Source: The New Democrat
I’m going to make a case for why Mark Levin’s so-called Liberty Amendments are anti-conservative and you’ll see what I mean by that.
When I think of a Conservative, I think of someone who believes in conserving and conserving what they believe and a lot of other people believe is worth conserving. Things like free speech, right to privacy, separation of powers, equal protection, checks and balances, our three levels of government so governmental power is not overly centralized and that you even have checks and balances especially with the Federal Government so the executive doesn’t become too powerful.
If you’re a Conservative at least in the conservative-libertarian sense you shouldn’t be a fan of this because it ends up limiting the power of the people at least as far as Americans being able to elect their own members of Congress at least in the Senate with the repeal of the 17th Amendment and instead of conserving the Constitution and amendments, it throws at least one of them out as far as the 17th Amendment.
The one amendment that Mark Levin proposes that I like relates to the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguably 9 of the most powerful people in the country and yet they’re not accountable to anyone. I’m one that believes that politics and the Supreme Court is mixed together too much, that Justices take an anti- conservative approach to their rulings and rule on cases and laws based on their own personal politics, instead of whether they believe the law is constitution or not.
So I don’t believe Supreme Court should have to run for election and be accountable to the people that way. But I do believe our Justices should be held accountable by the people through the President and U.S. Senate with term limits. That each Justice should serve terms and then have to be reappointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve another term. Actual terms limits for the Chief Justice and only allow for them to serve 8 years let’s say.
The only other so-called Liberty Amendment that Mark Levin proposes that I believe is interesting is his 9th Amendment that would make it easier to amend the Constitution and allow for states to do that themselves. Another anti-democratic amendment both small d and big d, because one of the reasons why Republicans have 34-50 governorships in the country when you’re talking about states is because they’re now basically a rural, blue-collar, Anglo-Saxon party where a lot of their members of their party have been in the country for hundreds of years. With the Democratic Party being an ethnic and racially diverse big city party that lives in big states with big cities
The reason why Levin’s 9th Amendment is anti-Democratic with a big D is because if you allow for states to amend the Constitution by themselves without approval from Congress, Republican rural states and there are a lot of them could amend the Constitution simply based on their own politics. One of the great things about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is that Americans regardless of where they live all have the same constitutional rights as everyone else in the country under the U.S. Constitution. With states being allowed to make their own state laws as long as they’re within the Constitution. Levin’s 9th Amendment would change that. The reason why this amendment is anti-conservative, because again Conservatives are supposed to believe in conserving the Constitution and our constitutional rights. The 9th Amendment would make it easier to weaken the Constitution.
Again, if you’re a Conservative you believe in conserving the Constitution and our constitutional rights. Not trying to blow it up because you’re worried that the Democratic Party will have more power in the future simply because of current demographic trends and therefor need to step in now to limit the Democratic Party’s potential for new political power in the future. You could make a case that Mark Levin’s proposal for a balanced budget amendment and holding the Supreme Court accountable through term limits is very conservative. But most his other proposals are simply anti-democratic both as they relate to the Democratic Party and simply used to hurt one party in favor of the other through the Constitution and limiting American voters rights to decide who gets to serve them in Congress.