Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny

By Publius Huldah

For 100 years, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated to it in our Constitution.

What should we do about it? Should we reclaim our existing Constitution and put an end to the usurpations?

Or should we “modernize” the Constitution by changing it so as to delegate to the federal government the powers it has usurped – so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?

Mark Levin begins “The Liberty Amendments” by saying he doesn’t believe the Constitution requires “modernization through amendments”. But he then proposes a series of amendments, six of which modernize our Constitution to delegate to the federal government most of the powers it has usurped during the last 100 years.

And each of his six amendments does the opposite of what its title promises. I’ll show you. 1

Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” [p 99-100 of his book]

George Washington’s cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General. Those functions are authorized by our Constitution. 2

But today there are numerous agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government. Where is the constitutional authority? What Article, Section, and Clause authorizes the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Labor, Transportation, HHS, HUD, DHS, EPA, SBA, etc., etc., etc.?

There is no constitutional authority! Accordingly, all these agencies are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated in our Constitution.

Well then, a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand that these agencies be closed, and their functions returned to the States and The People, right?

But Mark Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all these agencies. It says:

“All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

As long as Congress periodically “reauthorizes” the agencies – they remain.

Levin’s amendment thus changes the constitutional standard for whether an executive agency lawfully exists from whether it carries out an enumerated power [as in Washington’s Cabinet] to whatever the President wants and Congress agrees to. Do you see?

Now look at Section 2 of Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy”. It says:

“All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.”

Article I, §1, of our Constitution says only Congress may make laws. 3 But since Woodrow Wilson, executive agencies in the federal government have been churning out regulations which govern all aspects of our lives. These comprise the now gigantic Code of Federal Regulations.

All these regulations are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1! 4

Well then, one would expect that a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand the repeal of existing regulations and an end to all future rulemaking, right?

Not Levin! Section 2 of his amendment legalizes all existing regulations and the rule making process. Levin’s “fix” is merely to form a congressional committee to review certain regulations before they are imposed on the American People.

And so, federal executive agencies will continue to churn out millions of pages of regulations – but now, they will be constitutional because Levin’s amendment makes it all lawful.

Do you see? Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and does the opposite of what he claims.

Levin’s amendment “to limit federal spending” (p 73 -74)

Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the size of the GDP. Do you see?

The reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits – already set forth in the Constitution – on its spending.

Well then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?

But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers. It says:

“Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”

Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President to lawfully spend money on whatever they want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t authorize it.

Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections 6 & 7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt. 5

Levin’s amendment “to limit federal taxing” (p 75)

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to levy taxes so that Congress and the President will have the funds to spend on whatever they want.

Congress may lawfully levy taxes only to raise the funds to carry out the enumerated powers. Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 say:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States …” [and] “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

Immediately after clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers we delegated to Congress for the Country at Large. 6

Add to this short list of enumerated powers, the “housekeeping powers” itemized elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., the census); the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; and you see the purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money, for the Country at Large. 7

So! Congress should not be levying taxes except to generate revenue for its constitutional functions. If Congress restricted its spending to those few powers delegated in the Constitution, the federal government would need very little money from us.

One would expect that a person who wants to “limit federal taxation” would demand that the federal government stop taxing to raise money to spend on unconstitutional purposes, right?

Not Levin! While his amendment limits the federal income tax to 15% of income – it institutionalizes the present practice where Congress lays & collects taxes for any purposes whatsoever. 8

Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” (p 137)

The federal government has no lawful authority to own land for any purpose other than those enumerated in the Constitution. Article I, §8, next to last clause, permits the federal government to have exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction over the District of Columbia [which was not to exceed “ten Miles square”], and Places purchased with the Consent of the State legislatures for the erection of forts, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings (e.g., federal courthouses, post offices) to carry out the enumerated powers.  So the federal government may lawfully own buildings and lands which are purchased to carry out its enumerated powers.

The federal government has no lawful authority to own national parks, grazing areas, forests, and such, because those are not enumerated powers. 9

And the federal government has no lawful authority to restrict peoples’ use of their own land. Nowhere in our Constitution did we delegate that power to the federal government! Accordingly, all federal laws and regulations (EPA, etc.) which pretend to restrict an owner’s use of his land are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

Furthermore, the States’ and local governments’ powers of eminent domain and other “takings” of private land are addressed in their own State Constitutions and laws. This is NOT a federal issue!

But Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” changes all of the above. It says:

“When any governmental entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for a public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.”

Levin’s amendment:

Changes the constitutional standard for federal ownership of lands from carrying out an enumerated power to whatever someone in the federal government deems a “public use” [which can be anything];

Legalizes what are now unconstitutional holdings of lands by the federal government – such as grazing lands;

Legalizes “takings” by regulation – restrictions via regulations on the use of private lands – by all levels of government;

Takes from the States and The People their retained powers over eminent domain and regulatory takings, and makes it a federal issue under the control of the federal government; 10 and

Provides that as long as a taking does not reduce the value of the property by more than $10,000, the governments don’t have to pay the property owner one red cent. So! If your local or State or federal government takes some of your land, or restrict its use by regulation, Levin’s amendment requires compensation to be paid if the “taking” exceeds $10,000. If the government decides that your loss is less than $10,000, you eat the loss. The amendment legalizes government theft of private property.

Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” (p 183-184)

Before our Constitution was ratified, the States qualified & registered voters. Qualifications were set forth in their State Constitutions, and requirements differed from State to State.  This power was expressly retained by the States with Art. I, §2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. 11

The four voting amendments reduced this retained power of the States, and delegated to the federal government power to stop States from denying suffrage to citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), or age for citizens eighteen years of age or older (26th Amendment).

Except as restricted by these four amendments, the States retain their pre-existing power to set qualifications for registering citizens to vote, as long as they do not deny it on account of race, sex, failure to pay a tax, or age for those 18 years or more. States remain free to deny registration on other grounds – such as conviction of a felony or illiteracy. And of course, States retained power to restrict voting to citizens!

But the retained powers of the States to set voter qualifications for registration were diminished far beyond the scope of the amendments, due to usurpations by the federal government, and because the States forgot that they retained at Art. I, §2, cl. 1 most of their original power to qualify & register voters.

In Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument, I show how the federal government infringed upon the States’ retained powers over voter qualifications & registration; and how the two judges in that case wrongly ruled that Arizona could not require applicants for registration to provide proof of citizenship!

So! What should we do about non-citizens voting? Here is a novel idea: The States should man up and reclaim their powers retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1; tell Eric Holder to take a hike; require all currently registered voters to provide proof of citizenship; and refuse to register new voters unless they provide proof of citizenship. Enforce the Constitution we have!

   But Section 1 of Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” says:

“Citizens in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documents demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a requirement for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.”

Levin’s amendment (it has 5 Sections) rewards the federal government for unlawfully forbidding States from requiring applicants to prove they are citizens, by transferring more power over voter qualifications & registration to the federal government. 10

But Levin’s amendment does even more harm than vesting in the federal government a power it already usurped – it ushers in a national ID card. Who thinks the feds won’t dictate the contents of the card and keep copies? [Do you really think a national ID card is a great idea?]

To add insult to injury, Levin’s amendment doesn’t even prohibit non-citizens from voting – it merely requires citizens to get an ID card before they can register to vote. Non-citizens are not required to get ID cards. The supreme Court (which will now lawfully have judicial power over this issue) will decide whether aliens can vote.

Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” (p 117)

In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (11th &12th paras), Hamilton & Madison explain the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause:  It is to prohibit States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. Until the mid-1930’s, this was widely understood. Here is a full proof of the original intent of that clause and the story of how the supreme Court usurped power over interstate commerce.

The original intent of that clause is still the supreme Law of the Land! 12 So the States must man up and enforce that original intent. They must ignore – nullify – all pretended federal laws, regulations, and judicial opinions which are contrary to that original intent.

Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” says:

“SECTION 1: Congress’ power to regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant of power to the federal government to regulate and control economic activity but a specific grant of power limited to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several states.”

“SECTION 2: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce does not extend to activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.”

Section 1 broadens the powers of the federal government from prohibiting States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling, to prohibiting the States from doing anything which “impedes” commerce and trade between and among the States.

Many things can be said to “impede” commerce and trade. And who will decide what “impedes” and what doesn’t “impede”? Five judges on the supreme Court.

Section 2 mentions two instances where Congress’ power to regulate Commerce does not extend. This is dangerous because of the legal maxim, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other).

Accordingly, Congress’ power to regulate commerce would extend to other instances. Which ones? We don’t know – the supreme Court will decide – on a case by case basis.


Levin’s amendments legalize – make constitutional – the very abuses they purport to correct, nullify the natural rights of the people, and fundamentally change the constitutional design.

Even though our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government lawless! The true rule of law is still on our side, 13 but not for much longer if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be re-written.

P.S. added Nov. 10, 2015: Here, from Levin’s own website, is a list of “conservatives” who support Mark Levin’s proposed amendments.  I suggest Americans STOP letting other people tell us who is a “conservative”.  STOP blindly accepting other peoples’ words as Truth.  Most of the time, most people don’t know what they are talking about – they are merely repeating what they have heard.  But YOU can stop this in yourself, and you can help stop other people from doing it. Here is the link:


1 Telling the Truth about a person’s proposals isn’t “demonizing” him. People angrily reject valid criticism of Levin’s proposals because they have made an idol of him. If their loyalty were to Truth – instead of to their idol – they would want to be set straight.

2 Article II, §2, and:

Secretary of State: Art. I, §8, cl. 3

Secretary of Treasury: Art. I, §2, cl. 3; Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Art. I, §9, cl. 4-7; Art. VI, cl. 1

Secretary of War: Art. I, §8, clauses 11-14

Attorney General: Art. I, §8, cl. 6, 10 & 17; Art. III, §§2 & 3; Art. IV, §2, cl.2

3 Article I, §1, says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” [emphasis mine]

4 They are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.

5 I explain the problems with “balanced budget” amendments here.

6 These are the enumerated powers over the Country at Large listed at Art. I, §8:

    • Clause 3: regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];

    • Clause 4: uniform laws on naturalization and bankruptcies;

    • Clause 5: coin money & regulate its value, and fix standard of weights & measures;

    • Clause 6: punish counterfeiting;

    • Clause 7: establish post offices & post roads;

    • Clause 8: issue patents & copyrights;

    • Clause 9: set up federal courts inferior to the supreme court;

    • Clause 10: punish piracies & felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;

    • Clauses 11-14: war, letters of marque & reprisal, Army & Navy, and rules for the military

    • Clause 15-16: the Militia.


7 The anti-federalists objected to Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & 2. They claimed:

“…the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”

James Madison answered in Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras) that clauses 1 & 2 permit Congress to levy taxes & borrow money only to carry out the enumerated powers! Madison said:

“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning … is an absurdity…” [boldface mine]

So! Article I, §8, cl.1 is merely a “general expression”, the meaning of which is “ascertain[ed] and limit[ed]” by the clauses which “immediately follow” it. In other words, clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; and clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2. Do you see?

8 Levin’s amendment also corrects – on behalf of the feds – the following: When the 16th Amendment was ratified, “income” apparently didn’t include “wages”. Accordingly, it would be unconstitutional to force people to pay “income” taxes on “wages” – and such would thus be a proper object of nullification by States. But Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and rips this remedy from the States.

9 When our Constitution was ratified, the new federal government acquired (from its predecessor) the Western Territory (Federalist No. 7, 2nd & 3rd paras, and Federalist No. 43 at 5.) over which the new federal government was delegated, by Art. IV, §3, general legislative powers. As the Territory was broken up into new States, the general legislative powers would expire and sovereignty [except as to the few powers delegated exclusively to the new federal government] would be transferred to the new State.

10 Amendments to the Constitution generally increase the powers of the federal government: They usher in implementing federal statutes & executive agency regulations, and judicial power over the issue is transferred to the federal courts. Art. III, §2, cl.1, says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution …” Do you really not see?

11 Article I, §2, cl. 1, says:

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. [boldface mine]

So! Whoever votes in elections for their State House, is eligible to vote for members of the federal House of Representatives. See also Federalist No. 57 (5th para) & Federalist No. 52 (2nd para).

12 Article VI, cl. 2, the “supremacy clause”, states that only our Constitution, federal laws made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution, and Treaties made “under the Authority of the United States”, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Supreme Court opinions are NEVER part of the supreme Law of the Land! But we have wrongly made them the only Law of our Land.

13 What is “the Rule of Law”? What is the Rule of Man?

Our Constitution is based on God’s model for civil government as set forth in the Bible. The foundational Principle of God’s model is that the civil authorities are under the law. God is The Lawmaker – the kings are to apply God’s Law:

    • Deut. 17:18-20: The king is to write out a copy of God’s Law. He is to have it by him and read from it all his life so that he may keep, observe, and apply it.

    • 1 Kings 2:1-4: King David on his deathbed tells Solomon he must conform to God’s ways, and observe his statutes, commandments and judgments, as written in the Law of Moses.

The parallel in our Constitution is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law which the civil authorities are to obey. Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary defines “constitution”:

“…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

So our Constitution is the Standard by which the validity of all Acts of Congress, all acts of the Executive Branch, all judicial opinions, and all Treaties is measured and judged (Art. VI, cl. 2).

So law comes from a higher source than the civil authorities. The “Rule of Law” prevails when the civil authorities obey that higher Law – be it God’s Law or our Constitution.

Tyrants, on the other hand, claim that they are the source of law. The Roman Caesars, Stalin, Hitler, the dictator of N. Korea and Obama all claim that their will is “law”. Consider Obama’s usurpatious executive orders and rules made by his executive agencies. This is the “Rule of Man” – when the civil authorities deny they are subject to a higher law (be it God’s Law or the Constitution), and hold that their will is “law”. Do you see? PH

revised Jan 10, 2016.

Add to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

April 25, 2014 - Posted by | Amendments to the Constitution, Liberty Amendments, Mark Levin, The Liberty Amendments, Voter eligibility, Voter Qualifications | , , ,


  1. […] more on this, you can go here: […]


    Pingback by Constitutional Minute #22   Amendments and Critical reading skills – Part 3 of 3 | | April 24, 2023 | Reply

  2. […] of their existing powers. See: ‘Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny’ [link]; ‘COS Project’s “simulated convention” dog and pony show and what they did there’ […]


    Pingback by Publius Huldah: When the feds violate the Constitution, should we blame the Constitution? – Lower Valley Assembly | March 24, 2021 | Reply

  3. […] of their existing powers. See: ‘Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny’ [link]; ‘COS Project’s “simulated convention” dog and pony show and what they did […]


    Pingback by When the feds violate the Constitution, should we blame the Constitution? « Publius-Huldah's Blog | March 21, 2021 | Reply

  4. […] Mark Levin’s “liberty” amendments: legalizing tyranny, […]


    Pingback by Article 5 of the US Constitution: What "Convention of States Project" (COS) isn't telling you | American Freedom Journal | November 22, 2019 | Reply

  5. […] a scary list, ironically almost entirely devoted to removing liberty from U.S. citizens. It’s what Conservatives are pushing for and it’s worth the read to be informed on what […]


    Pingback by Constitutional Convention: The GOP’s Long Game Should Scare the Shit Out of You – Recovering Democracy | September 10, 2018 | Reply

  6. Publius does not want to “modernize” the Constitution and states “…if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be re-written”. If Publius believes the Constitution to be so sacrosanct and unalterable, I challenge him/her to explain why the framers explicitly included a valid constitutional process for the states to “modernize” the Constitution under Article 5.


    Comment by Phi Lemon (@lemon_phi) | March 21, 2018 | Reply

    • I have explained several times in my papers why the convention method was added to Article V. You show you haven’t read the papers. See, e.g., The George Mason Fabrication.

      You also show you are not a Thinker. If you could Think, you could figure it out.

      And just because something is in the Constitution, doesn’t mean it’s a great idea and that we should do it. e.g. Article IV, Section 2, clause 3. Great idea, right? And what about Article I, Section 8, clause 11? We haven’t done that in 80 years! Time to do it again!

      And the Framers never said that the purpose of amendments was to “modernize” the Constitution – they said the purpose of amendments was to correct defects in the Constitution. I’ve written about this many times and produced the quotes and the links.

      I do believe that none of you COSP bots has an IQ above room temperature.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 30, 2018 | Reply

  7. Mark Levin is not advocating legalizing tyranny. To claim otherwise is dishonest.


    Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | January 7, 2018 | Reply

    • Either you didn’t read my paper or you didn’t understand it.

      Tell you what, why don’t you show me where I’m wrong? Go on – put your money where your mouth is!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 7, 2018 | Reply

      • I have read all of his politically oriented books. Men In Black, Ameritopia, The Liberty Amendments and Liberty and Tyranny. None of them had any advocacy of tyranny-quite the opposite, actually. To answer your statement that I had not read or understood your paper: I actually have, hence my statement that any accusation against him as being an advocate of tyranny is absurd. The guy is a lawyer, so he has to have knowledge about how the law works in theory and in practice.


        Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | January 8, 2018 | Reply

        • Read my article on Levin’s “liberty” amendments and SHOW US why his proposed amendments really don’t make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional. Show us why his amendments really don’t legalize tyranny. SHOW US!

          Your saying something doesn’t make it true – no matter how many times you repeat it.

          I’ve been a lawyer for most of my life; and I assure you that a great many lawyers are …. incompetent.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2018 | Reply

  8. […] Levin proposes some amendment of his own. First he wants to “limit” the federal bureaucracy. Here’s […]


    Pingback by Convention of States: don’t! | Conservative News and Views | November 27, 2016 | Reply

  9. […] The “Convention of States” project wants a “re-written” Constitution which legalizes powers the federal government has already usurped, and delegates new powers to the federal government such as total power over children. Yet they are […]


    Pingback by Open Letter to State Legislators Everywhere: The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue « Publius-Huldah's Blog | November 25, 2015 | Reply

  10. […] Read about Mark Levin’s phony “liberty amendments”. […]


    Pingback by Men Who Are Working Together to Destroy the US Constitution | Liberty News | November 12, 2015 | Reply

  11. […] Read about Mark Levin’s phony “liberty amendments”. […]


    Pingback by Men Who Are Working Together to Destroy the US Constitution | November 10, 2015 | Reply

  12. Good read however i think you are pushing the extreme limits to come up with your analysis on Levin’s amendments. It’s evident nothing is going to change backwards to regain the law as written so maybe a new law to contain the present mode of operation & an automatic renewal, evaluation or adjustment would be better than nothing except continuing with chiseling away at the Constitution as written now. Don’t get me wrong i do not believe it is ok what is taking place with our government officials & our rule of law as written.


    Comment by jerry wells | November 9, 2015 | Reply

    • Jerry, you said, I’m pushing “the extreme limits” with my analysis of Levin’s proposed Amendments.
      Can you suggest to me how I should have described his proposed Amendments? Choose any one of them you like to illustrate how I should have said it. Or feel free to discuss all of them and tell me how I should have said it.

      Meanwhile, I suggest that one of the defining sins of Americans of today is we don’t want to call things what they are. And the Bible tells us: You know men by their fruits.

      PLEASE respond. I want to learn how to communicate better.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | November 10, 2015 | Reply

  13. […] Read about Mark Levin’s phony “liberty amendments”. […]


    Pingback by Men Who Are Working Together to Destroy the US Constitution « Publius-Huldah's Blog | November 9, 2015 | Reply

  14. An amendment saying that “Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget…” does not automatically and permanently legalize any currently unconstitutional spending. Such an amendment still leaves unanswered whether that spending is constitutional or not. And likewise for other similar points you bring up. An amendment saying, “All federal departments and agencies shall expire…” does not add more constitutionality to any specific agency.

    If I am wrong then we can add language to this amendment to resolve that, but let’s unite and call for an Article V convention of states because it is the answer to the out of control federal govt.


    Comment by Proteus | December 29, 2014 | Reply

    • Think this through – but one issue at a time:

      Let’s examine the budget issue first since you mentioned it first.

      Under our existing Constitution, spending is limited to the enumerated powers: may Congress spend money on the patent and copyright office? Yes – see Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 8. May Congress appropriate funds to operate the mint? Yes, see Art. I, sec. 8, clause 5. May Congress appropriate money for the military? Yes, see Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 11-13.

      May Congress spend money on national parks and wildlife preserves? No, b/c the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to own and operate national parks and wildlife preserves.

      In 1921, Congress passed The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 which, for the first time, purported to authorize a “budget”. Since then, WHATEVER the president or Congress wants to spend money on is listed in the Budget. Spending is done without regard to the enumerated powers.

      I have 4 papers showing that all versions of a BBA are a hoax.

      If you want to know the Truth, I invite you to read those 4 papers, and then ask me any questions you have about the BBAs. All versions of a BBA, including Mark levin’s version, change the CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD for spending from whether the object of spending is an enumerated power to a limit on total spending (unless Congress waives the spending limit). Thus, the BBAs permit Congress to spend money on whatever they or the President want. They thus legalize spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of enumerated powers.

      Then let’s address your next concern.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 29, 2014 | Reply

      • I read your papers and while they may point out some concerns about BBAs in general, it still does not show how having the word “budget” in an amendment overrides those enumerated powers. All items in such a budget would still have to pass all other constitutional parameters. The proposed amendment does not change that.

        If we wanted to be extra cautious, then we can add a clause such as, “subject to the enumerated powers.”

        The important thing is that we call for a convention of states to work out these details. If the COS fails to deliver a good amendment, we can get more than enough states to refuse to ratify it. Our only other option is to continue to beg Congress to fix themselves which they have been unable to do for over a hundred years. Not supporting the COS is supporting the status quo because if we COULD fix Washington simply by voting in new elected officials or by just SAYING “Hey, that’s unconstitutional”, we WOULD have done so by now.

        A convention of states is the constitutional remedy which follows the spirit of the preamble to the Bill of Rights which states,

        “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”


        Comment by Proteus | December 29, 2014 | Reply

        • You aren’t thinking.

          Go through the Constitution and highlight all the powers delegated to Congress and The President. THOSE objects are what the Constitution authorizes Congress to spend money on. Only those objects and nothing more. Education isn’t listed among the enumerated powers. Farm subsidies aren’t listed. Food stamps aren’t listed. Flood relief isn’t listed. Most of what Congress spends money on today is for objects which are NOT among the few enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. THAT is why we have the huge debt. B/c Congress spends money where it has no constitutional authority to spend.

          A BBA changes the constitutional standard for spending FROM the enumerated powers TO whatever is in the budget – as long as the total spending for whatever is in the budget doesn’t exceed revenues [unless Congress votes to spend more than the revenues].


          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 29, 2014 | Reply

  15. I have read Mark Levin’s Liberty book and this “rebuttal” post brings up great points. The proposed solution is to “get constitutional” on government laws and regulations. The reason that will never work is we have elected “democrats” not “republicans”.

    I use the lower case in this sense as I am not talking about party affiliation, both sides are “democrats” as they believe in a democracy not a republic. They believe that those who elected them, give them money, lobby to them, and ensure they will have a job and easy life when they leave lawmaking should be appeased. You can’t change a democracy to a republic by electing democrats. And that is both parties.


    Comment by Thom Haupt | July 15, 2014 | Reply

    • Well, we have our work cut out for us. Our job is to educate our People. The American People are the ones who have destroyed Our Country. They REFUSED to read our Declaration of Independence; they REFUSED to read our Constitution. They were too lazy. B/c they don’t know what these documents say – b/c they have no understanding of our Founding Principles – they elected profoundly Ignorant People to office. This is not the fault of the political parties. This is the fault of the American People who REFUSED to do their duty as citizens.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 15, 2014 | Reply

      • Amen!


        Comment by Mark Wolfe | February 24, 2015 | Reply

  16. Hello: Do you have an article that discusses Government’s role in marriage? Thanks. If you do, could you email them to me? I would appreciate it.



    Comment by Tammy Kobza | June 13, 2014 | Reply

    • When WE THE PEOPLE ordained & established our Constitution, we never delegated power over abortion, homosexual sex, and marriage to the federal government. Accordingly, the federal government may not lawfully make laws, executive orders, agency rules, or supreme court opinions which purport to address ANY of these 3 issues for the Country at Large. When they do so, they usurp powers not delegated to them; and all such laws, orders, rules, or opinions should be nullified [i.e., IGNORED] by the States and The People.

      Read thru our Constitution: You will find that we delegated to Congress the power to make bankruptcy laws and issue patents & copyrights. But NEVER did we delegate to them power to meddle in abortion, homosexuality, or marriage. Those are issues reserved to the States or The People.

      HOWEVER! In Roe v. Wade, those judges on the supreme Court looked at the word, “liberty”, which appears in Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment [which addresses States] and said that “liberty” means “privacy” and “privacy” means YOU CAN KILL YOUR BABIES!!!!!

      A few years later, the supreme Court looked at that same word, and this time found that it means “homosexual sodomy is JUST FINE!”

      Well, now they are saying that Section 1 of the 14th amendment means homosexuals can get married!

      So, all this came about as a result of judicial usurpation of powers not delegated to the federal government.

      Just as the supreme Court has no lawful authority to “find” things in OUR Constitution which aren’t there – so Congress had no authority to pass DOMA – the defense of marriage Act. That act is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to Congress.

      I discussed the above in this paper. If you study it, you will come to understand how the supreme Court usurped powers and corrupted the morals of The People with their perversions of the 14th Amendment:

      Incidentally, the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to freed slaves and to protect them from Southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship. It had NOTHING to do with killing babies, legalizing sodomy, and homosexual marriage.

      Note above where I said: for the Country at Large. Congress has power to make such laws for the “federal enclaves” listed at Article I, Sec. 8, next to last clause; and for the military (Article I, Sec. 8, clause 14). For the “federal enclaves” [e.g., the District of Columbia, military bases, dock-Yards, etc.) Congress has general legislative authority to make such laws. But note that these are small areas used ONLY for the purposes authorized by our Constitution.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 13, 2014 | Reply

  17. I am afraid that the Constitution is going to go bye-bye one way or the other. The Left has already begun its campaign to discredit it. Most college students consider the founders as white privileged males who owned slaves and wrote the Constitution out of self-interest. Our founders are hated white males. We are also hearing that the Constitution is outdated. Obama can’t fulfill his agenda because it’s in the way. It is going to be replaced. In today’s America, nobody really cares as long as they can stick their noses in their electronic devices and tune out. We are living in a decadent, hedonistic society that is ripe for totalitarian rule. Our only hope is that some of the red states will secede and take the Constitution with them.


    Comment by crispinrobles | April 26, 2014 | Reply

    • I fear you are right. Even the people “on our side” refuse to read it. They can’t even name 3 of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress.
      But there is always hope. Remember Frodo & Sam.
      BTW: I went to your gravatar page to get a better look at your avatar. What a beautiful fox!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2014 | Reply

  18. PH,

    Thank you once again for your seemingly tireless efforts to bring truth and sanity to the issue. I realize Hannity is a Levinite, but at what point is he willing to provide his audience with a “Fair and Balanced” debate on the topic? Mr. Hannity has his handpicked “authorities” he allows in front of the cameras and microphones. Apparently Levin is “The Voice” of Constitutional Conservatism as much as “Jenny Beth” is the heart and soul of an anti-big-government grass roots movement. Each of these voices have completely distanced this writer from his shows. I tire of the diatribe and worship. I suppose when voices such as yours are by wisdom not volume raised to a heightened awareness that they can no longer be ignored the Hannities of this world will begin their campaign of minimization. Given your target is truth, that effort will fail, prompting or forcing them to grant you an audience. I look forward to that day.
    For the Republic
    Thx – Barry


    Comment by wisdomdepot | April 26, 2014 | Reply

  19. I agree with everything you have said and have been saying but the problem is people just don’t care! Somehow we need to wake them up to the severity of what is happening around them today!! Great article , now if people will just read it.


    Comment by Edman | April 26, 2014 | Reply

  20. Ms. Publis

    I agree with most of why you had written but am discourage by the constant criticism of others who are trying to do something. You mention if those who would follow the Constitution as is then no need for amending. But yet you and those who oppose a Convention of States seem to forget that there are seven articles and Article V is as any of the others is part of this Constitution. You like the President, Congress and The Supreme Court like to Cherry Pick what part of the Constitution best fits your needs. Also you seem to not mention Levin’s first Amendment that he proposed and the root cause of today’s problems. TERM LIMITS. Once again picking and choosing what fits your agenda. This morning I reviewed a film put out by your buddies the “John Birch Society” (I do agree with 95% of their agenda minus the Article V) once again cherry pickers of the Constitution. The title “Overview of America.” What I found disturbing was the last sentence of the video.” “All that is needed is for a sufficient amount of people to get engaged and fight for freedom.” How would you interpret that? Against a peaceful article V but………..

    [link to video deleted by PH]


    Comment by Allen | April 25, 2014 | Reply

    • 1. “Constant criticism”? or Telling the Truth?

      2. You believe that I am unaware of Articles I-IV and VI & VII of our Constitution? Please spend some time looking around my site – I address all these other Articles – and show the original intent of each Article.

      3. “Cherry picking”? You remind me of the guys who are so proud of themselves for “knowing” about the 14th amendment that they fault me for not discussing the 14th Amendment in my papers on, e.g., Congresses’ enumerated powers or the President’s enumerated powers. My latest paper was on 6 of Mark Levin’s proposed amendments.

      4. In my latest paper, I discussed 6 of Levin’s amendments which all have one thing in common: They all do the opposite of what he claims they will do. And look at how long that paper is! If I had discussed all of his amendments in one paper, it would have been too long. Do you see? a writer can’t address EVERY issue in one paper. So we put them into logical categories, and deal with the issue category by category.

      5. I have another paper planned for Mark Levin’s remaining amendments. His remaining amendments are as bad as the 6 I have already discussed and EXPOSED. I wrote a paper some time ago on why term limits won’t solve the problem – did you know?

      You sling around the term, “cherry pick”, in such a manner as to demonstrate that you are unaware of the concept of logical classification. My writing is highly logical – you can’t see that? We must address issues in an orderly fashion. The 6 amendments I just discussed all have a common denominator: They ALL increase the powers of the federal government, and they ALL do the opposite of what Mark Levin claims they will do. For now, focus on those 6 amendments. Can you find any errors in what I wrote on those 6?

      Then, later, I will discuss Levin’s other amendments.

      I deleted the link to the video you posted – it takes up too much space – and slows things up.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 26, 2014 | Reply

  21. Our Constitution has provisions for amending if there is a need. However, what is more important is electing politicians that will live up to their oath of office, and the American people need to live up to their duties as citizens of this great land. For many years we have been batting zero on the former, and not very well on the latter. We are the last bastion of Liberty and Freedom in the free world, we cannot afford to lose it to tyranny there is no place left to go.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by L.E. Liesner | April 25, 2014 | Reply

  22. P.H., I humbly bow to your insight.


    Comment by RalphPierre | April 25, 2014 | Reply

    • No need to bow to me – I’m just a person. But I do work all the time.
      Glad you liked it!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 25, 2014 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: