Statements to me: “Mark Levin is one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers of our century … Roberts should be taken out in front of the Supreme Court building and not hung … the 16th and 17th amendment does not give the government the right to tell private citizens that they must purchase anything.
They were not intended to take away our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness nor were they intended to give the federal government control over the lives of individuals. Should they be repealed? Yes. Do they have any bearing on the decision in this case? No.”
My Response: “I know who Levin is and I listen, often agreeing. I also pay more attention and read all of his books, publications, etc. And we do agree the Court’s decision is a tragedy.
But there is a caveat; Mark’s take on the ruling would be a perfect response IF the 16th and 17th Amendment did not exist. But they do.
Mark believes so strongly that we now still live in a republic — we do not. Nationalism overtook federalism over a few decades once the Courts got their finger on the 17th Amendment.
The one thing Mark has yet to come to terms with: the only fix for our quandary is not to fight all the details as they come down to us- the only fix is to repeal the 17th so that we can return to a proper usage of the Constitution and its principles.
Mark is a lawyer- he is trained to see and think in terms of case law, not constitutional law.
Roberts did not expand the power of taxation. This power is already at a maximum (countered only by the vote), and we know this by the years of adjudication based on the 16th Amendment– the courts have verified numerous times the 16th did not increase the power of taxation because that power is only limited by the tolerance of the People.
Further, the power of taxation and its reach is exactly what the courts say it is (which is so because nine lawyers in robes say it’s so and we’ve done nothing to stop it).
The only power that can counter this awesome and destructive power is nation-state representation on the Hill– but that counter was eliminated with the 17th Amendment.
Roberts ruled in accordance with the concept of nationalism –which I hate and despise– but it is the flavor of the day– a flavor we the people have allowed since 1913.
And this is exactly why Roberts gave us a “modern” ruling, BUT also added his warning to us that political choices have consequences.
The High Court is not immune to the precedence of case law and long-standing modifications to originalism. Only the people can fix this and begin a new direction.
But meanwhile, Roberts gave us a teaching moment; the question is– will we use it for the betterment of responsible government.
Respectfully, you are wrong; minimizing states rights minimizes the individual- it is from the state which we individually have the protection of natural rights.
And mostly, it was the liberal concept of incorporation through the 14-16th Amendments that led to the 17th AND the national power being able to reach directly to the people (the control is direct- the protections are general).
Before the 17th and the incorporation doctrine, the federal governments reach was only to the state, not directly to the people.
THIS POINT IS EVER SO IMPORTANT, AND YOU SHOULD THINK AND STUDY ON IT:
No creator can make something greater than itself. What came first- the nation-state, or the federal government? We were not originally a country, but a union of nation-states with individual charter constitutions, united in thought expressed in the Declaration of Independence– all of which dramatically changed with the proliferation of the 17th Amendment; again, an example of Roberts’ words: political choices of consequences. His ruling is one of those consequences.
Roberts gave us a cue; a slap in the face; a Teaching Moment– will we squander it? If Mark Levin’s words are definitive, yes.
Source: Bruce Hedrick