The Constitutional Conundrum

Our founders, who labored long and hard to write the constitution of the United States, tried to fashion a document that limited the power of the central government in order to retain the freedom of the individual. For over two hundred years some American Citizens have worked to circumvent our constitution by adding more and more central government control, and in recent years have been quite successful by utilizing political action groups that want to advance that agenda.

Political action organizations lobby Congress for favorable legislation to advance their agenda and many times are financed by puppeteers behind the scenes in order to hide their true agenda. Since politicians only look at numbers of potential votes, and rarely read any legislation before Congress, these political organizations can wield real power to influence government policy.

A news report prompted me to write this article. The political action group ACORN, which was quite instrumental in helping to elect President Obama, won a decision by a Federal Court Judge yesterday who ruled the decision by Congress to withhold earmarked funds for ACORN, which was buried in legislation to stimulate the economy, was unconstitutional. That stimulus bill was passed this year by Congress, and signed into law by the president. You may remember how ACORN’s activities were discredited by some undercover videos that embarrassed many Congress people who probably never read the bill and didn’t realize the funds for ACORN were even contained in it. Those responsible for the earmark no longer wanted to be associated with ACORN (at least visibly) and joined other members in removing those funds.

The conundrum is this; ACORN, whose activities often try to circumvent our constitution, uses its constitutional rights to sue our government, and win!

I’m not a lawyer (thank God), but that judge may be correct in his/her decision because our founders created separate powers of government to protect us from dictators. This appears to be a case where more than half of our representatives wanted the funding hidden in the bill, or were more concerned with re-election than attending to their job. That’s really not too surprising, but that is how modern Washington works and it has destroyed our Republic.

This ruling forces American taxpayers to finance the activities of ACORN whether they agree with their agenda or not. How about this; we make Congress itself, the income tax code, and the FED unconstitutional. The games our politicians play make carneys on the midway look like saints.

Party politics, and indifference by American Citizens, is the reason our Republic has evolved into a Representative Democracy that is not working, and even our Democracy is on the verge of evolving into something worse, like Fascism or Socialism. Wake up America; get your head out of the sand! A free society can only exist when more than 50% care enough about liberty to retain it.

Generally politicians use slight of hand when promising things for votes, but President Obama told us exactly what his plan was to transform America. Many supporters of the President, and voters who comprise the Democratic base, such as ACORN, actively support Socialism and re-distribution of wealth, but what about all the other people-what did they hear? As usual in presidential elections too many people didn’t listen, they voted for a charismatic person who promised hope. Had they listened they would have heard candidate Obama’s views about our Constitution as well as many other leftist positions.

Our Constitution was written to protect our liberties, but indifference and greed on the part of American Citizens as politicians offer up goodies for votes, has destroyed our economy, our financial system, and is definitely unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it say government should provide anything except opportunity to its citizens, and definitely it does not force them to buy something.

Many political decisions to circumvent our constitution have occurred through the years but maybe the most blatant one, which turned our Republic in a completely opposite direction, was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to force American Citizens to buy something. It was the enactment of the FICA (Social Security) that forced Americans to buy retirement insurance, which has turned out to be nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme.

This was the point in the evolution of our country when progressive politicians learned how to use an emergency to inject more government control (unconstitutionally). Sometimes government resources are needed in emergencies like wars, natural disasters, and possibly economic downturns, but should not infringe on our Constitution. Government resources should be used, only when necessary, to help private businesses solve an emergency; think for a moment if FICA had been structured to be managed by private insurance companies and allowed to compete for maximum efficiency, would we have a retirement system that today has unfunded promises (deficit) of $14,000,000,000,000 plus another $74,000,000,000,000 for Medicare that was added to the program in the 1960’s?

When President Obama said, during the campaign, that our Constitution needed to be more flexible because it only deals with what government can’t do to you rather than what government should do for you, is really telling about the progressive agenda. The progressives have many emergencies today to allow them to add more and more government control; if we let them! Only when enough citizens take the time to listen and really understand what is being said, and stop using hope for solutions, can we restore our economy and our liberties.

This article was produced by Geezil, the Head Master of the GeezilSchool.

Democrats Play A Weak Hand

Our U.S. senators are on standby at the Capitol this morning, sacrificing their Independence Day recess to show that they are ready to act on a deficit-reduction package that is nowhere in sight.

Members of the House of Representatives have the day off.

While the Democrat-controlled Senate abruptly canceled this week’s recess to back up President Obama’s demand that Congress act quickly on the deficit and the federal debt limit, House Republican leaders were not inclined to ruin a long holiday weekend just to put on a show. Besides, the House was scheduled to be back in session tomorrow anyway, unlike the Senate, which had planned to take this entire week off.

As the clock ticks down to Aug. 2, when the Treasury says the national credit line will be maxed out, each political party accuses the other of posturing, which is true, and of blindly following its core ideology, also true. The political branches of government, like the electorate, are split more or less down the middle over two conflicting sets of priorities. Republicans want to cut as much federal spending as they can, and Democrats, though conceding that they will have to cut a lot, want to preserve as much as they can.

Although the split is fairly even, Republicans have a decisive advantage in the battle over what mix of spending cuts and tax increases should accompany any rise in the debt ceiling. The simple fact is that Democrats want to raise the debt limit a lot more than the Republicans do. It is not a coincidence that the Democratic Senate is at the office today, while the Republican House enjoys an extended holiday.

In politics, as in business and many other areas of life, the side with the greater desire to complete a deal usually ends up making most of the concessions.

I learned this a long time ago by observing an elderly man, a former high-powered executive, who signed a “reconciliation agreement” to get back his one-time trophy wife after she left him. The agreement gave her a large annual stipend, the home of her choice, and specified time off each year so she could spend time with her friends. In return, she stayed in the marital home and, in my direct observation, treated her husband like dirt. He knew she treated him like dirt, but insisted to his dying day that he preferred the arrangement to being alone.

After a free-spending period while George W. Bush occupied the White House, Republicans have caught the balanced-budget fever, so much so that they are calling for a constitutional amendment to mandate a balanced federal budget. (1) A constitutional amendment would be a terrible idea, because it would put government policy in a straitjacket. It also has no chance whatsoever of passing, so Republicans can call for it without having to worry about living with the results.

But refusing to raise the federal debt ceiling would accomplish pretty much the same thing as a balanced budget amendment. Instantly, Washington would have to limit the amount it spends to the amount it takes in. New money could be borrowed only as old debts are repaid. Because of the considerable interest expense on more than $14 trillion of existing federal debt, current spending on government programs would have to be slashed to a level well below what the government collects in taxes.

Balancing the budget cold-turkey like this will mean an immediate cut of more than 40 percent in federal outlays, a cut so large that the consequences would have to be immediate and drastic. Benefits like Social Security probably would not be paid in full and on time. Men and women in military service might miss a paycheck, too. Farm programs, highway construction, student loans and other federal outlays would dry up. Trade and transportation might be disrupted as customs and immigration workers are furloughed. Forget about all that stepped-up border security. If we really have to choose between defending against terrorists and defending against busboys and gardeners, the latter are going to make it into the United States.

Will failing to raise the debt ceiling automatically throw the country into default as the Treasury fails to meet its obligations? The administration says yes, raising the threat of financial Armageddon if the national credit rating is cut, which would be an immediate and unavoidable reaction to any default.

Default, however, would be a choice rather than a consequence if the debt ceiling stays where it is. The Treasury will still have ample money coming in to pay interest on government obligations as they are due. Maturing debt can be replaced with new debt. If nobody else will buy that debt, we can be pretty confident the Federal Reserve will. Credit rating agencies don’t care about any delay in Social Security payments.

Nobody wants any of these drastic things to happen. Even the Republicans who are calling for a balanced budget amendment are not calling for an instantly balanced budget.

But many in the GOP would be prepared to live with these consequences, even another severe recession, if it meant establishing long-term control over federal spending. For Democrats, on the other hand, failing to raise the debt ceiling and keep the federal money spigot open would be an unmitigated disaster. The poor, elderly and working class Americans that Democrats claim as their base would suffer the worst financial harm, and the party’s chance of keeping control of the White House and Senate next year would be virtually nil. Obama would go into next year’s campaign as a modern-day Herbert Hoover.

So while both sides want a deal, only one side desperately needs one. When you have a weak hand, the only things you can do are bluff or fold. Right now Democrats are bluffing, saying, as the president did again over the weekend, (2) that any agreement will have to include tax increases as well as significant spending cuts. Republicans, who have no need to bluff because they hold most of the good cards, are not buying it.

Obama and his allies will ultimately have to fold, as they did in December when the president agreed to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts for two years despite opposition from many is his own party. I don’t think the final deal on the debt ceiling will include any broad-based tax increases. The only question is how long it will take, and how much damage will be done, before everyone lays their cards on the table.


1) The Christian Science Monitor, “GOP intensifies push for a balanced budget amendment. Why now?”

2) Yahoo News, “Obama: ‘Nothing can be off-limits’ in budget”

Democrats Respect Miles’ Law

Hypocrisy and politics are, if not bedfellows, at least very comfortable travelling companions.

Witness, for example, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Schumer is widely considered to be next in line as the leader of the Senate Democrats, particularly if his party should regain the majority this year. After the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Schumer wasted no time in pushing for the sitting president to offer a nomination for Scalia’s replacement.

“The Constitution does not say a president is elected for four years but can only act and fulfill his constitutional responsibilities for three years,” Schumer said at an event in Fulton County on the Monday following Scalia’s death. (1) Many in his party have gone further, demanding that the Senate promptly act on any Obama nominee this year.

Schumer’s position back in 2007, when George W. Bush had more than a year remaining in his term, was exactly the opposite. Schumer demanded that the then-narrow Democratic majority not act on any further Bush nominations to the Supreme Court. Of course, in 2007, the scenario was purely hypothetical; there were no further vacancies on the court during Bush’s term.

Critics have been quick to raise the subject of Schumer’s 2007 remarks, but the senator insists that his stances are not inconsistent. “I simply said that everybody has the right to vote no,” Schumer said in response to the criticism. (1) This account of his own remarks qualifies as revisionist history, at best. What Schumer actually said was “we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except under extraordinary circumstances.” Presumably, such extraordinary circumstances would have been the nomination by a Republican president of someone put forth by, say, a group as liberal as That would certainly have been extraordinary.

This isn’t the only fact-fudging being undertaken by Schumer’s side of the political divide. Democrats and liberals have accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., of saying Obama should not send a nominee to the Senate during the remainder of his term. This is not what McConnell actually said. What McConnell said on Saturday is pretty much what Schumer said back in 2007: “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” (2)

Obama has the constitutional right – some would argue the duty – to nominate a candidate to fill Scalia’s seat. But the Senate is under no specific obligation to take up such a nominee at any particular time. Even if Obama nominates someone next week, the Senate is perfectly within its rights to delay a vote, or even a hearing, until after the November election.

This seems to be exactly how Senate Republicans plan to proceed. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has the power to block a vote in committee and has indicated he plans to use it, while McConnell has already shown himself willing and able to prevent confirmations of judicial appointments at all levels. There seems to be nothing stopping Republicans from simply letting any Obama nomination languish at least until next Thanksgiving’s turkeys are on their way to market or on the table.

At that point, if a Republican has won the White House, Obama’s nomination will be dead on arrival, just like his recently announced budget, which is likewise full of political nonstarters, and which neither house is willing to waste time siting in hearings to consider. On the other hand, if Obama nominates a genuine judicial moderate and the Democrats happen to win both the White House and a Senate majority to take effect next year, McConnell and his fellow Republicans might decide that Obama’s selection is the best deal they are going to get. In that case, they can vote to confirm the nominee before the end of the current congressional term. This latter possibility, however remote, is incentive enough for Obama to select somebody who is at least conceivably confirmable given the current Senate makeup.

Far from being anti-democratic, the Republicans’ refusal to advance a Supreme Court nominee until after the election would turn the November balloting into a national referendum on what kind of Supreme Court, and in fact what kind of government, Americans want. Obviously, they are hoping for a certain outcome – but their Democratic counterparts would do the same were their positions reversed.

Democrats’ bleating to the contrary can be viewed as a mixture of posturing for their base and simple hypocrisy. Or maybe, to be a little kinder, we can call it an invocation of “Miles’ Law.” Rufus Miles Jr., a Truman-era bureaucrat and writer, coined the famous observation, “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” In this case, where you stand depends on whether you sit on the majority or minority side of the Senate aisle and whether a president of your party sits in the Oval Office. Those positions can certainly change in nine years, as Schumer’s display of malleable principles clearly illustrates.


1) Time Warner Cable News, “Schumer Attempts to Clarify Supreme Court Vacancy Comments”

2) Politico, “McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama”

How To Slash Taxes, Permanently, and Fix the Fatal Flaw In the Constitution

The Constitution established the principle that our Federal government only has those powers granted to it by the sovereign people. The Bill of Rights forbade government from making any laws that violated our fundamental political rights such as freedom of speech and the press. It established the principle that we have inviolate individual and political rights that are outside government’s control.

But the Constitution had a fatal flaw — it did not put economic liberty outside government’s control. It gave the federal government the power to coin money, “promote the general welfare,” and “regulate commerce” among the states. Our Founding Fathers could not foresee how these powers would be turned against us. They could not foresee how today’s liberals, Democrats, and Republicans would use these economic powers to create our devouring socialist Welfare/Entitlement State.

Most Americans condemn Communist governments for violating their citizen-slaves’ political rights and liberty. Censorship, secret police, a one-party system, rigged courts, and suppression of free speech and a free press are the standard vicious and painfully obvious characteristics of such regimes.

In Communist countries, the close connection between political liberty and property rights is also obvious. In Cuba and North Korea, the economy and political power are one and the same. The Communist party makes most economic decisions for millions of helpless citizen-slaves. It decides where a person will work, what he can buy, where he can live, how much he’ll be paid, and thousands of other economic decisions that Americans make for themselves and take for granted (although Congress is now increasingly strangling our economic freedom with suffocating regulations).

A Communist government therefore has the power of life or death over every man, woman, and child in the country. It can fire someone from his job and not let him work anywhere else. It can lower a worker’s wages or cut off a retiree’s pension. It can dictate who goes to college and who becomes a laborer. The government can take someone out of the factory and force him to work in the fields, as they did in Cuba, Cambodia, and the Soviet Union.

Through this awesome economic power, a Communist government can sentence a man and his family to death by slow starvation without bothering with legal proceedings. Without property rights and economic liberty, political rights are meaningless.

Most people who are forced to choose between food and free speech will choose food. The communist Cuban government has a constitution that supposedly guarantees political rights, but this constitution is not worth the paper it’s written on. Cubans are already slaves through their government’s total economic power over them.

In welfare/entitlement states around the world, including ours, the same connection exists between political rights and economic liberty. But in a welfare/entitlement state, people still have some political rights and a semi-free economy. As a result, in America we find it harder to believe that government threatens our political rights when it violates our property rights. In a welfare/entitlement state, it’s harder to see the link between political rights and economic liberty.

Welfare/entitlement states have economic powers that are similar to those in Communist countries. France, Germany, and other European welfare/entitlement states regulate wages, heath care, employment policies, product standards, safety standards, transportation, the environment, and most other areas of it’s citizens’ lives. They also loot their citizen’s earnings through taxes to pay for all the welfare and entitlement programs.

A welfare/entitlement state differs from a Communist government only by degree–it’s just a milder version of the same poison. Both have the same goals–to allegedly “help” people in “need,” and both use the same means–compulsion. The difference between the two is how much force the government uses, and whether force is imposed by the communist party or by majority rule.

To confirm this, try not paying your income taxes or refuse to obey some regulation and see what happens. If you resist the tax collectors, you’ll end up dead or in jail. When government withholds income taxes from your paycheck to pay for welfare, subsidy, or entitlement programs, it violates your property rights and economic liberty. Income taxes are simply legalized looting by our own government.

It doesn’t matter that a Communist government owns all property while a “democratic” welfare/entitlement state “allows” private property. What’s important is not who owns property, but who controls it. When taxes confiscate up to 50 percent of your income, as they now do in America, you own only 50 percent of what you earn. When government bureaucrats can control your property with strangling regulations, your ownership is meaningless–your hard-earned paycheck or profits are up for grabs by Federal and state tax looter-collectors.

We all spend what we earn on ourselves and our families. Who in his right mind would give away up to 50 percent of his hard-earned money to pay for other peoples’ education, food stamps, subsidized rents, farm subsidies, health insurance, savings and loan bailouts, or retirement benefits? No one would, and that’s why force is necessary through compulsory income taxes.

Every penny that an alleged “democratic” welfare/entitlement state takes from you by majority-rule force represents a theft of your most precious possession–time. It represents a theft of part of your life, the part you spent earning that money. Welfare/entitlement-state liberals, democrats, and too many Republicans assume that you don’t own the money you earn, and therefore that you don’t own your life. They assume that your duty in life is to work for the benefit of others, not for yourself or your family. They assume that you are your brother’s keeper, whether you like it or not. When welfare/entitlement state bureaucrats loot over 40 percent of your income with taxes, it means you’re a slave working for others for almost five months of every year of your life.

To stop this injustice, once and for all, we have to forbid government from violating our economic liberty. The way to do this is to build a thick wall between government and the economy with a constitutional amendment, similar to the First Amendment that separates Church and State. We desperately need a constitutional amendment that separates the Economy from the State, and creates an inviolable protection for our property rights.

Our religious beliefs are off-limits to government meddlers because of the First Amendment. Similarly, under this new “economic rights” amendment to the Constitution, our paychecks, business profits, and anything else we earn would be ours by right and off-limits to government tax collectors.

Under such a Constitutional amendment, Congress and state governments would be forbidden from raising or using any tax money to give any economic handout or subsidy to any group whatsoever. Under this Amendment, Congress and state governments would be forbidden from giving any welfare, subsidies, entitlement payments, tax breaks, or any other form of money transfer to farmers, welfare mothers, college students, illegal aliens, public schools, big corporations, or any other group that now sticks its hand out for unearned benefits from our politicians. Congress and state legislators would be out of the Santa Claus business with other people’s money.

With such an Amendment in place, special-interest lobbyists would disappear. Just as the Supreme Court overturns any law that violates the wall between Church and State today, it would slap down any welfare, subsidy, or “entitlement” program to any special-interest group or corporation whatsoever, including middle-class programs like Medicare.

Lobbyists would then quickly realize the futility of wasting their time trying to buy or bribe a Congressman or state legislator to pass a law that gave his group a special handout or subsidy paid for by the rest of us. Handouts and organized government looting would be outlawed by this Amendment. Social Security (a combination “insurance” and partial-welfare program), to which millions of hard-working Americans made contributions during their lifetime, would be privatized and phased out, while protecting existing retirees’ current benefits.

When the organized looting of the Welfare/Entitlement state is outlawed by this Constitutional amendment, we could then eliminate the income tax, permanently. The vast majority of money that Congress and state governments spend today is for welfare, subsidy, or entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, welfare programs, “public” education, foreign aid, corporate subsidies, ad nauseam. Once we eliminated these looting programs or privatized them, we could slash taxes to the bone. Our trillion-dollar budgets with 400 billion dollar deficits could be reduced down to pennies on the dollar, with no more deficits. Slash government’s spending orgy for the welfare/entitlement state, and we can slash taxes and explode our productivity and standard of living for rich and poor alike.

So what we need to end the legalized looting of the welfare/entitlement state that is bankrupting our nation is a new Constitutional amendment that separates Economy and State, similar to the separation of Church and State. Then we can all once again keep what we earn. Government looters could not steal our hard-earned money in the name of “helping” others, by turning compassion into compulsion..

The Constitutional Resurgence

We lost the election in November because the GOP failed to see the tyranny going on in this country and they gave up on the Judeo-Christian values that this nation was founded on. Conservatism is the answer to the question the Republican establishment keeps asking about what is needed to align the party with the will of the people. Yet it’s the one answer they are unwilling to accept. They overlook the obvious when seeking why the party lost in 2012. Establishment Republicans, also known as r.i.n.o.s, want to re-brand the Republican Party by surrendering our principles. These moderate Republicans want us to abandon our religious freedoms through Obamacare which forces businesses and organizations to pay for abortions and birth control and similarly abandon our second amendment rights with insane new gun laws. These same Republicans want to make the party become pro-choice, pro-amnesty, pro-gay marriage and pro tax the so-called-rich: in other words they want us to become Democrats. How do Republicans win again? What message will reach the modern American people? What the moderates continuously fail to see is the solution needs a philosophical base.

Preeminent constitutional scholar, best selling author and talk show host, Mark Levin says “Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny.” Mark Levin’s books about judicial activism, liberty and conservatism are eloquent, artistic, literary masterpieces that started an intellectual movement all across our nation. His writings played a significant role in winning the House of Representatives back in 2010. There is a reason why he is called The Great One. Levin is a contemporary Shakespeare whose books should be left out on your desk like your Bible, dictionary, thesaurus or Constitution. They should be a reference that should be looked at time and time again if not daily.

Mark Levin’s radio show is equally brilliant as he fearlessly faces the enemies of liberty head on. The airwaves broadcast poetic creative genius combined with solid logic and reason about what Levin calls the post constitutional America. Mark Levin uses his show to dissect history and philosophy. He takes the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention and ties it in to current events in a way that has never been done before. Then he packages all of this in a fun way with his own unique wit and charm. When Levin reads to us about Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams, and the others, he does it in a way that paints a vivid picture so that in the audience’s imagination one is transported to Independence Hall in the late 1700′s. You can almost smell and feel the air in the room and hear the voices back at the Constitutional Convention when he speaks about these matters and brings them to life.

Mark has a unique relationship with what he calls his “beloved audience.” It reminds me of the relationship President Reagan had with the American people. His audience absolutely treasures him. I have seen many other moderate Republican authors try to unsuccessfully duplicate this relationship with their readers and become angry and jealous when they don’t achieve it. [Cough, David Frum, Cough] What they don’t understand is that they don’t have Mark Levin’s heart. One only needs to read Rescuing Sprite or listen to one episode of his radio show to see how much love and loyalty Mr. Levin shows to his family, his friends, his fans, his pets and his country. I greatly admire and respect this man. I truly believe that history looking back on these years will reflect that Mark Levin played a crucial role in saving this great nation through educating and rallying the citizens the way Thomas Paine inspired Americans during the beginning of the revolution. Personally, I was crushed and in tears on election night when Obama won. I couldn’t have made it through the last few months without the comfort of this show and I know I’m not alone. For so many he is a daily source for wisdom, guidance and counsel, a source for hope and inspiration in these dark days that haunt us.

And It doesn’t stop there. Mark Levin is also president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a tax exempt organization that fights to preserve constitutional principles. Landmark is a watchdog going after the NEA the EPA and other big government organizations. On January 25, 2013 A federal appeals court ruled that President Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board. Landmark argued in its brief that the President’s use of the Constitution’s “recess appointments” clause violated the restrictions placed by the Constitution on that power. The Court adopted Landmark Legal Foundation’s argument in full.

What I believe I am watching and witnessing first hand is what I call the reawakening of Enlightenment. This is a cultural conservative movement and the moderates will need to join us or step aside! Levin has found a way to make the philosophers from the age of reason and enlightenment cool to a whole new generation. Mr. Levin never gets bogged down in the daily nonsense. If you are looking to avoid gossip on Lance Armstrong’s lies or Manti Teo’s imaginary girlfriend, his show will be one of the only places to find relief from this garbage. In the days of Kim Kardashian, Justin Bieber and what Rush Limbaugh calls the low information voter, Levin has found a way to make the Second Treatise cool to teenagers and upcoming twenty -something hipsters. While Katy Perry sings about her breakups and Beyonce is lip syncing, an underground movement is brewing of unexpected intellectuals learning to fall in love with Bastiat, Alexis de Tocqueville and Montesquieu. A patriotic passion for our framers and the Constitution is lighting up all over this great land of ours. Levin awakens the sleeping masses one by one as people begin to see these philosophers in a whole new light and finally see their impact and influence on our founding fathers. Slowly, I see people undergoing this new affinity with our Constitution and its drafters. Now that we feel this cloud of tyranny, the realization occurs that this freedom we have taken for granted is now slipping away, but this army of citizens can now relate to the framers more than ever before. This is the rebirth of the love of liberty and Levin is leading the charge. He is our conservative pugnacious pit bull, our General Patton, our warrior William Wallace guiding and directing our fight to save the USA.

Mark Levin served in the Justice Department under the wonderful Ed Meese during the Reagan administration. The Reagan spirit is still alive in Levin and in all of us as well. Ronald Reagan once said “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” Mark Levin reminds us every night that we the people can preserve the civil society and reestablish the Constitution. We will not be the generation to lose liberty. Freedom will not die on our watch! We will fight to pass this torch to our children. This fight will be long and arduous but we shall overcome. Together all of us in his infantry, Levin’s beloved audience, will put Obama, the masterminds and the statists on the ash heap of history.

Electoral College Constitutional Abuses

Please put aside all bias in order to appreciate these findings as research potentially valuable to any political agenda.

The only “absolute” required is to understand and believe the founding fathers intended the Constitution of the United States of America to be the “supreme law of the land.”

– The Electors

Immediately there is a major contradiction between the Constitutional directives as to how Electors are chosen, but more importantly the function each performs.

Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

[Article. XII.] [Proposed 1803; Ratified 1804]

“The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; – The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; – The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice…..”

As of June 15, 2008 only ELEVEN States are needed to win the Presidency. If we, the voters took a more active role in what our elected officials are doing on both the state and federal level the end of multi-billion dollar campaigns and the “winner take all” system would be over.

– Here Is Why

Again, the search seems to substantiate our Primary Election is when we elect our local State Legislature and Congressional Representatives. An entire article waits explaining why the Senate was never intended to be elected by the people at large. Today those reasons are more significant than ever. Now is the time to become more political active.

The Constitution says our State Legislature appoints our Electors. Here to fore we have only one choice for the Presidential Candidate, and maybe he/she wasn’t our first choice. The party mostly votes in favor of that choice out of tradition.

– We Have the Power

“We” have some influence with our State Legislatures. When the majority of the constituency informs its local representative of their concerns ‘our’ voice will be heard. At least we have an opportunity to add our candidates name to those being considered by our state legislature.

This way our Electors go to Washington with votes for two or more candidates for each office. It certainly seems reasonable other States would have multiple candidates among their votes.

A more qualified, but under funded candidate could very deservingly win the election

I want my vote to count as much as anyone else, all we have to do is vote constitutionally.

Constitutional Amendment

A few years ago, the mayor of San Francisco ordered his staff to issue licenses and conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples thereby violating the existing law of California. This illegal act by Mayor Newsom, who apparently considered himself above the law, provided the notoriety he sought to set the stage for his ambitious political future. The liberal press called him one of the Democratic party’s rising young stars. His recent election as lieutenant governor isn’t usually considered a stepping stone to the governor’s office, but will work for him. Support by influential political blocks of gays and lesbians in San Francisco and Southern California, and Jerry Brown’s third term as governor will favor his political ambitions. To counter politically oriented announcements by Mayor Newsom that he violated the existing California law banning same-sex marriage because he thought it unconstitutional, President Bush requested Congress take action to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban it. Whether or not a law is constitutional or unconstitutional is the sole responsibility of the judiciary, but no action was taken against Newsom for his transgression. Perhaps we need a reminder of the burden facing our forefathers in giving birth to the United States Constitution in order to look objectively at the problem. I’d like to highlight some of the problems that will entangle our legal system, and then provide some thoughts to a solution.

The Constitution, which was effective as of 1789, provided the framework to establish the United States of America. Our country, however, came into existence only with a series of great compromises. After declaring independence from England July 4, 1776, then fighting the Revolutionary War, the 13 original colonies became a Confederation of the United States under the Articles of Confederation of 1781. The government of the union, formed during Revolutionary War, lacked authority to legislate for the country in vital matters and our colonial leaders recognized that if we were to survive as a nation drastic revisions had to be made. To accomplish this, a Constitutional Convention opened in 1787 in Philadelphia. Insurmountable problems surfaced immediately. The first pertained to the legislature. One plan called for a bicameral legislature with a House of Representatives elected by popular vote and a Senate elected by House members. This plan didn’t set well with less populated states because it would have given more populous states control of the legislature. A second plan, supported by less populous southern states, favored a unicameral legislature providing equal representation. This wasn’t acceptable to northern states as it gave too much power to lesser populated states. A compromise consisted of establishing a Senate with two senators for each state and a House of Representatives in proportion to population. Our House of Representatives, therefore is democratic, but our Senate is not. In modern times, two of our most powerful Senators in Congress were from North Dakota and West Virginia, among our less populated states. Those Senators certainly represented their constituents but hardly the people of the United States.

Sectional economies brought another compromise that could not be overcome without the framers of the Constitution essentially selling their souls. To get the approval of the less populous southern states, the northern states were required to placate them to agree to prohibit the federal government from levying export taxes on southern products like tobacco and cotton, and from interfering with the slave trade before the year 1808. There are some who might argue that acknowledging slavery in the Constitution was in itself unconstitutional. Article I recognized slaves not as free persons, but authorized counting them as three-fifths of a person, thereby increasing southern representation in Congress. This compromise to slave states was deemed necessary to gain enough support in order to insure adoption of the Constitution. Otherwise, it was argued, the birth of the United States of America would not have happened. Adoption of the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) was promised as a compromise to those who feared a strong federal government. They were adopted in 1791, almost immediately after ratification of the Constitution itself. Over the next 220 years, there have been seventeen additional amendments.

When President Bush requested congress start procedures to amend the Constitution banning same-sex marriage, political rhetoric opposing it said it would be the first time the Constitution would ever be used to take away the rights of individuals. Those allegations don’t hold up. Amendment 16 of the Constitution, ratified February 13, 1913, states, “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes….” certainly is not a right I would have welcomed if I had had a say in the matter. The 28th Amendment, ratified January 16, 1919, prohibited “….the manufacture or transportation of intoxicating liquors….” was not a right given to the people, but one taken away, until it was repealed December 5, 1933 by Amendment 21.

The legal problems faced by same-sex couples who were declared, “spouses for life,” in those San Francisco ceremonies are enormous especially if they end up in divorce court in any of the thirty eight states that ban same-sex marriage. So the question is, if Mayor Newsom’s action was illegal, are, “spouses for life,” unions also illegal? Should Congress now act on former President Bush’s request and consider a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? It will make little difference whether banning same-sex marriage becomes law or not because that won’t solve the conflict.

We should, therefore, consider a compromise solution as the founders of the United States of America did. One approach would be to provide a constitutional amendment authorizing legal unions between couples of the same sex, encompassing every legal right enjoyed by men and women joined in legal marital status in all fifty states, but omitting the word, “marriage.” This will satisfy many heterosexuals who oppose those unions for religious or traditionally historic grounds because of that word, but recognize the need to provide legitimate legal rights to everyone. On the other hand, advocates of same-sex unions must compromise their position of declaring the word, “marriage,” as a, “right,” denied them. This solution, or anything similar, will not come about as long as professional lawyers are involved in the conflict. Perhaps the problem could be resolved by another constitutional convention like that of 1787 Philadelphia?

Constitution of India and Its Key Features

The Constitution of India lays down the supreme legal framework that governs India. It establishes the basic political principles and fundamental structure, procedure, powers and duties of the government of India. It also grants fundamental rights and imposes some fundamental duties on all Indian citizens. Further, it provides for Directive Principles of State Policy. The Directive Principles are a set of guidelines for the Central and the State Governments. They should comply with these guidelines before formulating new laws and policies.

The Constitution of India establishes India as a secular, democratic and sovereign nation. Further, it ensures equality liberty and justice to all Indian citizens. It also promotes unity, integrity, secularism, socialism and democracy.

Highlights of Constitution of India

Here are some highlights of the Constitution of India:


The Preamble of Constitution of India comprise of the following:

• Equality: Equal opportunity and social status for all Indian citizens.

• Justice: Social, political and economic justice.

• Fraternity: This guarantees individual’s dignity and country’s unity.

• Liberty: Liberty to all Indian citizens for freedom of expression, religion, speech, and beliefs.

Fundamental Rights

The Constitution of India grants seven fundamental rights to Indian citizens, to promote democracy in the country, such as:

• Right to Education.

• Right to Equality.

• Right to Freedom from Exploitation.

• Right to Freedom of Religion.

• Right to Particular Freedom.

• Cultural and Educational Rights.

• Right to Constitutional Remedies.

Fundamental Duties

The Indian Constitution also imposes some fundamental duties along with the grant of fundamental rights. These duties are moral obligations imposed to encourage spirit of unity and national integrity.

Directive Principles

The Directive Principles of State Policy are included in part IV of Indian Constitution, play an important role in governance of the country. The government of India complies with these principles while framing legislations. The Directive Principles of Indian Constitution are based on the Directive Principles of Constitution of Ireland and relate to economic progress, social justice, foreign policy, administrative and legal matters.

State Intervention on Humanitarian Areas

The limited but growing recognition of the possibility of intervention on humanitarian grounds is the first crack in the arguments used to support the principle of no intervention. In addition, as more and more nations formally embrace democratic ideals, the first two factors listed above are losing much of their force. As most countries want to trade with the outside world, the third factor becomes a two-edged sword would-be intervenient may be less dependent on bilateral trade than the states which are the targets of intervention. The problems referred to in the fourth factor are not as insurmountable as they might once have seemed (as evidenced by, for example, the fact that the African National Congress (ANC) was seen in many international forums as the legitimate voice of the black majority of South Africa). The final factor remains an important one and the resolution of this inconsistency depends on the development of constitutional theory and the development of new institutions, the reform of old institutions and/or the increased utilization of existing institutions.

Nonetheless, within 10-20 years, the prior successful use of force will be as contemptible a claim to recognition in international law as it is within the domestic constitutional law of existing democracies. Within 20 years, it will be impracticable for authoritarian regimes to overthrow democratic regimes because of the consequent denial of recognition and, to a lesser extent, because the intervention of others will ‘be unequivocally sanctioned. During that period, the justification for what we would now call ‘intervention’ will have been properly worked out as part of the emerging international constitutional jurisprudence.

The full acceptance of this principle means that a government only represents internationally those whose consent it has sought and gained. This would involve little change for democratic regimes. For undemocratic regimes it would mean that the government would be seen as representing only those whose consent it has sought, be it a party, an ethnic group or a restricted franchise. This allows no democratic regimes to be recognized as representing one or more groups within the geographical area of the relevant state with a current capacity to dominate other groups. However, a government that has not sought a mandate from a group of people would not be seen as speaking for those so excluded.

This leaves obvious lacunae for those whose consent the government has not sought. It opens the way for others to claim to represent those whose consent has not been sought by the government. In some cases, such credentials would be easily established. Where a democratically elected government is ousted in a military coup, members of that government or their accredited representatives still at large would speak for that government.

In most cases, it is not nearly so clear who will have the right to speak for those whose consent the government has not sought. It is part of the nature of dictatorships and oligarchies that they will use force to prevent and intimidate the processes by which such credentials could be established.

There will usually be a number of voices claiming to speak for the unrepresented in a number of overlapping ways. Sometimes, there will be a body that represents the bulk of the people in one sphere of life that comes to speak more broadly -such as the Catholic Church in communist Poland and COSATU in South Africa.

This means that the excluded will not speak with a strong, clear and unified voice. However, that is no reason for not listening to them. In particular, those who try to suppress those voices have no standing to suggest that the lack of clarity should be held against those voices which can still be heard.

Constitutional Traitors

In recent days the idea of using the Article V convention option in the Constitution received support in an article by Texas US Senator John Cornyn published on the Fox News website. He noted “Recent polling suggests that a plurality of Americans support a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution if Congress will not do so.” He made a good case for using the convention option by saying it “would be part of a national conversation that could last well beyond one or two election cycles. The very length of the convention and ratification process would allow the American people ample opportunity to judge proposed reforms, and ensure that they would strengthen the checks and balances that have served our nation well.”

A few days later, on the pages of the Wall Street Journal a strong case was made for a “repeal amendment” that would give state legislatures the power to veto federal laws, something worth proposing. Though the oped by a professor and the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates did not say so, obviously Congress would never propose such an amendment. That means using an Article V convention whereby state delegates could propose new amendments just as Congress has done, which the Speaker has acknowledged elsewhere.

At the same time a policy report from the Goldwater Institute recommended that “states seriously consider” using the convention option “to restrain the federal government.”

So the issue of using this convention option that Congress has refused to convene despite hundreds of state applications and that establishment powers on the political left and right have long opposed merits serious examination. Start with this: Americans overwhelmingly say they love and respect the Constitution and usually specific amendments, though often different ones on the political left and right. Three frameworks help understanding why most Americans oppose using the Article V convention option. Two explain why convention proponents have not been able to impact most opponents that fit these two frameworks. I offer a third framework or plan of attack which I believe will work.

First, consider the craziness framework. Many Americans have been taught to fear using the convention option, even though it has never been used. They are irrational. This is like being afraid to eat the fruit of the constitutional tree first planted by the Founders even though no one has ever tasted or been harmed by the fruit. Such people stubbornly think they are acting rationally; I think they are crazy and irrational. This delusional thinking based on what is imagined to might happen is not easily changed, because such people have been purposefully and successfully brainwashed. They have an emotional block.

Rather than fear a runaway convention, people should fear our runaway politicians and government. As quoted in the Goldwater Institute paper Ann Stuart Diamond pointed out that the interpretation that an Article V convention would or could rewrite the whole Constitution “is often a rhetorical ploy to terrify sensible people.” The convention can only offer specific amendments. It is time for Americans to recognize their fear of a convention as having no basis in fact. And that those promoting fear themselves fear the reforms in government that a convention could propose.

Second, consider the analytic framework. Many Americans use what they think are rational, substantive arguments. Convention proponents use facts based on the exact language in Article V or other historical facts to objectively contradict wrong-headed thinking. But correcting the record has not worked sufficiently, largely because opponents invent their own facts, ignore correct ones, and consume disinformation disseminated by convention opponents. They have an intellectual block. Cognitive dissonance works to prevent the pain of accepting new information incompatible with their negative views about a convention.

We should not invite, respect or participate in arguments by opponents that fit these two frameworks. We should, in particular, recognize and condemn morally offensive fear mongering used intentionally by convention opponents. Convention opponents seeking protection of their ability to influence the political system and selling fear and disinformation must face their constitutional guilt.

Converting convention opponents to proponents requires a paradigm change, which is very difficult. However, the current justified high level of dissatisfaction with government, politicians and both major political parties and the strong desire for reform of government justify use of a new approach.

The patriotic framework better gets to the root of the problem from a rule of law perspective. Rather than condemn convention opponents as irrational or ignorant, we condemn unpatriotic constitutional hypocrites. When they openly oppose the convention option they are constitutional traitors.

With the patriotic framework we take advantage of frequent strong public support for constitutional amendments not proposed by Congress, including these: In 1996, 74 percent of Americans favored a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the US Senate could serve. In 2005, 76 percent favored an amendment to allow voluntary prayer in public schools, and in 1983 81 percent favored it. In both 2000 and 2004 61 percent favored amending the Constitution so that the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes would win, replacing the Electoral College. In 1995, a balanced budget amendment passed the House but failed to meet the two-thirds requirement in the Senate by a single vote; this year there is a strong national movement to get it and a number of other amendments that would surely earn broad public support.

The basis for the new framework is this: Virtually everyone professes respect and admiration for the US Constitution and knows that it includes a process for amending it. But if someone opposes using the Article V convention option, then he or she is an unpatriotic constitutional hypocrite. When they openly oppose a convention they are a constitutional traitor replacing the Founders thinking with theirs, putting themselves above the law.

Moreover, it is impermissible to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are supported and obeyed. Similarly, elected public officials who swear obedience to the Constitution cannot pick and choose which parts to obey. Such behavior makes a mockery of the supreme law of the land, the rule of law, and our constitutional republic. Silence by public officials on the issue is cowardly opposition to using the convention option.

No one can accurately forecast exactly what a convention would propose, but we do know that continuation of the status quo will not eliminate the corruption and dysfunction sustained by the two-party plutocracy. The two major parties are rejected by 58 percent of the public for not effectively representing them, but a convention is far more attractive than forming a competitive third party. Many reforms can only be achieved through constitutional amendments that Congress will never propose; this is inarguable. Voting in elections to get reforms is passé. A hard truth to take, but one that an increasing number of Americans have begun to accept.

Amending the Constitution in our modern world should compete with ordinary elections. With Internet news, blogging, email, tweeting, texting and myriad other forms of instant communication, holding a convention is a new way to satisfy public thirst for true reforms, not promises. Amending the Constitution can be done relatively quickly. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven took one year or less to become the law of the land because of public engagement. The 26th amendment (giving the right to vote to 18 year-olds) took only 3 months and 8 days to be ratified in 1971! Public pressure works. It will work for and against specific amendments. Americans deserve the constitutional opportunity that Congress has deprived them of.

Americans must be taught this: Just by being in the Constitution the convention option demands public support. Citizens are obliged to support it. People cannot be allowed to have it both ways and be two-faced and hypocritical. Embrace the convention option or be openly and aggressively condemned for unpatriotic hypocrisy and behavior that undermines the sanctity of the Constitution and the rule of law, both crucial for maintaining the integrity of our republic.

Trust is the crucial issue. So many Americans have lost trust in their government and politicians but far less so in their Constitution. Trusting the Constitution means trusting the Founders’ wisdom in providing the Article V convention option. They anticipated the day when citizens would lose trust in the federal government, which has surely arrived. The convention option bypasses Congress, the President and the Supreme Court; it gives power to the states and citizens. Wisely, ratification by the states is required for any proposed amendments from a convention, providing a hedge against dangerous amendments. When it comes to reform and making government work for we the people, the greatest risk for the nation is not using the convention option.

What political powers on the left and right fear and oppose we the people must demand. They are guilty constitutional traitors. We must be courageous patriots. There is no room for compromise with convention opponents. We must shame and embarrass them; they are lousy citizens. The time to argue about specific amendments is when the convention is in session and delegates must contend with public sentiments and later when proposed amendments are considered for ratification by states.

We cannot know with certainty whether holding a convention would revitalize the nation. But refusing to use the convention option as a constitutional path to reform disrespects and undermines our constitutional republic. The sorry state of the nation demands that we do more than just talk about it. This year every candidate for the House and Senate should be compelled to publicly support using the convention option. Lack of support for it should be grounds for defeating them.