Host author mark with in host mark levin, in your book, you propose amendments to the constitution including term limits, an appeal for the 17th amendment, establishing term limit for the Supreme Court court justice, limiting federal taxes. Which is most important to you . Guest they are all of the same genre because the goal is to restore the republic. The federal government is so unhinged from the constitution it would be nice to break them into three accept separate blanches but it is more mush now. There is the massive Administrative Branch as well. The 4th branch as i call it. The goal or the purpose of the book is to talk about revising the constitution and the republic but also to reform people how the republic is supposed to look and how the constitution is supposed to function and move some away from the government to the states acting collectively. You write about the 17th amendment saying it serves not the Public Interest but the interest of the governing masterminds and their crew. It is because they knew it would be one of several important mechanisms for empowering the federal government and unraveling Constitutional Republici republi republic. Guest if you look at the constitution, it is complex. You have a Central Government with limited power, three branches working with each other, sometimes checking each other and of course you have the states where the individual power exist and the individual sovereignty exist obviously. So this idea that direct elections is what the framers intended is not correct. They intended it for the house of representatives and madisons notes make it clear they debated this at length what the senate was supposed to look like. But when it came to the senate, madison and the others made it clear you cannot have the direct election of senators without creating a powerful centralized government. They wanted a federal government. Not a centralized government. They made the case to the states even. They said look, the senate is made up of individuals chosen by the state legislator so you will have a role in the federal lawmaking process among other things. So the federalist use the senate to persuade the antifederalist to vote for the constitution. Furthermore, who exactly created this . Two from out of state. We get that. That was balanceme but you have situations now where senators voted for obamacare in states where the governor and attorney general fought obamacare in court. And the stage legislator doesnt protect their citizens from it when they voted against it. The senate is odd today. So empowering the state legislators in the law making process this wasnt it have another availability to vote. Host rules the limit the filibuster. Do you agree with those . Guest no, i think harry reid and whoever abused rules. They were using the filibuster to block nominees under George Bush Li bush like no other. And now they are complaining about not pushing through obamas legislation enough. And the very people that abused the filibuster rule have now eliminated it for purpose of nominee at the appellate and executive officials. What the senate is today is a rubber stamp for obama. Harry reid might as well be in obamas cabinet. And this is a very odd thing because rather than protect the institution of the senate and congress, which is what the framers intended, you have the majority in the senate doing whatever it can to support the executive branch in whatever way it can. This would have been crazy to the framers and in fact it would be crazy during franklins days. He tried to pack the court with people that agreed with his agenda. The Vice President is the one who fought it the most. Many democrats wouldnt go along. So you have to have people in virtu and we dont have that. Host is is fair a state like california and wyominging, for example, have the two senators . Guest that knows to the point that the constitution would not have been ratified if only the big states, virginia, massachusetts, and pennsylvania, could have as many states as they wanted. This goes back to the point the house of representative is the house of the people. Quote unquote. The states based on their population. That is how you determine the number of members of the house. The senate is a different institution. The senate was considered to be a house of lords. I hate to shock people. But it hasnt worked out that way. Host some of your other amendments at a promote Free Enterprise, grant the state authority to amend the constitution, Check Authority and to direct the vote. What do you mean by direct the authority to amend the constitution . Guest that 3 5th of the legislators would amend the constitution. Today it takes one justice. Today it takes as this president does refusing to uphold the law and adhere to the law changing a law, they are constantly amending theitution and statute. Congress passed obamacare and dodd frank and they are blatantally illegal. So the notion 3 5th of the legislation should be able to direct the constitutional shouldnt be radical. Of course in order for that to happen we would have to amend the constitution to allow the states to do that in the first place which is one of the things i propose in my book. Host in your first book men in black you write the Supreme Court sits in final judgment of all policy issues disregarding the constitutional limititations and the legit roles of the congress and the president and the broad rules preferred on the people. The progressives have won. I dont know why they are challenging what i am writing. They made clear what their objectives were. An all powerful central balance. They didnt like the idea of checks and balances and state sovereignty and did everything they could to undermine that. So we have a Supreme Court now that sits in decision of anything it wants to consider. Whatever your opinion is look what happened in california, doma, look what happens with all of these issues. We sit on the edge of our chair in june, how is Justice Kennedy going . This one . That one . These are nine individual human beings as imperfect of the rest of us. They are of blood and bone batter and they are imperfect and the idea that all of us have to wait the decision on one justice or five justice to determine a social or cultural issue for the entire nation is absurd and the idea there is no recourse whatsoever is absurd and no body can point to anything that took place at the Constitutional Convention or the state radifying convention that support such. There would be no constitution if this was existed. I think we should limit the term limit. I think 12 years is enough. Whether you are a great justice or not. It is way too political. And the other is 3 5th of the state legislator can override a Supreme Court decision. Why shouldnt there be recourse beyond one justice with a body politics . The people of the United States if they can raise the resources and get 3 5th of the legislator to say no, court, you are wrong or no Justice Kennedy you are wrong, why would that be so horrible . I dont think it would be. When you talk about your liberty amendment, are you calling for a constitutional conventi convention . Guest no. Calling for what article five is. A convention of the states. It is a convention of the states. Not where everything is up for grabs. But where 2 3rds of the state legislator make application to congress to have a convention and congress has no role whatsoever, it is clear in madisons notes during the debate and federalist 85 written by hamilton. 2 3rds of the state call for a meeting and rather than congress having the ability to propose amendments, 2 3rds of the state come up with amendments that have to be sent to all of the states and you need 3 4ths to radify. Host are these amendments doable . Guest i hope so. Otherwise i think we are doomedidoomed. We have an out of control government that is becoming centralized. You can see it, and i dont know mean to panic people, in what i consider the police powers, the idea the irs is enforcing Health Care Law is disgusting. I am looking for a constitutional way. I didnt create article five. The framers did. To opress a centralize government. That is what madison was worried by and they radified this. I hope they are are doable. We have come a long way in six months. The was a meeting on december 7th called the Mount Vernon Assembly where a hundred delegates met to start the process of talking about this. Indiana the legislator has passed to bills outlining how they would chose the delegate and what the authority of the delegates should be. We should not fear this. People need to understand we are in a postconstitutional period in many respects the system is upside down. It is top down rather than bottom up and it is going to get worse. I am trying to say let us use the constitution to save the constitution and restore the republic. Host in your boo boobook book amertopia you talk about utop utopia what is that . Guest i am saying if you listen to the left and you understand the left they are promising they will create these perfect systems or these magn magnificent systems. We will improve your health care, your financial system, we will end poverty just give us more and more of your wealth and on and on. When it does want work, and it wont work because it is impossible for a few masterminds in washington, d. C. To know what 310 Million People know in terms of their own lives and what motivates and benefits them. But that said the problem is it becomes increasingly more centralized and so that is the basic proposition. Host you write utopia attempts to control the planned and unplanned complexity of the individual and his mankind and nature. It is intolerant of diversity, uniqueness, etc. For its purpose requires a singular focus. There can be no competing voices or causes slowing or disturbing societys long and righteous march. Guest fewer and fewer ideas are allowed to be espouged and it is disturbing to me. This state always requires the federal government to have more power over the individual. You can listen to obama and it isnt just obama. You listen to the Republican Leadership and they sound like neosatist themselves. Excuse me. I have the flu. Th th this utopism when it fails what is the problem . Not enough money or something else. It is complete failure it will never fail. So his is the problem the constitutional conservatives have in fighting. These folks are talking about what can be, should be rather than reality of the damage they have caused. It is our responsibility to do a better job of explaining that. Host host your book liberty and tyri tyriny tell us about that. Guest when i started to think about it, and did an enormous amount of research and pulled things together, the names marxism, socialism, liberalism, progress, i decided to reach back to aristotle. My editor said what was this title mean . And i said it means you believe less so in the power of the individuals and levels of governing. And statism pushes the fact the governor has a good purpose to devour the Civil Society. And those of us that know about liberty and history we reject that idea. But the statist and some call them liberals are devouring the Civil Society more and more. Rather than the government existing in a limited form, you know, two ensure justice occurs and we mean justice before the law, enforces contracts and takes care of necessities like securing the border. We have a federal government that is involved in every way of life. Host should liberty and tyranny be read as a trilogy . Guest as an author, i hope so. One does work after the other. Liberty and tyranny took off. It was, as i say, from my perspective a restatement of conservatism because i was tired of the leadership and john mccain who was mushing up the message and didnt stand for a lot and wasnt explain ing the principles and i thought it was time for that. Amertopia take as much deeper look at the left. It is book on philosophy. And it compares to conservatism. This utopia isnt new. I opposed it to john locke, to the framers of the constitution, and you can really see the liberty and the darkness of tyranny and i make the point that the statist today, their philosophy is nothing new. It is steeped into many of the old philosophers who were preaching in a fictional or non fictional way the power of the state and the power of the state is undoing. Host who is your favorite philosopher . Guest that is impossible. Locke would be one of them. Locke, in my view, really laid out the most cohesive, or comprehensive case for the Civil Society and the natch nature of man and the natural law. He had a huge impact on the Founding Fathers. In montisque, and one reason they are both in the book, was one of the most wildly read during the constitutional period. This argument for three separate branches of government he is the one that maybe not first preposed it but most dominantly proposed it. And adam smith and david hume and modern day Milton Freedman and many others i am sure i cannot remember them all. But not one in particular. But all together and by the way the framers were wellread on many of the men before their time that did exist they were well informed about the enlightment and what had taken place in history. You look at the declaration of independence and it is heavily from locke. And this is a good thing. And the constitution is from the spirit of the law. Many philosophers should be the focus of the Education System and the Public School system. I will other than a small percentage of the population very few know about him or have hurt about them. Host who is on the other side . Guest the philosophers on the other side . Marx and angles. When people talk about being liberalism, or socialism, many dont realize how much marx they read. Doesnt mean you need to round up people. But the socialist the europeans barrowed from marx. These are marxist ideas. But marx talked about the withering away of the state. The problem is as lenin himself said we cant figure out how that works. The state becomes oppressive and allpowerful. Host and you write once it is under the control its objectives will be abolition of property in land of all land of public property, a heavy graduated income tax, abolition of inheritance, centralization of the property of immigrants and rebels; centralization of credit, centralization of communication, equal liability, farming with manufacture and Free Education for Public School. Guest i would say we have covered 8 of those . That is from marx and the communist manfesto. Those are his ten plank and i think 67 of them we have adopted. Look the socalled progressives and the progressive era clearly rejected let me put it to you. You cannot be a utopia state and support the individual liberty and state authority and support our constitution. I mean, it just isnt possible. This is why i say we are in the postconstitutional period. Today is health care and who knows what it will be tomorrow. But the fact of the matter is what these people on the left are pushing and have been pushing is not within our constitutional framework. As a matter of fact, it attacks the framework. You cannot be i want the liberals to listening. You cannot be a hardline liberal or as i call it a statist and support the constitution. Host another word you use is originalism and you quote robert block saying it seeks to impart a fixed, continuous, and predictable meaning and then you go on to write originalist reject to advancing the justice. Guest a couple ideas there. Lets take the Supreme Court. Thinking they never get it wrong is ridiculous. Plussy versus fergson that were issued. In my view roe versus wade was another thing they got wrong. Implied review power where the courts or justice understand the limitations on their roles. There has to be recourse to this short of a constant national logger head situation where one group feels this way and another feels this way. And that is why i propose the state legislature, 3 5ths, can override this. Wouldnt it have been wonderful if they could have overroad the dredscott decision. There is a lot more in the. The whole notion of the judiciary is having the final word. Someone has to have the final word at some point. But when the final word is so outrageous or disconnected from a perspective of the community and the nation the final word doesnt have any legitimicy. As for the notion of originalism, it simply means this without getting into disputes, as a general matter it means when a judge or justice is deciding a constitutional matter as opposed to a statutory manner, they are try to discern what the framers meant by the words of the constitution, then looking at historic records, if that doesnt exist they are not allowed to go into the darkness and impose their personal views on the nation. Nothing gives them that power. So you can have originalist who approach the job properly but come up with a different result and that is the key. It as a the manner you which to interrupt the communication. You have a handful of lawyers who wear black robes that you call your honor and happen to get on the Supreme Court and impose their own wishes and rewrite the constitution and do whatever they want to do and that is lawlessness. Lawlessness in the Supreme Court is a problem. Host good afternoon and welcome to our Monthly Program with one author looking at his or her body of work. This month it is mark levin. He has written five books. Rescuing sprite, men in black how the Supreme Court is destroying america, liberty and tyranny a conservative manifesto, ameritopia the unmaking of america, and the liberty amendments restoring the American Republic. Tea parameritopia if you cann through on the phone lines send us a tweet. At booktv is the twitter handle. You can mak