The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic

This is the second of Mark Levin’s books that I’ve read, after Liberty and Tyranny.

Levin, of course, is the firebrand right-wing radio show host. He’s considered one of the most aggressive, according to Wikipedia.

Like his other book, Levin uses the word “Statist” to describe someone who he believes is attempting to increase the power of the federal government at the expense of the citizenry. However, he never really explains the motives behind this – he never explains why someone would want to be a Statist, or where the dividing line is between them and anyone else.

The bulk of the book is Levin’s proposal for 11 Constitutional amendments to “restore” the government to its rightful place. Early in the book, Levin points out that the states have the right to call for a Constitutional Convention, and this is his attempt to lay out an agenda.

Here are the gist of the 11 amendments:

1. Members of Congress are limited to 12-year total terms of service
2. Senators should be chosen by state legislatures, not popular vote (this is how it used to be done before the 17th amendment in 1913)
3. Supreme Court justices are limited to 12-year total terms of service. Also, Congress can override the Court with a three-fifths vote in both houses, or three-fifths of state legislatures.
4. A budget has to be approved by Congress by the first Monday in May. If it’s not approved, an automatic 5% spending cut is applied to last year’s budget. The budget must be balanced and cannot exceed 17.5% of the GDP. An increase of the debt ceiling would require a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress.
5. Income tax can never exceed 15% of an individual’s total income. The income tax filing deadline is moved to the day before Election Day. The estate tax is repealed. The government can never institute a VAT or sales tax.
6. All federal departments have to be re-authorized by vote every three years, or they are automatically disbanded. Any “Executive Branch regulation” with an economic burden of more than $100 million must be authorized by Congress.
7. The Commerce Clause is restrained – it’s no longer interpreted to cover anything that crosses a state line, but only to apply to specific acts by the states to regulate commerce between them. Congress can no longer regulate activity within a state, even if that activity affects interstate commerce.
8. The government must compensate property owners for any action that reduces the “market value” of the property
9. State legislatures can propose and adopt Constitutional amendments if two-thirds of them ratify
10. State legislatures can override Congressional bills or resolutions if three-fifths of them agree
11. Voters must produce photo ID to vote

Clearly, these are all designed to reduce the power of the Federal government in favor of state governments.

Weirdly, given that I’m a Democrat, I actually don’t have a problem with most of them, if they had been adopted back when the Constitution was written. But trying to retrofit these now would be a disaster.

Several of these fundamentally re-write the Constitution. Like #3 and #9 – these completely change the relationships of several government entities in fundamental ways.

Also, the 17.5% limit of spending and the 15% limit on taxation would utterly shred the government we have now. While those on the Right would applaud this, I have the imagine that the upheaval from it would like tear the economy and country apart.

And I think it’s a little naive to think that these would automatically make things better. Levin’s assumes benevolence. I look at some of these amendments, and I know it would just be a matter of time before the would be abused by both sides of the aisle.

Consider #7 – defining the “market value” of property would keep entire law firms in business. Literally every action of the government could and would be hauled into court by someone seeking compensation.

Levin wrote this in 2013, and he’s clearly stinging from the passage of Obamacare. In fact, the entire book feels like a reaction to that. However, you have to be careful about enacting huge reforms when things aren’t going your way, because they can come back to bite you.

For example, fast forward 10 years to 2023 (as I write this), and the Supreme Court is solidly conservative after three Trump picks. Given its current status, would Levin be as happy with the possibility of California and Massachusetts leading the charge to override some conservative decisions?

The book is extremely well-researched. I’d like to dismiss Levin as a media nut, but he clearly knows his history. Every chapter is full of legal references and court precedents. He works very hard to make his case.

But, in this end, this is all useless blather. Very little of what Levin proposes in this book has any chance of actually being implemented, and this is the state of American politics – people proposing solutions to perceived problems, secure in the certainty that they will never be tested.

It’s very easy to evangelize for something you know will never come about, and therefore never have to stand up to the harsh test of reality. It’s harder to find an actual step forward that is likely to happen, and for which you’ll be held accountable – this is the thing we need, and the thing that no one seems willing to do.