers over the Country at Large listed at Art. I, §8:
• Clause 3: regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
• Clause 4: uniform laws on
naturalization and bankruptcies;
• Clause 5: coin money &
regulate its value, and fix standard of weights & measures;
• Clause 6: punish
counterfeiting;
• Clause 7: establish post
offices & post roads;
• Clause 8: issue patents
©rights;
• Clause 9: set up federal
courts inferior to the supreme court;
• Clause 10: punish piracies
& felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
• Clauses 11-14: war, letters of
marque & reprisal, Army & Navy, and rules for the military
• Clause 15-16: the Militia.
7. The
anti-federalists objected to Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & 2. They claimed:
“…the power ‘to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the
common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an
unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary
for the common defense or general welfare.”
James Madison answered in Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras) that clauses 1 & 2 permit Congress to
levy taxes & borrow money only
to carry out the enumerated powers! Madison said:
“Had no other enumeration or
definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than
the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had
some color for it…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by
these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer
pause than a semicolon? … Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use
a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of
particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither
explain nor qualify the general meaning … is an absurdity…” [boldface mine]
So!Article I, §8, cl.1 is merely a
“general expression,” the meaning of which is “ascertained and limited” by the
clauses which “immediately follow” it.In other words, clauses 1 & 2 grant
to Congress the power to raise money; and clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on
which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1
& 2. Do you see?
8. Levin’s
amendment also corrects – on behalf of the feds - the following: When the 16th
Amendment was ratified, “income” apparently didn’t
include “wages.” Accordingly, it would be
unconstitutional to force people to pay “income” taxes on “wages” - and such
would thus be a proper object of nullification by States. But Levin’s amendment
legalizes the status quo and rips this remedy from the States.
9. When our
Constitution was ratified,the new federal government acquired (from its
predecessor) the Western Territory (Federalist No. 7, 2nd & 3rd paras, and Federalist No. 43 at 5.) over which the new federal government was delegated,
by Art. IV, §3, general legislative powers.As the Territory was broken up into
new States, the general legislative powers would expire and sovereignty [except
as to the few powers delegated exclusively to the new federal government] would
be transferred to the new State.
10. Amendments to the Constitution generally increase
the powers of the federal government: They usher in implementing federal
statutes & executive agency regulations, and judicial power over the issue
is transferred to the federal courts. Art III, §2, cl.1, says, “The judicial
Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution …” Do you
really not see?
11. Article
I, §2, cl. 1, says:
“The House of Representatives shall
be composed of members chosen every second Year by the People of the several
States, and the Electors in each State
shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous
Branch of the State Legislature.” [boldface mine]
So! Whoever votes in elections for
their State House, is eligible to vote for members of the federal House of
Representatives. See also Federalist No. 57 (5th para) & Federalist No. 52 (2nd para).
12. Article
VI, cl. 2, the “supremacy clause”, states that only our Constitution, federal
laws made “in Pursuance” of the
Constitution, and Treaties made “under the Authority of
the United States”, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land. Supreme Court opinions are NEVER
part of the supreme Law of the Land! But we have wrongly made them the only Law of our Land.
Source:http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah128.htm
Publius Huldah is a retired attorney
who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in
philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology
(theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution,
using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also
shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and
replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h
E-Mail: publiushuldah@gmail.com
Comments:
I know the Georgia Legislature signed on to this Con Con,
but I side with Publius Huldah on this one.
The risk is too great. The Bolsheviks
are running the country and everybody is taking their multibillion dollar
bribes. This is not a good time for a Constitutional
Convention, even one with a supposed limited scope. We already have a Constitution we can no
longer afford to ignore. Returning the
federal government to limited Constitutional duties is the proper course and it
can and should be done by the States, even if that means they won’t get any
more federal bribes.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
