mark: so the progressive agenda including on the courts, they wrap themselves in constitutional language and say we must follow the precedent. but the precedent isn t always constitutional, is it? we have very many examples where the supreme court has not followed precedent. mark, as a lawyer, when i think back to law school days and justice kennedy was a professor at my law school when i was, there and one of the most interesting things is somebody asked me, mark, when you were in law school, did you read the constitution? i was offended by the question. mark: and we re going to get your answer in one second. mark, did you read the constitution in law school? i know my answer. don t forget, levin tv almost every week night. join us, you will enjoy our community there. crtv.com/mark, or give us a call, 844-levin tv. we ll be right back.
intentionally so we could have a solution to where we are today, and they knew this would happen because history tells us this is what happens to republics. mark: mark meckler, isn t it true, there s two ways to amend the constitution under article 5, through congress. state ratification, through the states, state ratification, that s the only difference. but isn t it true today the supreme court amends the constitution, the massive bureaucracy. in other words, the process isn t being followed and so when you raise one of the processes that actually exists in the constitution, that s actually a legitimate way to address efforts to act outside the constitutional boundarys. you nailed it. and the founders warned us about this, about amending the constitution bit by bit, through the courts, through legislative action. this is why the left opposes this so much because they ve
of what our founders believed was important. a very high bar to get to a convention. you have to build consensus and then once you have a convention, you have to have a super majority that says yeah, we think we need to do. this so people running around like chickens with their head cut off have one or two motives. one, trying to raise money because they don t agree with this. if they understand the process they wouldn t be against it. or number two, socialist marxist which is the hard left saying don t do this because you re going to undermine all the socialism we put into our country. it s not about undermining socialism, not taking care of people, it s about restoring freedom, liberty, growth. think about what happened in terms of our country s growth after world war ii. there was limited government and magnificent growth. 6, 7, 8% per year. what would that do if we saw that again in our country?
rule of law is important, that s understressed. virtue, understressed. no question about it. number three is a limited government. we have anything but a limited government, and number four is economic freedom. this country led the world for 200 years in economic freedom. we re 17th in the world now. why is that? that s the tyranny of a large government that interferes with the ability to start building expanding business. one of the things you are seeing presently through the elimination of lots of regulation is good economic growth. it s not all based on taxes. it s based on the monkeys getting off business so it can create wealth and create jobs. so i think the number one reason is fear and lack of knowledge and so hopefully through you and other people and what we re doing around the country is that we can educate people. here s what our founders thought. this isn t a johnny come lately idea. it s been there, they put it in
intentionally so we could have a solution to where we are today, and they knew this would happen because history tells us this is what happens to republics. mark: mark meckler, isn t it true, there s two ways to amend the constitution under article 5, through congress. state ratification, through the states, state ratification, that s the only difference. but isn t it true today the supreme court amends the constitution, the massive bureaucracy. in other words, the process isn t being followed and so when you raise one of the processes that actually exists in the constitution, that s actually a legitimate way to address efforts to act outside the constitutional boundarys. you nailed it. and the founders warned us about this, about amending the constitution bit by bit, through the courts, through legislative action. this is why the left opposes