The Liberty Amendments
In The Liberty Amendments, Mark R. Levin affirms that when the first States met to discuss the possibility of establishing a confederation, they did so with much hope, but also a great amount of anxiety. The hope was that could form a federal government that could handle the few issues that were common to all States, but that could not be treated by the individual States. On the other hand, the fears were that this government could wield a tremendous amount of power; and that this power could be concentrated in the hands of very few; and that the federal government as a whole could end up overreaching its field of competence and interfere in matters that should be left to States and local governments (if not individuals themselves).
Thus the Constitution was framed in such a way that the power of the federal government would be divided between 3 separate branches – each acting as a check and balance on the power of the other. And the power of the federal government as a whole was limited to certain specific areas – all other areas were expressly left to the power of the States and local governments (and people).
During the last century, however, this original settlement in large part has been undone. After numerous constitutional amendments, In fact, and some loose interpretations of the Constitution, each of the branches of the federal government, in turn, usurped more power than ever before, and the federal government as a whole is routinely more involved, to the extent that now it is insinuated in virtually all aspects of life.
For the author and commentator Mark R. Levin it is time that we reverse this situation. For while those changes that were made, may have been to strengthen the nation, the fact is the changes have gone against the principles on which the nation was built, resulting in mostly negative outcomes. Specifically, increasing taxes, and perpetually growing debt.
According to the author the reform we need, runs deep. It is reform that must occur at the source: it is the Constitution itself that must be reformed. For a radical constitutional reform can only undo the radical reform and wrong that has come before.
Specifically, Levin proposes 11 constitutional amendments. They include: 1) limits on the terms for members of Congress; 2) the election of senators be returned to state legislatures; 3) limits for the Supreme Court Justice terms 4) federal spending limits 5) limiting taxation; 6) limits on how much power Congress may delegate to the federal bureaucracy; 7) limiting the federal government from interfering with the economic activity that does not belong to international or interstate commerce; 8) that the government compensate for the devaluation of property caused by regulations 9) allowing the States to amend the Constitution directly; 10) giving States the right to annul the laws and regulations of Congress with a qualified majority; 11) require that voters produce photo identification at elective offices.
Of course, the federal government cannot be expected to be the one to propose the changes (since many of the changes involve limiting the power of this government). Fortunately, however, there’s no need it; for the author points out that there are provisions under article V of the Constitution that allows the document to be amended not only at the urging of Congress, but at the behest of a Convention run by the state – and that is precisely what Levin is by pressing here.