Mark Levin interviews Indiana Senate President

[g00n24]

Great interview with Senator David Long. He is calling to get representatives/delegates from the states together to come up with rules/procedures for a convention for the states to propose Amendments to restore the Constitution...much like in Levin's Liberty Amendments.

Levin and Long discuss the difference between a Constitutional convention and the process that would be involved with enacting Amendments proposed in the Liberty Amendments.

I don't know anything about David Long, but on the issue of restoring state's rights I sure agree with him.


http://www.marklevinshow.com/common...Senate+President+David+Long&id=6703&is_corp=0

 

[rambone]

Eight Simple Questions Expose Dangers of a Constitutional Convention

1. Does the Congress or the administration follow the Constitution now?

2. If changes were made for the better, why would they follow that? Especially when it takes less to get a vote to balance a budget — a simple majority vs. two-thirds?

3. Do you believe that no matter how the “convention” was held — governors or elected/appointed delegates — that those in control would rise to the level of men such as Founders Washington and Madison?

4. Do you believe that no matter what the means to convene the convention, that a sizeable contingent of delegates would be at the level of Gore or Obama?

5. Ask yourself, if now we are not electing constitutionalists to office from our area, what makes anyone think that we will send constitutionalists to any meeting?

6. Do you want a balanced budget?

7. Are you willing to pay for it?

8. Is the Constitution flawed?

 

[buckstopshere]

The same David Long that blocked sb130? That dbag?

 

[g00n24]

They addressed the difference between a convention and what is being proposed here by Long and Levin in his book. Not the same thing. Levin goes out of his way to mention he is not, and has never, called for a constitutional convention.

And yeah, like I said...I know nothing about David Long or his stances on other issues. I am a bit ashamed to admit it, but I do not keep up with state and local politics nearly as much as federal politics...I'm working on that though.

 

[rambone]

David Long: "I will decide what is constitutional, NOT YOU!" as he opposed state nullification of Obamacare. (SB 230)


[h=3]Indiana calls for U.S. Constitutional Convention (Feb. 2013)[/h]

 

[SeaCaptain49]

Not really a bad idea. I doubt it will ever happen though.

 

[g00n24]

David Long: "I will decide what is constitutional, NOT YOU!" as he opposed state nullification of Obamacare. (SB 230)


Indiana calls for U.S. Constitutional Convention (Feb. 2013)

Ahhhhh....he is a d-bag! I still like the ideas brought up in Liberty Amendments and how to go about them while locking out the feds...obviously this guy has ulterior motives.

 

[CarmelHP]

He is a Country Club Republican, anti-gun, and an ******* to boot.

 

[rambone]

Correcting Mark Levin's Repeated Misrepresentation of James Madison

Nullification, as described by Madison in the Virginia Resolution, is a nearly fail-safe and foolproof protection of popular sovereignty and limited government.

Mark Levin and the rest of the con-con collaborators might not understand this, but thousands of constitutionalists across the country do, and they are nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government in a way in which James Madison would undoubtedly approve. Without exposing the delicate gears of the Constitution to the monkey wrench of an Article V constitutional convention.

 

[brew45]

I love Mark Levin. I listen to his radio show every night on the way home from work. I have not read the Liberty Amendments yet, but his father paints a vivid portrait of Washington's crossing the Delaware in The Crossing. I agree with pretty much everything this man says about states right's and the overreach of the Feds, I would encourage all of you to read this man's works.

 

[g00n24]

Correcting Mark Levin's Repeated Misrepresentation of James Madison

Lotfi and Tenthers Wrong! | Jen Kuznicki

And here's an article refuting that idea...Not saying either is correct. It seems both sides have valid arguments for where Madison stood on the issue, and both sides can point to evidence for their position.

I am of the opinion that the absolute dumbest thing we (Constitutional loving/respecting Americans) can do right now is fight it out in front of everyone on how to fix this mess. We have to make the dummies in this country see and understand how unsustainable our current path is and that it needs to be radically fixed. We can argue over exactly how after we get the masses on our side.

I am also of the opinion that anyone who would question Levin's devotion to the Constitution is being completely disingenuous. The man has devoted his life to the Constitution and actually puts up fights for it around the country. Not everyone has to agree with everyone else's opinion of every line in the document. We already agree we have moved far, far away from the intent and content of the Constitution, we are on the same side. Lets hash out the details after we have reached our main goal.

 

[rambone]

I am also of the opinion that anyone who would question Levin's devotion to the Constitution is being completely disingenuous.

I don't know if Levin is incredibly wrong or incredibly deceptive, but his constitutional interpretation sucks on a number of issues. Pay attention to his responses when people call in and question the constitutionality of things like the Patriot Act, federal drug prohibition, the global war on terror. He goes apoplectic and calls the people a bunch of names and hangs up on them.

"Who has ever had their rights violated by the Patriot Act?!?!?!! NAME ONE!!" I distinctly remember Levin screeching to a caller. *CLICK*

And when he had a chance to support an actual constitutionalist in 2012 he did everything possible to run his name into the ground. Levin had 2 names on his Virginia ballot: Romney and Ron Paul. He publicly said he was voting for Mitt Romney because he "could never vote for Ron Paul" -- who was arguably the most constitutional person in Washington DC in a generation. He tore at Ron Paul every chance he got. Every time a person called in about Ron Paul he would make fun of them and throw up gigantic strawman arguments, call them freaks, and hang up on them. It was disgusting.

Levin says he loves the constitution to hawk his books and keep his supporters engaged. He needs to keep people's trust so he can keep them corralled behind priorities of the establishment; candidates like Gingrich and Romney, the unending foreign wars, the Federal Reserve system, and the increasingly strong army of law enforcers that he fawns over in every show.

He's right on many issues and I used to like him. I've seen his true colors though, and he smacks of being an establishment shill, I am afraid to say.

 

[g00n24]

I don't know if Levin is incredibly wrong or incredibly deceptive, but his constitutional interpretation sucks on a number of issues. Pay attention to his responses when people call in and question the constitutionality of things like the Patriot Act, federal drug prohibition, the global war on terror. He goes apoplectic and calls the people a bunch of names and hangs up on them.

"Who has ever had their rights violated by the Patriot Act?!?!?!! NAME ONE!!" I distinctly remember Levin screeching to a caller. *CLICK*

And when he had a chance to support an actual constitutionalist in 2012 he did everything possible to run his name into the ground. Levin had 2 names on his Virginia ballot: Romney and Ron Paul. He publicly said he was voting for Mitt Romney because he "could never vote for Ron Paul" -- who was arguably the most constitutional person in Washington DC in a generation. He tore at Ron Paul every chance he got. Every time a person called in about Ron Paul he would make fun of them and throw up gigantic strawman arguments, call them freaks, and hang up on them. It was disgusting.

Levin says he loves the constitution to hawk his books and keep his supporters engaged. He needs to keep people's trust so he can keep them corralled behind priorities of the establishment; candidates like Gingrich and Romney, the unending foreign wars, the Federal Reserve system, and the increasingly strong army of law enforcers that he fawns over in every show.

He's right on many issues and I used to like him. I've seen his true colors though, and he smacks of being an establishment shill, I am afraid to say.

For things like the patriot act, no argument there, he has supported it, and may still, I haven't heard him talk about it for some time. I have noticed over the last 4-5 years since I really started listening to him that he has moved away from much of the police state support as it's abuses become more and more evident. Is he late to that party? Sure, I would say so.

His hatred for Ron Paul is also very evident, however that goes back for sometime according to him. I think it is more of a personal thing than a political thing. He always puts RP in the "separatist/isolationist" camp, and has stated many times why he is against those positions...agree or not, I feel this is just a different way of thinking about the world...not so much a Constitutional issue.

His disdain for establishment types is certainly more evident now than ever. If you follow him on facebook every day there are posts linking to articles bashing GOP establishment types. He said throughout the last election cycle Romney wasn't his choice, but he had to back him against Obama. I think many of us here can relate to that...I'm not trying to start the "lesser of two evils argument"...just saying what his position was.

He is in favor of decriminalizing pot, as I've heard him say plenty of times, if I had to guess he sees it as more of a state issue than anything else. I'm betting he is against legalization of most other drugs, as are most people. Obviously pot isn't on the same level as crack for most, I don't really think social issues are that important to him in the grand scheme of things.

I haven't heard him speak about the federal reserve system other than calling recent tactics irresponsible.

Like I said before, we will never agree about every line of the Constitution and we all have different personal beliefs that will guide us to our decisions/opinions. His Landmark Legal Assoc. is constantly fighting against big govt intrusion into our lives and fighting to uphold the Constitution.

Is he a Libertarian? Absolutely not! He will never be on the libertarian side of things socially speaking, and probably the same goes for foreign affairs. He has said multiple times that he is economically a libertarian.

He is certainly not an establishment shill, unless the establishment is putting out guys that constantly bash them. As he is always propping up candidates when they are in primaries against establishment types.

He is on the right side of the argument, he may just not be as far down the spectrum on every issue as many of us would like.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Levin likes to rail against statists, unless it's statism that he agrees with. Most notably increased defense and surveillance.

He's a Regan Republican through and through.

That said, I agree with probably 90% of his ideas.

 

[BigRed]

As if I needed a reminder of what a ******* joke Levin is, he is interviewing and complementing that piece of **** Stephen Smith.

Two worthless pieces of ****.