Mark Levin - great author, great mind. For those who don't know him. He is a political talk host and is the founder of Landmark Legal foundation. He is one of the foremost constitutional attorneys in the country. I've read all his books and just ordered "Ameritopia". This is a good interview.

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/exclusive-mark-levin-ameritopia-we-now-live-post-constitutional-country

From the interview ...

 

"Look, I’ve said that Obama is a Marxist. Now, there’s 50 different types of Marxists, but it really doesn’t matter if I call him Marxist or not. If people are more comfortable, call him a utopian, because that’s exactly what he is. Call him a statist, call him whatever you want. What I do know is when a man runs for office and he says repeatedly that he wants to fundamentally transform America, I know two things: Number one the Constitution does not empower the president to fundamentally transform America. It gives him certain responsibilities. That’s what he gets to do, that and nothing more. Fundamentally transforming America is unconstitutional on its face. Number two, fundamentally transforming America, as I’ve said before, means you must hate America. Why would you want to fundamentally transform something that you love? So, he doesn’t like the Constitution because the Constitution stands in the way of these people, the leftists. The Declaration of Independence is rejected."

Well said Cammando.

I didn't say it. Just a quote from the interview. But I totally agree..

I didn't say it. Just a quote from the interview. But I totally agree..

Commando, totally encourage you to read his books. All of them including Rescuing Sprite, as it gives you an understanding of the warmth and compassion of the man along with the clear vision.

Look, I’ve said that Obama is a Marxist. Now, there’s 50 different types of Marxists, but it really doesn’t matter if I call him Marxist or not. If people are more comfortable, call him a utopian, because that’s exactly what he is. Call him a statist, call him whatever you want. What I do know is when a man runs for office and he says repeatedly that he wants to fundamentally transform America, I know two things: Number one the Constitution does not empower the president to fundamentally transform America. It gives him certain responsibilities. That’s what he gets to do, that and nothing more. Fundamentally transforming America is unconstitutional on its face. Number two, fundamentally transforming America, as I’ve said before, means you must hate America. Why would you want to fundamentally transform something that you love? So, he doesn’t like the Constitution because the Constitution stands in the way of these people, the leftists. The Declaration of Independence is rejected.

 

So, by the bolded rationale, Abraham Lincoln hated the United States?

So, by the bolded rationale, Abraham Lincoln hated the United States?

Big Time !!

Okay, I'm going to get big picture and perhaps a little abstract here so I beg anyone reading this to just indulge me a little...

 

How do we stop it? One of the most intriguing things I've ever heard about politics was this: "The history of politics is the history of failure." The Pharaohs were conquered. Rome fell. The Mongol Empire failed. The Papal States were incorporated. The Ottoman Empire collapsed.

 

If the United States is currently on a downward-trend, as some on here have suggested, can it be stopped? I'm not convinced that it can. ALL governments, but especially the "free" ones, depend on people to have faith in them and the ideas they stand for. I don't see a whole lot of faith in government, from either side of the aisle. The left is convinced that government works for corporate overlords and so does too little for the people. The right is convinced that government is beholden to special interests and so continues to create unnecessary legislation that favors those interests at the expense of the people. How can this be reconciled and can it be reconciled in time?

 

This disagreement will usually trickle down to other discussions. For example, a study was released sometime in the last year that suggested that the United States was now 10th on the planet for upward mobility, that is, the ability of a generation to perform better economically than the generation preceding it. The left will tell you that the United States has lost its place atop that list because the government has increasingly favored corporate rights to move jobs abroad, hold wages flat and bust the labor unions that helped empower the middle class in this country after World War II. The right will suggest that this is because government's increasing willingness to over-regulate and over-tax businesses, making it difficult to hire new workers and hampering their ability to raise and spend capital for innovation.

 

The intriguing question from a big-picture standpoint isn't "Which side is correct?" but whether such a conflict is inevitable. Not helping the matter are the political parties, for whom it is in their best interest to fan the flames, despite necessarily turning off people who have typically been on the other side with inflammatory rhetoric. "The Tea Party is for racists." You've just been tuned out. "Obama hates America." You've just been tuned out. The system is currently thriving off the conflict, making it even more difficult to determine if the conflict can be overcome.

 

For the left, the future path is considerably easier. History shows us that all governments change over time, even if those changes end up ultimately being for the worse. Progressivism is necessarily about trying to achieve something greater than what came before. Call that utopian, even deluded if you want, but that's what's at the heart of the left. For the right, it's an uphill battle. For them, it's ultimately going to be a battle won by convincing people that the abstract ideas at the heart of what the United States stood for 200 years ago are not only relevant but have practical, positive effects in the modern world. When the discussion comes down to the protection of what appears to be an abstraction versus what appears to be real action, the result is battle that I think history reveals conservative elements within a society typically don't win.

So, by the bolded rationale, Abraham Lincoln hated the United States?

 

Did Lincoln think that America needed to be fundimentally changed or did the electorate, and it just happened on his watch?

 

Did the changes under Lincoln happen within the confines of the constitution?

 

Did Lincoln ever say that the constitution is fundamentally flawed?

Okay, I'm going to get big picture and perhaps a little abstract here so I beg anyone reading this to just indulge me a little...

 

How do we stop it? One of the most intriguing things I've ever heard about politics was this: "The history of politics is the history of failure." The Pharaohs were conquered. Rome fell. The Mongol Empire failed. The Papal States were incorporated. The Ottoman Empire collapsed.

 

If the United States is currently on a downward-trend, as some on here have suggested, can it be stopped? I'm not convinced that it can. ALL governments, but especially the "free" ones, depend on people to have faith in them and the ideas they stand for. I don't see a whole lot of faith in government, from either side of the aisle. The left is convinced that government works for corporate overlords and so does too little for the people. The right is convinced that government is beholden to special interests and so continues to create unnecessary legislation that favors those interests at the expense of the people. How can this be reconciled and can it be reconciled in time?

 

This disagreement will usually trickle down to other discussions. For example, a study was released sometime in the last year that suggested that the United States was now 10th on the planet for upward mobility, that is, the ability of a generation to perform better economically than the generation preceding it. The left will tell you that the United States has lost its place atop that list because the government has increasingly favored corporate rights to move jobs abroad, hold wages flat and bust the labor unions that helped empower the middle class in this country after World War II. The right will suggest that this is because government's increasing willingness to over-regulate and over-tax businesses, making it difficult to hire new workers and hampering their ability to raise and spend capital for innovation.

 

The intriguing question from a big-picture standpoint isn't "Which side is correct?" but whether such a conflict is inevitable. Not helping the matter are the political parties, for whom it is in their best interest to fan the flames, despite necessarily turning off people who have typically been on the other side with inflammatory rhetoric. "The Tea Party is for racists." You've just been tuned out. "Obama hates America." You've just been tuned out. The system is currently thriving off the conflict, making it even more difficult to determine if the conflict can be overcome.

 

For the left, the future path is considerably easier. History shows us that all governments change over time, even if those changes end up ultimately being for the worse. Progressivism is necessarily about trying to achieve something greater than what came before. Call that utopian, even deluded if you want, but that's what's at the heart of the left. For the right, it's an uphill battle. For them, it's ultimately going to be a battle won by convincing people that the abstract ideas at the heart of what the United States stood for 200 years ago are not only relevant but have practical, positive effects in the modern world. When the discussion comes down to the protection of what appears to be an abstraction versus what appears to be real action, the result is battle that I think history reveals conservative elements within a society typically don't win.

 

One of the best summations of where we are and where we may be headed I've seen since - well, maybe ever. Good job.

 

As you alluded to, I'm afraid people's infatuation with "change" and "improvement" make it nearly impossible to bring this country back to it's founding principles.

One of the best summations of where we are and where we may be headed I've seen since - well, maybe ever. Good job.

 

As you alluded to, I'm afraid people's infatuation with "change" and "improvement" make it nearly impossible to bring this country back to it's founding principles.

 

That's not exactly what I was going for. I do believe that the conflict between progressivism and conservatism is one that all societies go through and it's the one that ultimately results in the end for a lot of them, but I don't necessarily believe that such change is always bad. In fact, I think history teaches us two valuable lessons on that subject: 1) that all societies do -- and must -- change and 2) that on a large, historical scope, that progress has overwhelmingly been for the better. There are certainly steps backwards or problems along the way: for example, the industrial revolution created jobs and wealth on a scale never before seen in human history but led to the previously unheard-of problem of massive urban poverty and the horrors of mechanized warfare. But to my mind it's impossible to deny that on average the 21st century is a better time to be alive and human than probably any other time in history.

 

Accompanying technological innovation is almost always some form of political innovation. We're still dealing with the consequences of the industrial revolution and the phenomenon of urban poverty. Starting with the reform of the Poor Laws in Britain in the 1830s right up through the modern welfare state, we're still coming to grips with how to deal with it. The question for us to deal with is how to live with a Constitution that was written before our country industrialized. There are legitimate arguments to be made about whether strict adherence to a 200-year-old, pre-industrial document seriously hampers our ability to deal with the problems of the 21st century. There are also legitimate arguments to be made about whether a lack of strict adherence to our Constitution didn't help create some of those problems. And THAT'S the problem I really wanted to get at.

That's not exactly what I was going for. I do believe that the conflict between progressivism and conservatism is one that all societies go through and it's the one that ultimately results in the end for a lot of them, but I don't necessarily believe that such change is always bad. In fact, I think history teaches us two valuable lessons on that subject: 1) that all societies do -- and must -- change and 2) that on a large, historical scope, that progress has overwhelmingly been for the better. There are certainly steps backwards or problems along the way: for example, the industrial revolution created jobs and wealth on a scale never before seen in human history but led to the previously unheard-of problem of massive urban poverty and the horrors of mechanized warfare. But to my mind it's impossible to deny that on average the 21st century is a better time to be alive and human than probably any other time in history.

 

Accompanying technological innovation is almost always some form of political innovation. We're still dealing with the consequences of the industrial revolution and the phenomenon of urban poverty. Starting with the reform of the Poor Laws in Britain in the 1830s right up through the modern welfare state, we're still coming to grips with how to deal with it. The question for us to deal with is how to live with a Constitution that was written before our country industrialized. There are legitimate arguments to be made about whether strict adherence to a 200-year-old, pre-industrial document seriously hampers our ability to deal with the problems of the 21st century. There are also legitimate arguments to be made about whether a lack of strict adherence to our Constitution didn't help create some of those problems. And THAT'S the problem I really wanted to get at.

 

There is a mechanism available for changing/updating the Constitution, and I agree that perhaps there needs to be some change to keep up with the times. But I think that it should be done within the framework of the Constitution. So many unconstitutional things have been done in the last 80 years, and the rate is accelerating, that they become acceptable. I think Levin is correct that we are living in a post-Constitutional time, and when we are a society living outside the Constitution, we are lawless. Not a good thing.

 

Regarding poverty, etc., I don't see the Constitution as a document that was meant to deal with problems like that. It was written to define the limited powers of government in relation to our individual liberties. It was never meant as a blueprint for preventing all of society's ills, rather to preserve personal liberty. That's Levin's point - Marx and the rest were attempting to design a Utopia, the U.S. Constitution is not.

Okay, I'm going to get big picture and perhaps a little abstract here so I beg anyone reading this to just indulge me a little...

 

How do we stop it? One of the most intriguing things I've ever heard about politics was this: "The history of politics is the history of failure." The Pharaohs were conquered. Rome fell. The Mongol Empire failed. The Papal States were incorporated. The Ottoman Empire collapsed.

 

If the United States is currently on a downward-trend, as some on here have suggested, can it be stopped? I'm not convinced that it can. ALL governments, but especially the "free" ones, depend on people to have faith in them and the ideas they stand for. I don't see a whole lot of faith in government, from either side of the aisle. The left is convinced that government works for corporate overlords and so does too little for the people. The right is convinced that government is beholden to special interests and so continues to create unnecessary legislation that favors those interests at the expense of the people. How can this be reconciled and can it be reconciled in time?

 

This disagreement will usually trickle down to other discussions. For example, a study was released sometime in the last year that suggested that the United States was now 10th on the planet for upward mobility, that is, the ability of a generation to perform better economically than the generation preceding it. The left will tell you that the United States has lost its place atop that list because the government has increasingly favored corporate rights to move jobs abroad, hold wages flat and bust the labor unions that helped empower the middle class in this country after World War II. The right will suggest that this is because government's increasing willingness to over-regulate and over-tax businesses, making it difficult to hire new workers and hampering their ability to raise and spend capital for innovation.

 

The intriguing question from a big-picture standpoint isn't "Which side is correct?" but whether such a conflict is inevitable. Not helping the matter are the political parties, for whom it is in their best interest to fan the flames, despite necessarily turning off people who have typically been on the other side with inflammatory rhetoric. "The Tea Party is for racists." You've just been tuned out. "Obama hates America." You've just been tuned out. The system is currently thriving off the conflict, making it even more difficult to determine if the conflict can be overcome.

 

For the left, the future path is considerably easier. History shows us that all governments change over time, even if those changes end up ultimately being for the worse. Progressivism is necessarily about trying to achieve something greater than what came before. Call that utopian, even deluded if you want, but that's what's at the heart of the left. For the right, it's an uphill battle. For them, it's ultimately going to be a battle won by convincing people that the abstract ideas at the heart of what the United States stood for 200 years ago are not only relevant but have practical, positive effects in the modern world. When the discussion comes down to the protection of what appears to be an abstraction versus what appears to be real action, the result is battle that I think history reveals conservative elements within a society typically don't win.

 

Good, interesting post. It's my reading of conservative thought, at least in the Burkean mold, that conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to change, but that it should occur gradually and organically rather than rapidly or reactionary. I wonder then if it isn't a matter of one side winning but a matter of the speed of change. Though, the conservative tenor in American discourse is often more regressive, it seems, which changes my comments a bit.

Regarding poverty, etc., I don't see the Constitution as a document that was meant to deal with problems like that. It was written to define the limited powers of government in relation to our individual liberties. It was never meant as a blueprint for preventing all of society's ills, rather to preserve personal liberty. That's Levin's point - Marx and the rest were attempting to design a Utopia, the U.S. Constitution is not.

 

But even that comes under fire from a certain perspective. The Constitution was drafted a group of the leading men of the day, specifically, a group of the leading white, landowning, wealthy men of the day. Among those clamoring for change there are at least a few who feel that the document itself is arcane and was designed to protect the rights and privileges of a select group of individuals, sometimes at the expense of the many and that no matter how you amend it, the document itself reflects that original purpose. I'm not saying I agree with it (I don't) but when that most fundamental element of trust with relation to the basic framework of the government doesn't exist, what hope does it have to be successful? My argument would be: very little.

I'm admittedly not more than an average American with average political and historical knowledge. Are there any other countries operating under a 200 year old document? At what point does the Constitution become outdated? And don't take my question as a 'let's get rid of the Constitution' question. My question falls more in the 'can the Constitution be updated without people feeling like their rights have been stripped?'.

 

My thinking is no because each political party will blame the other to receive votes, support, donations, etc. The slightest change to the 2nd Amendment may start a war. :lol: At some point in the future whether it be near or hundreds of years down the road I am thinking a new Constitution will be written.