Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140531

Probable cause and opposition to warrantless searches. You condemn the fifth amendment, condemn the First Amendment and free speech and religious liberty . Condemn all these amendments, which were also adopted by many of the framers who were slave owners. Do you reject them, too . The rational position should be, what did these men create that is beneficial to this nation . What they created that is beneficial to this nation is a society, if they couldnt be completely free of slavery then, is free of slavery today, and thats what the constitution sets thats what the declaration of independence sets forth. In other words, its set in motion. And the constitution, a governing document, set in place. So, i reject this idea that these men are to be dismissed, and one of the reasons george mason didnt sign the constitution was because he didnt think it went far enough on the matter of slavery. Matter of fact the issue of slavery came up early during the Constitutional Convention in georgia and South Carolina threatened to withdraw. So, here they were, trying to put a nation together, they couldnt resolve some of these very difficult and issues at the time, and i would say one other thing. If the constitution had failed there wouldnt be a United States, would there . There wouldnt have been a civil war, would there . And slavery wouldnt have been eliminated in the southern states, would it . No. Those states would have been off on their own, maybe they form their own country. Who knows what the future of those of states would have been. But because of the constitution, because we had a union, ultimately because of the civil war, it ended slavery, not just in parts of the northern states but throughout the unitees United States. Host todd wants to know if you would ever run for office. Guest no. Host why . Guest i think i can from my own perspective, think i can be more effective not being in office. Imagine all the sound bites theyd pull up from my radio show and run with the 30second ads. I give it no thought whatsoever. When i was younger i did. I thought about it. Matter of fact i ran for office when i was in law school. I was 19 and i got elected to my local school board. I was 20, still in law school, and i did that for about three years, and i have calmed down since then. Oo why the school board . Guest well, its funny. They were raising taxes massively on the community, and only through property taxes could they do it. And i could see how it was hurting my parents and other people, and i decided to run, and i guess i for my own Little Community i created something akin to a Tea Party Group but the committee for tax limitation, and while i was running in the Republican Party primary, i also established this committee for tax limitation and we would go door to door and have coffee crashes. I worked the Community Day in and day out and i won the primary and the general election, and i served nor three years until i lost pennsylvania. That get to rid of the desire to run for office. Ive thought about it. Ive thought about i the state delegate running against him because he was spending too much money, and he got nervous and everything like that. But ive thought about it. Not in the last 20 years, though. Host do politicians come to you for endorsements . Guest yes. Host do you ever endorse . Guest yes. Host whoa who is your favorite Politics Today . Guest if i dont get trouble, have a number of favorite politics. Ted cruz and mike lee and i like rand paul. Now im going to get in trouble. Members of the house or other senators oo marco rubio. Guest if disagray disagree with hi strongly on immigration and i agree with taxes and he introduced a bill to prevent obama he hopes from subsidizing the Insurance Companies which will clearly have to be done and clearly shouldnt be done. So, yeah, theres aspects of his record i like as well. Host 2016, jeb bush vs. Hillary clinton. Guest disaster. A disaster for everybody. I dont know if that will happen or not. I hope not. I hope both parties do better than that. I mean, Hillary Clinton was a disasterrous secretary of state. The middle east is burning. Obama likes to say, at least before kerry was appointed, the best secretary of state in history. What the hell is he talking about . Her record is a disaster. And kerry looks like he wants to oneup her and make it even worse. Constantly putting the pinch on israel and looking for some phony peace with the palestinians, and appeasing the iranian islamic regime in train. These folks are just its a complete disaster, and you can see theyre not taken seriously. The egyptian military, which runs egypt now, is now building ties with the russians, something that democrat and republican president s have prevent since sadat. Were losing turkey as its becoming increasingly islamist. Saudi arabians are set up for this president , and these secretaries of state and so forth. The chinese have moved into the china sea now. All kinds of things going on globally that are hugely problematic, and thats because of the disastrous policies of this president and his secretaries of state. As for jeb bush, how many more bushes do we need . We have had two as president. Jeb bush, trashing people who dont support him amnesty. Pushing for this common core federal education mandate on the states. I mean, we have been there done that, and its a disaster. How about we do this . Republicans. How about we pick somebody who is more in line with reagan. How about we try to actually win a president ial election. We talk about liberty and private Property Rights, and free Market Capital limp and opportunity and Wealth Creation and own ebb is having a obama is having a big picture with Unemployed People behind him. Which is funny since probably most of them are unemployed and a result of his policies. Wee why dont we have people who can stand up confidently, koa airportly, and advance our principles. Dont have to be purists, just conservative. S. Just dont think this is asking too much. Why reject the one example two Massive National landslides, reagan, and keep embracing the losers . I dont know. But i think two bushes is enough. Let me put it that way. Host chris christie. Guest i dont care for him. He has a fairly terrible record in new jersey. They have the highest property taxes in the country. They did when he came in and still do today. He is weak on limited government. All these governors and state attorneys general who signed the brief against obamacare, christie refused and he still wont explain why he did it other than the lame argument he didnt want to spend the money. Doesnt cost him anything to sign it. He has expanded medicaid now, which is a disaster for the states. One out every four dollars that the states budget spend on medicaid and it will go through the roof when the federal subsidies stop. He is proam necessary city, pro gun control. Again, why would the Republican Party go to another northeastern republican. They went to romney. That failed. Christie, thats not going to work. Dont think his temperment will fly in much of the country. But, no, im not a fan. Host mark levin, who is sprite . Guest sprite was a dog that we owned, family and i, a shelter dog, fer shelter dog we ever had, and oh, gosh, how many years ago. I guess its 2004, thereabouts. We adopted him, brought him into our home. He was sort of a blond, white dog so the family called him sprite because we had a dog that was black and white and we called him pepsi, so we had pepsi and sprite, like the drinks. And we only had him two years and he was a wonderful, wonderful dog, wonderful companion to our dog, pepsi, wonderful dog to us, and i have a huge heart for dogs, for animals generally, but dogs in particular, and about a year in the got sick, part of his skull sort of caved in, and a tumor, and he it was just very sad at the end there, we had to put him down. We never had put down a dog before. And it was extremely emotional and very, very upsetting to be honest i got very down for a period of months, and what is interesting about that maybe to people i dont know is i had in an early discussions with simon some schuster about writing a book on conservatives that became liberty and tyranny, and sold 1. 3 million copies. Then sprite passed away, and i told them i wasnt interested in writing anything. And then because of sprite. Because of sprite guest i just wasnt in the mood. Because it hit me hard. And so they said, how about you write a book about your dog, and then you write the book on conserve tim because we really want you to write this book on conservatism so i did. And its rescuing sprite, took me three months to write it. It was very difficult to write. But it was fairly quick, and then i remember my editor saying, you need to work on another book, and then he called me and said, slow down, lets focus on talking about rescuing sprite. What happened was it took off and went to number two or three on the New York Times bestseller list, and its a very personal book. People who have adopted shelter dogs or even if they havent but have lost a dog or an animal and had to put them down, they get much solace out of this book, and im glad they do, and Koch Brothers had nothing to do with and it every penny i get from the book 0 goes to animal shelters. Host do you have a dog . Sunny eave a dog called barney. He is a shelter dog, had him two years, maybe four or five years old, and the story with barney is, he was turned in by somebody to an animal shelter, a rural virginia county, and they dont keep them that long, one or two days, and they were going to put him down, but a volunteer there called friends of mine, a shelter that im called to, called lost dog and cat in virginia, arlington, virginia, and they sent their van over there picked up six or seven of them within hours of them being put to death, and guy to these adoption things from time to time. I still do. And i had lost pepsi. Pepsi had died. About six or seven months earlier, and a buddy of mine and i were on the floor playing with the dogs, and this one in particular was very receptive to us, and he wanted to take him home but his wife said no. And then i wanted to take him home, and if waited a few days and called them and they said he available. They had him four weeks, long time, so he is my little buddy, a bundle of joy, and i think when im done with radio and all the rest of it im going to spend my time trying to save as many of these dogs as possible. Host sean in hawaii, thank you for holding on, youre on with author mark levin. Caller i am from hawaii, aloha. I agree with most of what you have been talking about earlier this morning, and seeing that it like to know thing that it like to know, if ever existed in our history and how long did it last or does it still exist . Thank you. Host thank you, sean. Guest that is a great question. The answer is, yes, a republic that has ever been established, and what some of us are trying too do is restore it. No, its not perfect. No country is going to be perfect. No government is going to be perfect. But were not talking about perfection. Were talking about completely out of control and getting increasingly out of control. So, the kids and some have grandkids, want to take steps today to try to avert the end of what america wont end but the republic part will expend thats important. No nation is guaranteed existence in perpetuity and none of them do exist forever, but theres never been a perfect society, we just talked about the framers. They werent perfect. But they were geniuses. And they were patriots. And they put everything on the line to establish this nation. And i think that we owe it to the next generation and generations behind us to do everything we can to restore this republic and reestablish constitutional government. We have young men and women overseas, 18, 19, 20, 25, putting their life on the line, one hell hole after not a, afghanistan and other places around the world. And they dont have these discussions you and i are having today or im having with the callers. Theyre there because theyre americans and because theyre there to protect america to protect our liberty and our constitution. And thats what theyre theyre not fighting, putting their lives on the line for obamacare or doddfrank or unemployment compensation. Theyre putting their lives on the line because of america. The American Republic. It seems to was we civilians who arent putting our lives on the line, the least we can do is make the case here at home before its too late, before we hollow out our society and defend our principles. Host steve wheeler, twitter does mark purposely exaggerate his views on radio . His books books and this intervw display more selfcontrol. Guest laughing. I dont purposely exaggerate anything. I am a guest here on cspan. Its like being a guest at a wedding or being a guest at whatever, and you conduct yourself as a guest. Now, cspan is not talk radio. When i do my show, as i said earlier, this program, the host has to have integrity, so if youre as passionate as i am about these issues and the future of the country, that comps across on the microphone. I dont do npr orthos people have to intentionally sit there and speak like zombies. Thats what theyre told to do and thats what they do. I am myself. On the radio, and im myself here, too. Youre asking me intelligent questions so im giving you straight answers. If a kook calls i call him a kook. But im a guest here and i know how cspan conducts itself. Youre watching booktv on cspan2. This is our in depth program. This mark were featuring mark levin. Bruno, arizona, youre on the air. Hi, mark. I enjoy your books immensely. I have all of them. I have a question about the liberty amendments because there was something that ive been thinking about since we have the occupant of the white house who changes laws at will, spends our money, driving us into oblivion, and does whatever he feels like he wants to do, wants to be a dictator, and we have a senate where harry reid is carrying his water constantly. I know that obama wont be impeached. Do you have another idea that can be incorporated into the conviction the state that would allow the people to take other actions to get rid of a person like obama, because obviously right now we dont have a way of getting rid of him, and waiting until 2016 we may not have a country left, and as for the guy that was complaining about the koch brewers, he might realize george left wing organizations that was are out to destroy this country, but i really am interested in your idea. Host lets get an answer. Thank you for calling in. Guest im a big fan thereof the Koch Brothers. Theyre capital lists and halted by the left and see the country going to help and want to do something about it. I want to salute the Koch Brothers and thank them. Now, what else can we do . I mean, i dont know of anything else we can do. The brilliance of article 5 in the state convention process is it bypasses obama and harry reid and boehner and the court and the massive bureaucracy, and somebody might say, well, how is it if they dont comply with the constitution today, obama as an example what makes you think that it will comply with these amendments. Thats the brilliance of the process. Whether they comply or not, the states will decide what they states comply with. So if threefifths of the state overturn a federal statute and obama wants to continue to implement the federal statute, then he is violating the constitution and the states need not comply. So, if youre going to have a president , like congress, that is so lawless now, that they blatantly violate something of that sort, theres no reason they states have toed a their what the to adhere to what the president and the congress are doing. Were making a constitutional argument and the others are not. So, hopefully people will my hope is more people will talk about this process, the more who learn about it, will be compelled to support it. Host from ameritopia you wrote, it was not a revolution of violence. It was revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking. Inasmuch as is was successful, the power of politics replaced business. This is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time. This shift was the revolution. Guest absolutely brilliant. Whittaker chambers, and that comment in particular. The revolution has already occurred. The status or progressive revolution of 100 years ago, were living in it right now, and what i try and do in actually all four of these books, men in black, liberty and tyranny, ameritopia and the liberty amendments, is to discuss it at some length and make the case, and we do live in a largely postconstitutional period. There are some conservatives, quote unquotes, more than likely pseudo conservatives, who are perfectly happy with this and are prepared to accommodate it so they come up with socalled reforms, a little tax cut here, something on the edge over here, but will not address the constitutional issues in the foundational detect defects of the new deal and these other things that it created. So, theres some of that is skissism within the conservative moment, if there is a movement. They quotedded mondes burk speeding the status quo. He supported the revolution. And but the American Revolution was considered rem pretty damn radical at the time, too, and burk supported it. Burk did believe in experience didnt believe in lurching in one direction or the other. He believed in moderation, but the word moderation is being bard bastardized by some that is a trajectory that nil my view fundamentally alter or fundamentally transform, as the president says, our country. I dont think burk would sit still and say we need another tax cut. He would agree with george mason that the government has gotten so much it does, regulations through taxation, and the people need a lawful constitutional, nonviolent civil option. Host men in black, how in the Supreme Court is destroying america. Came out in 2005. Followed by, rescuing sprite in 2007. Then liberty and tyranny a conservative manifesto. Ameritopia, the unmaking of america in 2012, and just this last year the liberty amends restoring the American Republic came out in august of 2013. Mr. Levin is working on another book but wont tell us anything about it. Bruce in oregon, youre on with awe their mark levin. Caller thank you very much. Mr. Reverence i was wondering, what you thought of seems to me that the senate treats the house as kind of like the minor leagues. Theres a lot of former house members in the senate, and i have never heard of a senator running for the house. Guest thats a very good point. I havent thought it through. Maybe theres one somewhere. We do know a former president who ran for the house, john quincy adams, but a former senator . I think its happened but i cant remember off the top of my head, but its a good point because the house of representatives really is meant to be the peoples house, and the senate really is meant to be the house of the state legislature, and the senate really isnt the peoples house. Its not the house of the state legislatures. We dont know what it is. Its a mess. And that was pushed in 1913 by the progressives as was the federal income tax, those two amendments adopted the same area. Progressives were republicans, too. Taft, roosevelt excuse me and this is great, because now were enfranchised. We can vote for our own senator. The problem is youre voting for a senator who is anxiousable answerable to whom . They treat the states like just another group. So theyll spend as much time dealing with a governor, say. They feel no obligation to these state governments, the state legislature whatsoever so that was quite revolutionary when that occurred. I think thats right. I dont think theres any justification for it. But you have a lot of members of the house who think its a step up to run for the senate, and a lot of senators who look down on the house. Just shows you how screwed up the system has become. Host robert in pennsylvania. This is an eminem on your radio somehow you talk about class warfare in america. 2011 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top one percent of households increased their income by 280 after tax over a period between 1979 and 2007, at the same time the average income of the bottom, 90 of americans basically stagnated, growing just eight eight percent over the same period. Doesnt this prove theres class warfare going on in this country, the very wealthy against everyone else . Guest the very wealthy lets assume we round up the very wealthy. We take everything they have. How is that going to improve this gentlemans life . Not going to improve it at all or anybody elses. Seems to me the opposite is the problem. The more government we get, apparently the more skewed the income. So, i mean, we have had the stimulus, we have obamacare, we have had doddfrank, the war on poverty, medicare, medicaid, social security, we have a thousand other programs, and a thousand agencies, and millions of bureaucrats. The goal of the government now is redistribution of wealth. And yet the gentleman talks about i dont know if those figures are an accurate but lets assume they are. The top one percent so, this tells me we need a freer society, we need to embrace private Property Rights rights d capitalism more so theres more opportunity for people who seek opportunity. Not less. Why would the answer to this be more government when more centralized government has created the problem were talking about. Host hank, maryland. Go ahead. Caller hello, mark. Im from the crazy blue state next door to you. My question is, i would challenge anybody in the democratic party, anybody, to tell me what qualifications this president has to be president of the United States of america. Anybody. Never done anything. Now, my question to you is, do you think that our Education System liberal educational people are purposely dumbing down our young people by not teaching them any history, anything about our country, so they will continue to elect people like this unqualified man we have now. Thank you. Guest i think Public Education has become a huge problem. I think all this social engineering is being used in the Public School system. Ive been fighting the National Education Association Since i was a school board member. A young guy, and now a Legal Foundation has fought them, too. Its interesting about antitrust and our antitrust laws. Antitrust laws are used against corporations but unions are exempt. Why . The nea needs to be broken up and turned into ten thousand pieces. Thats what i think. But thats not to say all teachers are bad. All teachers arent bad. I know several good ones. The problem is too many of them are of this Union Mentality and too many of the School Districts are controlled by this agenda, and the more the federal government gets involved, the more youre going to see this happen. I mean, the social engineering, what isnt controlled by the federal government in the School System right now . Even the damn cafeteria is controlled by the federal government. Its amazing. Host i had a quote here, you say our total Food Production is controlled by the federal government at this point. With the regulations. I cant find which book that is in. Guest that would be probably amaretopia. Thats my guess. Rob, let me explain what is meant by that. What is green, what is harvestes, hough its packaged, how its shipped, how its offered in supermarkets and so forth. The federal government has hand in every aspect of this. Host rob, in new york. How did you get the nickname the great one . Guest i got it from sean hannity. The great one when i was growing up was jackie gleason, so i guess that came from sean hannity. Not a moniker i gave myself, i can assure you. I had one liberal caller who once called me the great big one and i thought that was funny, i didnt hang up on that person. I laughed. Thats where that comes from, from hannity. Host another email is there an antireligious bias in america . Guest is there an theres an antireligious bias in the government and an antireligious bias in hollywood. Its quite obvious. Obamacare is the epit me of epitomy of an antireligious bias. We had the hart amendment and the federal government did not spend a penny of federal resours on abortion, and that was a negotiated agreement that had served this country well for a long time. Obamacare is going to subsidies it, even though the president said it was not. You have religious entities that doesnt necessarily mean churches and so forth, but Business People or individuals who are religious in and of themselves who do not wellto pay for policies do not wish to pay for policies that support payments for abortion or contraceptives or whatever you have, and theyre being told, you must. Its mandated. Thats clearly a violation of First Amendment. Well see what the Supreme Court decides at the end of our another june will come and well hope that five justices rule the right way. But this president , this administration, and this congress, they pushed the edge of the envelope as far as they can and theres an antireligious bias, and let me be even more specific. Theres an antichristian bias in my view. Certain things you cant say about certain religious groups and so forth. But if youre a traditional, practicing christian, youre written off as a nut, as a fundamentalist, and its funny how ignorant people are who make these allegations. When go back to our founding, the framers were very involved in and knowledgeable about the judeochristian background, ethics, principles. And people Sea Jefferson was a deist, and franklin, yes but they werent athiests, and the constitution is an extremely tolerant document, particularly when it comes to religion, and particularly when it comes to the First Amendment, which we all know is adopted later, but we are in an extremely tolerant country with respect to all religion and religious practices, and thats because of the judeochristian ethic at the time of the framing. So, yeah, think there is hostility in mass media, and by the government, against religion generally, but particularly against christianity. I say this as a jew. Host the most recent book, liberty amendment, has sever proposals for amendments to the constitution. Number one, establish term limits for members of congress, restore the senate by repealing the 17th amendment. Establish term limits, 12 years for a Supreme Court justices. Limit federal spending. Limit federal taxation. Limit the federal bureaucracy, promote Free Enterprise, protect private property, grant the states authorized to directly amend the constitution, grant the states authority to check congress, and protect the vote. Professor william green, an instructor in Political Science at south Texas College emails in mr. Levin, why do you continue to claim that James Madison opposed nullification when he clearly stated in that document you referenced that Thomas Jeffersons idea of the rights of nullification is the natural right . What is nullification . Guest this happens from time to time. Theres a relatively small fringe effort out there to push an agenda, nullification and others even a little Secession Movement going on i would ask the professor, can he opinion to one place in madisons notes where nullification is mentioned . He chance. Can the professor point to anywhere in the constitution where nullification is mentioned . He cant. So, what he does and others do, they try to construe the 10th 10th amendment, which leaves all powers not specifically conferred on the federal government to the states. And they nullification amendment is no such thing. They act like liberals, the way they twist and spin and reinterpret what took place. He talks about jefferson. I have great admiration for jefferson. Jefferson wasnt at the Constitutional Convention. So, thats interesting, because so what . What did have to say about it. Nothing. He was at the Constitutional Convention. What did madison have to say . He was at the Constitutional Convention and had a major role. When you offense out a point out a letter he wrote in 1830, a rather lengthy letter in which he provides exposition on this. He goes into it in great length and also endorses article a 5, which imagine he would because he voted for it. He comes out squarely and strongly against nullification. But then they say, oh, no, that relates to South Carolina and another letter in 1832. So theres no winning this argument because it becomes circular. So i entertain myself now and then some then i move on. But the point is this. Now fix indication is the notion nullification is a notion depends who is promoting it the notion that a state can on its own nullify a statute of the federal government if the state legislature concludes the federal government doesnt have the power to do it. Putting aside all history, as a practical matter, where would that take us . Lets say maryland doesnt like a particular statute passed by the federal government and says, you know what . That doesnt apply to us. Were nullifying that because we concluded here in maryland thats thats unconstitutional. So, what if ten states take that position . In other words, you cant this is called anarchy, and on top of that, i view these folks they may not like it as neoconfederates. Im looking at the constitution, language in the constitution, something that was actually adopted at the Constitutional Convention, trying to encourage people to take a look at it. Some state legislators are starting to take a look at it. Its right there. Well know who proposed it. We know who voted on it. Well know what madison said about it later, so we have this movement that says its an impossibility. Lets go for state nullification. The big nullifiers out there have been on the left, theyve been nullifying the constitution left and right as far as i can tell, which is one of the reasons why i think it needs to be reestablished and revived. So. Professor, if you can show me anywhere in the Constitutional Convention where nullification is addressed, you he can send it to me. Show me anywhere in the constitution where nullification is mentioned, rather than your implication or your interpretation, you can send that to me, too, which means you wont be sending me anything. Host brian, pikesville, maryland good afternoon to you. Caller i thoroughly enjoy watching cspan booktv, and i regularly watch on sunday, and i recall sometime ago you had a lady by the name of Melanie Phillips from england, who has written a book, the world upsidedown, and i was very impressed by the remarks she made as to the one word the progress gives do progressive does not wish to hear, and that is the truth. I think that really hits the nail on the head. I was a party not so long ago, mentioning something about the obamacare problem. There was a problem. As soon as i mentioned that, without any further discussion i was told i was a rightwinger, a fascist so id like to ask mr. Levin, who i respect very much, what is the mentality of people of different ideologies, people of equal intelligence, who agree with his concepts, and people on the other side of the issues . I really would like to hear some discussion of that. Thank you very much. Guest what is the mentality . Im not sure i understand. But let me use this as an opportunity to Say Something that relates to it. In terms of this ideology. I dont believe conservatism is an ideology. Its what naturally flows from human experience, conserve conservatism is based on reality, based on practicality, and its based on reason and knowledge. Thats why so many conservatives opposed obamacare from day one. Its not an ideological thing. Its just we know all this power over the individual and individual health care and decisions about medicine and so forth, in a centralized government, run by politicians and bureaucrats, is a doing rouse thing and also dangerous thing and also an impossibility. In other words it wont work well. So we dont say that for an ideological reason. We say that based on human experience. Opened that is propoeting obamacare theyre ideologies. They reject all these things that are important in making rational decisions. So, i would say conservatism is not an audiology, its a way of life, way of thinking, a way of being, based on human experience, and statism or liberalism is an ideology and its based on few tonannism, and thats why on utopianism so thats why when your day to say at the party why obamacare is going to fail, you were called a rightwing whatever. So, the truth is youre probably being questioned by a kook, but ive already discussed that. Host martin wants to know what mr. Levin thinks of the club for growth. Guest of what . Host the club for growth. Guest i like these conservative groups, free market groups, constitutional groups, that voluntarily operate, that raise money in the private sector and no Government Support whatsoever, and use it to elect conservatives. I mean, i think we need more of this, not less. I like the Koch Brothers and the club for growth and these other organizations. Why not . Host laurene, flushing, new york negotiating ahead with your question or comment. Caller mark, i enjoy you very meche. Just had a couple of questions. In light of what is going on with the nsa, what was your opinion about the overreach of government and the other question was that in the very beginning of the formation of this country, we had great minds that all got together, agreed to disagree, but moved the ball forward. Who do we have, do you think now, who is of the same mindset where we have another renaissance in that regard . Guest i think that theres a dearth of such people at this point, to be honest, so i dont know. I dont know. Look at congress. What a disaster. I mean, i could go around the country and pick people who are smarter, wiser, better judgment, who would look at whats going on in terms of the debt and the deficit and not securing the border and all these other things and make more rational and Intelligent Decisions than these people, and yet there they are. So i dont know. I hope theyre there somewhere at some point. Thats why i rely on state legislatures, not all of them. But a surge majority of them, they think we have to work from the bottom up. What was the 0 oh, the nsa. My position on the nsa is simple. I dont think the nsa should be collecting everybodys phone numbers and phone patterns, and i think it was a complete waste of resources and time. I dont think they can point to sage example where this has stopped any terrorist event, and everytime theyre asked, whether by a committee or by the Obama Commission or whatever its, they they dont come up with the supportable positions. I think it is unlikely that it violates the Fourth Amendment. I guess were going to find out. I think it is stupid and it ought to stop and i do think the Fourth Amendment or no Fourth Amendment, it does violate our individual rights, and im a strong supporter of intelligence, gathering, a strong supporter of Law Enforcement. I mean, worked in the meese Just Department in the Reagan Administration but this goes too far. I dont like these Police State Tactics and i dont like it in the hands of this particular administration as we have seen with the irs and so forth. So, no, i dont accept that this is a justifiable National Security endeavor. I see this as an out of control bureaucracy who has gotten into this and now people defend it in a kneejerk way as some kind of National Security intelligence thing and its not. But it would be like the local cop, on a murder scene, he is in manhattan and grabs the manhattan phone book and starts looking at phone numbers. Crowd you dont work a case that way. You fine out what the specific you look for specific issues, specific patterns and so forth, and then maybe you go to the manhattan phone book, and is probably why, despite all the expert resources and manpower, they cant show one example where this has actually stopped somebody. Host so edward noden, whistle blower or traitor or somewhere in between . Guest somewhere in between. Luckily dont have to make that decision, but i will say this. I dont like the fact he ran to china. I dont like the fact he is in russia. Those or two of our enemies. On the other hand, people who say, oh, all he had to do is good to a congressman or senator with the information. Are you kidding me . Jo go to a congressman or senator with this kind of information n . Theyd pick up the phone and call the fbi, they probably should, otherwise they might be prosecuted, too. Theres no immunities to them. So, i think there should have been another way to do this rather than running off to enemy countries, and im also concerned about what he has revealed to them. I dont know what the told the chinese and russians. But he existence of this program im glad we know about it baas i oppose it and i because i oppose and it ought to be shut down. But i believe in a robust intelligence gathering, National Security, Law Enforcement operation of the federal government because our National Security is certainly one of the primary objecttothe federal government. I saw him one of the times i was with president reagan hill office. Part and with a handful of others with members of the attorney generals family that was classified. And attorney general meese just decided to leave office. President reagan said to himid who was comingen under attack attack, president reagan said to him, i wan to apologize. All of these attacks aimed at you are intended for me. Items are yos are you have to go through this. That is when Ronald Reagan said, a great man. Absolutely great teeseven cement one of the things he likedte to do their guest isom whate theyre reading or other influences. Care is a lot castle of his answanswers. At some of his answers. He drove up the cold war and the iron curtain but hejust skewered in a brilliant way the intellectuals. Inds it is just a tremendous book. U ive learned a great deal from the masterminds. Al and he gave great examples and the danger of it to talk about the congress and liberal elite and congress to meet while we did not agree with every exact thing , but the mentality was just superb. He is not the only one or that a trade economist and d philosopher. He did the same thing and is not alone. With so many of his books this is the problem withcept centralizing all of these decisions may expect theimpe fact men and women are not perfect and all institutions and not perfect. Rf then whyec would we give the lowes of these people so much power . Perfect imperfect human being so much power over the rest of us to impose the imperfect decisions on the us . Your 2000 book you write before this can be manipulated or ignored for a political issue in the party policy references, what and fines and the legions. Why should the laws find future generations if yesterdays do not bind this generation . In other words, the constitution is subject to changesa depending of the president or a Supreme Court or a generation. And why a rebound by what they say . Were not bound to the constitution while my bound by the Supreme Court or the federal edict or a president ial executive order . Since the founding governing document is not to beev revereder why should we honor all the other statutes . That is the point. Our guest this month indepth a little less then i dont know anybody in wall street to think about it. I have you ever met the Koch Brothers . I would like to meet them again. Do i also got the george soros photo once. I do try to do that and i am always not up people can identify with. Teefour. If washington wanted to be a dictator, washington would have been a dictator. And you look all over the world after these socalled democratic revolutions, you look at castro, you look at these other places, zimbabwe and so forth, thats what these men did, they became dictators. Washington was not only a brilliant general who helped lead the revolution against all odds and win, he was a brilliant statesman. And while the framers were united in their desire for liberty and representative government, there were a lot of opinions on how to get there. And washington knew that he could push it one way or another, and he understood that he needed to be sort of the invisible hand behind the process. I mean, the fact that he agreed to even go to the Constitutional Convention, he had to think about that. He decided hed go. He wanted to go back to mount vernon. Thats where he wanted to stay. But he cared about his country deeply, to the point where he went broke, as many of these men did, because they were busy in public affairs. But so much of what washington did and said and so forth set the nation on the proper course, in my view. Thats why i give it to him. A very close second would obviously be lincoln, even though the nullifiers would disagree with me and some of the neoconfederates. Did lincoln do some things that we would question today . Yeah. But on the other hand, the nation was all hell was breaking loose. And he wanted to make sure that in the end there was a nation. We can debate the particular issues and so forth, but there have been few men like lincoln, and therell be few men like him in the future. And i would consider reagan one of our greatest president s too. People forget, you know, for half a century or so the cold war was a very serious matter. Soviet expansion was a very serious matter. Nuclear threat was a very serious matter. Among other things, reagan defeated the soviet union. He defeated them through a variety of policies, and he rejects detente, and he wanted victory. And he got victory. Also his economic policies. You know, 25 million jobs created. President obama stands at the white house with Unemployed People lined up behind him arguing for more extended unemployment. 99 weeks, apparently, isnt enough. Well, maybe under this president thats the problem. But what reagan would have done is stood behind, had people stand behind him who found new jobs. Reagan created such an economic dynamo, that it went right through into the clinton administration. So, matter of fact, i dont know that this nation has ever seen anything like it, certainly not in a hundred years. So, and, of course, he brought confidence back to a country that desperately needed it after jimmy carter and the disaster that he was. There have been a number of good president s too. Coolidge was a very, very good president. In my view, james polk was a very, very good president. Some people will attack him, calling imperialism. Then i guess they better leave california and some of the other states. And i thought he was a very good president. There are others, i cant remember all of them. And there have been some very, very poor president s. Martin van buren was a very poor president. James buchanan was a very poor president. Oh, im no fan of fdr. But on the other hand, he helped bring us through world war ii, so you cant dismiss that. Although the aftermath was a disaster. Him and truman, as far as im concerned. But i think obama has to be in the top ten of disastrous president s, if not in the top five. What hes done to this country, what hes done to our constitutional and legal system, what hes done to one industry after another, um, his rhetoric, his propaganda, i just think hes been a very destructive and divisive force. And its too bad, because with, you know, the first black president , and he could have done so many great things not only in bringing the country together, but advancing the cause of liberty and Property Rights, all these other things that were so crucial, you know, to our thinking and to our country. And hes done the opposite. Hes done your kneejerk, hardleft, radical, leftwing agenda, and its been a complete disaster. And i think 50 years from now, um, when we look back on this or other people look back on this, i think itll be viewed that way. Host Mark High School hand posts on our facebook page, mr. Levin, when will the Republican Party give up the marriage amendment and the righttolife amendment . They are both losers for the gop. Guest i dont think we lose votes over the marriage amendment or the righttolife amendment. I mean, how many votes have we lost on that . In terms of losers for the gop, reagan was strongly prolife and supported an amendment. Obviously, the president has no role, only congress can or the states, state legislatures. And this terms of the marriage amendment in terms of the marriage amendment, it takes threefourths of the states to ratify an amendment. Well, you now have, what is it, 15 or 17 states that have made samesex marriage legal, Something Like that, some legislatures have done it, some courts have done it. But, so im not sure how that would work out. But i have no problem with people arguing for and proposing these amendments because it is the quintessential nature of federalism. In other words, as i said, it takes threefourths of the state legislatures to ratify them. So a loser for the Republican Party. I dont think its a loser for the Republican Party. I think whats a loser for the Republican Party are people who lead it who, who have no agenda, who have few principles and very little confidence in anything. Basically, are hanging on for their own sake. But i dont think those are losers. This always amazes me, the social issues, we call them. The social issues. Okay, well, call them the social issues. I dont want call them social issues. Theyre human issues. Theyre cultural issues. Who keeps bringing them up . Whos fighting for samesex marriage . Who keeps bringing it up . Activist groups, state legislatures, um, courts. So people who object to a particular position, theyre told stop talking, stop standing for what you believe in . If your faith tells you to fight it, just give it up, its a loser. I mean, these arguments are absurd. Why should people give it up . They should fight for what they believe. And if the Republican Party doesnt stand for traditional values, who the hell will . So i have no problem with people fighting for these things. And i dont think its a political loser. I think the moderates who stand for virtually nothing, theyre the political losers. I mean, mccain didnt lose because he supported either of those amendments. Romney didnt lose because he supported east of those amendments either of those amendments. They lost because they didnt have an agenda that connects with the people, and it is the liberty, Free Enterprise as the gentleman said of Wealth Creation, job creation, business creation agenda, the growth agenda among other things. And, yes, the traditional faith agenda that i think will get people to the polls and win. I know it, as a matter of fact. Reagan did it twice. Host pot sales in colorado, is that part of a liberty agenda . [laughter] guest oh, lord. So all the potheads are going to move to colorado right now. Something interesting has happened now. The federal government, to some extempt i think extent, i think holder announced, that theyre not going to enforce a lot of these pot laws. Colorado has passed a pot law. Would i vote for it . No way. But they voted for it, and thats the law. Thats the law in colorado. I live in virginia, what the hell am i supposed to do it, other than stay out of colorado . But thats and, again, the federal government has decided that it is not going to enforce the relevant federal statutes with respect to that. And thats a different issue to me. Whether or not you support those laws, how in the world does the attorney general decide i dont like that law, im not going to enforce it . When did he get that power . Never. So that would be my issue there. If colorado wants to legalize pot, then colorado will legalize pot. I think its stupid. I do fair decriminalizing it though. In other words, i dont think a 17yearold or 20yearold, a College Student or some pizza delivery guy whos caught with a joint smoking a joint should have to do prison time or jail time or be charged with a misdemeanor. That bothers me. And i will tell you right here, i dont have a bible to swear on, but ive never done drugs. Ive never done pot. But i still find it troublesome that if some young person has had a joint or Something Like that and theyre caught, that they should i dont know what the answer is, but i do favor decriminalization. Not no criminalization, but decriminalization. Host from liberty and tyranny, all cultures are not equal with as evidenced in part by the alien fleeing his own country for the American Culture and the american citizen staying put. If someone were shopping for books and they came across liberty and tyranny, ameritopia and the liberty amendments they could only buy one, which one should they buy . Guest liberty and tyranny, ameritopia, and the liberty amendments. You know, i have two children host these are books. Guest i know, if you could only have one, which would you have . I couldnt do that. Remember what solomon did . Yeah. The cutting of the baby in half . Well, he wouldnt agree to that, would he . So it depends what youre looking for. Let me put it to you that way. Liberty and tyranny is basically a primer on a restatement of conservativism. Which i felt in 2009 and feel today is sorely needed. And it provides a, my conservative manifesto at the end, and i call it that to mock marx and the communist manifesto. Ameritopia, which is probably the most important to me, is most difficult. It is political philosophy, and and to me, it gets to the heart of the problem with the left. And the conflict with those who believe in liberty. And the liberty amendments, i think, is crucial because i have callers to my show and others who say, okay, mark, this is all great, now what do we do about this . What do we do about this . And rather than give the usual phony, superficial response, lets elect more republicans, thats not good enough. Maybe thats good enough for some, but its not good enough because we are unmoored from our constitutional system. We elected more republicans under george bush from 2001 to 2007. They controlled the congress and the presidency. What happened . More federal involvement in education, more federal involvement in health care, the expansion of medicare, expansion of virtually everything. The massive increase this the debt in the debt. I mean, that alone is not going to be enough. So the solution, i think, is rather than be superficial about it and say, oh, well, ill just elect more of these folks although i favor electing many more conservative republicans the solution is a systemic one, and the answer is in the constitution which is the purpose of the liberty amendments. Host and speaking of the liberty amendments, booktvs book club is reading that this month. So if you go to booktv. Org, youll see a tab up there that says book clubment you can go in there, you can see some video of mark levin, some reviews of the liberty amendments, and you can post your comments. Its very simple. So go ahead and read along and post your comments, and you can have a discussion with other readers and other viewers of booktv on the liberty amendments. Todd in winstead, connecticut, thanks for holding. Youre on with mark levin. Caller well, thank you very much for taking my call. I listen to mark levin. I dont always agree with everything he says, but one of the problems i see with our political system is [inaudible] they debate issues ask ask them questions and all i get back is [inaudible] and with that said, thats the only pining im going opining im going to do, ive got three specific questions for mark, and id like to get his knowledgeable opinion on these areas. Corporate funding of elections, doing away with the Electoral College and, um, gerrymandering, doing away with gerrymandering. Id like to hear what mark has to say about those three host thank you, todd. Well have to see what mr. Levin says. Guest what was the third one . Host gerrymandering. Guest all right. Let me start with Corporate Funding of elections. Well, there are no there is no Corporate Funding of elections. What the Citizens United case did was allow corporations to fund advocacy ads. So they concluded that not only should unions be able to do it, but corporations should be able to do it too. Why not . As long as its public. As long as we though whos contributing what to these campaigns. And it ought to be online so you can get it immediately, and in many cases it is. I dont have a problem with that. I have a problem with the shadowy stuff that goes on with members of congress and so forth. But outfront donations is fine. And i say this as somebody who has a real problem with how the u. S. Chamber of commerce conducts itself and is now getting into republican primaries for the purpose of defeating conservative candidates and pushing big government, corporatist republican candidates. So, but that said, principle is principle. Free speech is free speech. As for the Electoral College, of course i support it. Theres a movement now to get rid of it just as the Progressive Movement got rid of the state legislatures choosing members of the senate. And, of course, they want to get rid of the Electoral College and have the direct election of president s. Let us remember the mindset of the framers. The framers did not want a purely populist, majoritarian government. They didnt want a purely democratic government. They wanted a representative republic. So the purpose of the Electoral College is not only to give some of the smaller states some footing in the president ial process, but as a check just in case you have the election of somebody who is a complete and utter tyrant. So we talk about we need checks, and we need balances, and we need such things. Thats the Electoral College. And it amuses me, pete, that we have some senators who oppose the Electoral College, and they want the direct election of the president. And i think to myself, wow, so why do we have two senators from every state . Why dont we get rid of them, too s and just have a house of of representatives . Here we have senators who by constitution exist two in each state, but we dont need them. Well just have like a parliamentary system. I dont support this, im being sarcastic. As for gerrymandering, i dont know how you would get rid of that. I mean, these Good Government types pretend theyll take care of it. I dont trust most of them. But gerrymandering, its something thats gone on for an awfully long time, and its something that i think were stuck with. Host robert has saved us. He mails this Claude Pepper of florida was in the senate, then the house. Guest hes right. Good deal, bro, thats right. I think there were others, but thats for sure. Host nick is calling from los angeles. Youre on booktv with author mark levin. Caller thank you, cspan. Hello, mark. You help me drive home every day and help me keep the rage on your show and not on the other drivers, so ive got to thank you for making me a better driver. But you do claim that James Madison rejected nullification, but in the same document that you cite, he was actually talking about a specific process of nullification that was advocated only by South Carolina. And then later James Madison said that, and i quote here nullification is the natural right which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression, unquote. So, um, with that my real question for you is, um, you know, i appreciate that you talk about the constitution outlining a republic not a democracy, but you share a utopian Foreign Policy outlook which is unconstitutional. Anyone can look up your statements on president ial war powers and put them up against thomas e. Woods or louis fisher which cspan has also fish featured. Host nick, are you a fan of mark levin . [laughter] caller yeah. And im also a fan of george washington, as he is. If you quote george washington, he said the nation which indulges toward another as an habitual hatred or an that establish wall fondness is in some ways a slave host nick, why are you a supporter of socalled nullification . Guest well, im a supporter of nullification because i think it runs to the heart of what a Constitutional Republic is all about. And i think you cant have a republic and an empire too. So i think mark levins blind spots on foreign policies and nullification really undermine what, you know, he purports to be about. And i think host all right. Well get an answer. Just, mark or, nick, just a little bit more from you though. What kind of of work do you do . You say mark levin is on your raid slow on the way home. What kind of work do you do . Caller well, im struggling in this obama economy, so i have a few different parttime jobs. I work at a couple convert venues and ucla, also an inalternative with a nonprofit organization. So, you know, im very passionate about whats going on in the world. I think it affects my generation. Im 28 years old, it affects my generation very much. So i Pay Attention to all the voices and rye and stay involved but also got to pay the bills with some parttime jobs too. Host nick, thank you very much for calling in. Mark levin. Guest well, here we go again. Lets see. People have to read this 1830 letter on their own. Theres nothing, its not a narrow letter. Its a very long letter. Of hes addressing more than what nick has to say. He also is engorsing article v which nick doesnt endorse. He didnt say it, but he doesnt. They can quote professor this or professor that all they want, there are a lot of knuckleheads who are professors too. And so what . The fact of the matter is, and theres an 1832 letter that madison also wrote, but they say its specific to South Carolina. Theres nothing i can say thats going to dissuade nick or others because he didnt tell you what Nonprofit Group he works for. Theres a couple groups that keep pushing nullification. Im surprised you havent had a call for secession yet. Im not in favor of destroying the republic. Im not in favor of eliminating the union. I believe we fought a civil war over this. But nullification is not in the constitution. Nullification was not brought up at the constitutional confession convention. It was discussed leiter. There are some later. There are some definitive letters about it. But nub of that matters none of that matters. There is no historical support from this. You know, these guys who are originalists who claim to be, well, except in this case because theyre so angry at the federal government, theyre willing to turn to anything including this what i call neoconfederate agenda. The fact of the matter is it doesnt work, and you cant pursue it, and it wont work. The neoconservative agenda that i speak to is they want to see states split off from the union. And, good lord, are we going to go through that again . I mean, sorry, folks, dont count me this in on that. Im considered pushing the edge of the envelope with the liberty amendments, but these guys are already on the other edge of the envelope, and those are the talking points that are argued, that are put out there time and time again. Ignore this letter, madison didnt mean this. The tenth amendment means nullification. And yet they interpret this stuff like the liberals interpret the constitution. Host all right. Well, we have taken two calls on it now and had good discussions, so well end our discussion of it there too, as well. But heres an email from warren whos in los angeles as well. Kabc radio in l. A. Airs the mark levin show with a threehour time delay. 95 of the h. A. Audience is prevented from calling in and participating in your discussions, what can we do to convince kabc to carry your program live . Guest well, what can i say . I guess im just glad im on kabc. Yeah, i tell all the affiliates we only have a relative small percentage that run the show tapedelayed, and they do it, i think, often to run a local host in the slot. But the vast majority of our affiliates we are live. Well, you can tell them. But there are also other heres the thing. Some of us in talk radio have other platforms you can listen to. Im not talking specifically about this particular writer and kabc. But i have an app, mark levin app, which has half a Million People who use it. The i heart radio app is another way to listen to the show live, you can be your own program director. Obviously, we do a live stream on the internet, and im on satellite, the patriot. So were on terrestrial radio like kabc, were on satellite, ive got two apps where you can pick i us op on your smartphone and on the internet. So if you want to hear us live, you can listen to us live. Host tony is calling from woodburn w new york. Go ahead with your question or comment for mark levin. Caller yeah, hi. This is tony [inaudible] im not going to be as longwinded as your previous caller. I have one very simple question, im not going to give too much background,and i just want your opinion. Heres the question. What, if anything, should we do about the 14th amendment . Guest in what way . What do you mean . Host he is now gone. Guest well, it depends the 14th amendments not the shortest amendment, so i, i would need to know more what he means. Host do you write about the 14th amendment . Guest very little. But theres a number of things he could mean by that, so rather than me doing this, just throwing out three, four or five things, i he should have been more specific. Host garrett is in cumberland, maryland. Hi, garrett. Caller hi. And hi, mark, thank you so much for all you do. I i want to thank you for giving us the solution, because ive with just been talking to fellow conservatives and libertarians, this is contributing to a lot of excitement among the grassroots. Guest thank you. Caller i want to thank you also for forwarding along my article on the hi eleven yall. I recently got a letter published in the local paper spreading the word and talking about this to people. I find that there is a lot of excitement. There are also two kinds of people that seem to have some reservations about it. One is the Runaway Convention crowd, and i believe that those people will come around to it. The other is this crowd that has been a couple times today thats talking about nullification. And i wanted you to speak to, have the opportunity to speak to the superiority of article v to a nullification strategy and also that nullification, um, is it even finish would it not put the court system in, um guest yes. Caller in charge of that. Guest all right. First of all, youre exactly right. The brilliance of mason and the framers at the Constitutional Convention with the state convention process is that theyre proposing, theyre allowing the proposal of actual amendments to address things that have occurred in the structural abuses of the constitutional system. Nullification doesnt address any of that. Thats number one. Number two, the Supreme Court will allow nullity case, already said it wont allow nullification. So what are they going to do about that . Under the amendment ross, state legislatures can override a Supreme Court decision. But the nullification, its an ark call. Its not there is no constitutionallal basis for it. Now that said, one of the callers earlier what did he say, neocon and also that i, i support american empire and stuff of this sort. I dont know where these anytime wits get these ideas. Why, because i supported the troops during the iraq war . Which i did and i do and would coagain today . Do again today . So were talking about an extreme fringe element here. Like i said, the neoconfederate element. Not even mainstream libertarianism. Theres extreme fringe. Theres a couple of groups out there. Theyre flooding your phones out now, theyre nod flooding your emails, this is what they do. But they have absolutely zero impact on the body politic for the American People. The American People are not going to support secession. The American People are not going to support one state nullifying a federal law, 12 states nullifying theyre not going to support that kind of anarchy. In my view, what the American People want is a return to constitutional government. Or where the state legislatures have power, and the federal government has less power. Thats what were talking about. Not destroying the constitutional system or the constitution, not destroying the republic, not destroying the union, but addressing it. And reestablishing the constitutional system. I have nothing in common with these other folks, and i think the vast majority of americans would have nothing in common with these other folks. Host where did this movement thing begin . Guest its a couple of groups and a couple of professors. But i dont know the history of it. Host why have they chosen you as guest they havent just chosen me. They do this all over the place. Its just that i happen to be on cspan2. Guest gary emails in to you im an africanamerican man with conservative views, mostly a social and small government conservative. Never voted democrat in my entire life. What is your message to africanamericans and, for that matter, other minorities in the u. S. While many africanamericans are social conservatives on the major issues, samesex, abortion, etc. , how can conservatives and republicans reach minorities that vote traditionally democrat . Guest i think the general categoryies of promoting individual liberty, Free Enterprise and Wealth Creation which brings opportunity and traditional American Values which would include the power of state legislatures to make many of these decisions, in applying them to Current Events and Current Issues is the way to go. And i think thats what a Campaign Needs to do to be successful. Its not a question of what do you give to minorities, the hispanics are over here, the blacks are over here, the whites are over here, the straight people are here, the lesbians are thats not the way we should look at america. We shouldnt look at america like liberals do and break us down into physical features and sexual preferences. We should talk about america as americans, and we should, in fact, state publicly to the left during these campaigns that we reject their efforts to divide us along all these different lines. And i think a conservative republican candidate can talk about bringing people together to advance the cause of liberty and opportunity and Wealth Creation and let the liberals talk about extending Unemployment Insurance and doing all these other things while were talking about a positive, forwardlooking, growthoriented agenda based on good old American Values. Host from ameritopia, have the pennsylvania love yang appeals to equaltarianism and the fomenting of action through class warfare conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous. Guest well, thats the question i ask. Is it too late . And i dont think its too late, but i think were getting to a late time. But i do have open that we can avoid it, that we can avert this. You can see the reaction to obamacare. People do not like uniformity and conformity, because it does not address their own specific needs and interests and motivations. And obamacare is all about uniformity and conformity and topdown authoritarianism. So at least in regard to that, thats a positive. But on the other hand, a majority of those who voted also voted for the man who pushed the very legislation that they detest. So we have a problem here, and i think part of the problem is that the republicans have to offer the American People a serious alternative. Host Robert Calbert in chicago emails in to you mr. Levin, you listed several great libertarian thinkers, friedman, hayak, where do you, a thoughtful conservative, differ with libertarians . Guest i would say on Economic Issues i agree with libertarians mostly. I would say on some of the socalled social issues i would disagree with them. For instance, if a libertarian believes that some guy on the corner should be free to sell heroin, im not sure i can endorse that position. As a matter of fact, i wouldnt. So im not saying thats all their positions and so forth. But i would say in the main im probably a conservative libertarian. But i like to call myself a constitutionalist. And i believe there is a movement, a reinvigorated if not new movement of constitutional conservativism which is something that i am proud to be part of and something im crowd to be pushing. Constitutional conservativism. Not secession, not nullification, not destroying our country, not destroying the union, not destroying the constitution, but reinvigorating i. Host richard emails in mark levins live coverage on his show of the capture of the Boston Marathon bombers earlier this year was compelling, exciting, accurate and entirely lacking in the speculative, opinionated, talking head speak that is so wearisome in the mainstream media. Guest that was a remarkable day not only because of the horrific terrorist attack and all those people who were maimed and killed, but, you know, when youre a talk show host, you have to decide how to cover these things. And most talk show hosts, if they cant find reporters on the scene, theyre watching one of the Cable Networks or something and reporting what theyre regurgitating the news that is somewhere else. Well, my call screener and producer and i have two great guys, rich and mike, and theyve been with me from the beginning. Well, they were listening to the police scanner. So we were listening to the police scanner, i believe it was the local police and the state police. Two police scanners. So as things were actually breaking, i mean, breaking, they were telling me exactly what was being said on the police scanner, so we were breaking news on our coverage because of the great Radio Station wrko among my affiliates and it is a wonderful station in boston so we were breaking the news without any opinion whatsoever as we were hearing it. And then near the end somebody figured it out. I dont know if it was the local police or the state police. And they said, you know, careful what youre saying on the monitor. I also made clear that nothing we were saying was endangering what they were doing. Nothing. Because, obviously, terrorist number two didnt have access to a radio and had no idea what i was saying on the radio. So that was a very compelling evening. It was quite remarkable. Host lee, rockville, b maryland. Please go ahead with your question or comment for mark levin. Caller good afternoon, gentlemen. Enjoying the discussion. Mark, you and i are both natives of the city of brotherly love, and were both roughly the same age. And i think a lot of what you say makes a great deal of sense; limited government, libertarianism. Its, it makes an awful lot of sense. But you and i remember decades ago when 40, 50 or more thousand people were getting killed on highways. You know, automobile accidents. Well, what happened was the department of transportation came in and put in safety regulations. Now its half that. So those were very, very Good Government interventions, from my perspective. And thats why im so completely amazed, and i support conservative republicans a great deal. Guns, mark, are dangerous. They are very, very dangerous. And the position of the Republican Party, as far as i can tell, is give everyone a gun. No background checks. If someone is wearing a viva Osama Bin Laden sweatshirt and goes up to a gun show and says in an arab head address and head dress and goes up to a gun show and, you know, that person can order, you know, can walk away with the host all right caller an ak47. Host i think we get the point. Guest is that caller from colorado . I just wonder if hes into the the new movement there. Host rockville, maryland. Guest the suburbs. What was his question . Oh, safety. Let me explain something to this gentleman. The deaths on the road today are not significantly reduced because of safety belts. But let me tell you something, the automobile that most people drive is lighter now than it ever was due to cafe standards. And i explain this in liberty and tyranny. All of the deaths and all of the casualties on our highways as a result of cafe standards and its remarkable to me that you wouldnt call this program because youre so concerned about human life particularly on our highways and reject Government Intervention in that case with the cafe standards maiming and killing so many of our fellow americans on the streets, and they keep making these cars ligher and smaller and smaller and lighter. So im sure you would join with me in objecting to that. Thats number one. Number two, the Republican Party supports giving everybody a gun . Well, thats not true, but the and i cant speak for the Republican Party. Ill speak for myself. We have something called a second amendment, sir. Just like we have a Fourth Amendment and a First Amendment and a fifth amendment and a ninth amendment. Its nice that you dont like guns, its nice that you have an opinion about guns. Thats all well and good. But you dont have the right to tell lawabiding citizens who want guns for safety or hunting or whatever the reason is as long as its lawful that they cant. Im sorry, thats what the constitution provides. Just like i cant say see that guy in rockville, maryland . He doesnt deserve due process because, you know, due process for a guy like that endangers the community. So this is the problem with the left. They cant decide which parts of the constitution they like, if any of the constitution. And there have been study after study by, among others, john lott and so forth that contradict your premise. Whatever i say here wont matter to you anyway, but it may matter to somebody out there. Host doreen emails in people from all political persuasions cite tokevilles great work. Is that because de tocqueville was unclear in Practical Implications or because of Something Else . Guest well, i dont see him being cited that often by harry reid or nancy pelosi, and i dont even know if theyve read the two volumes of democracy in america or have them read to them. I have no idea. These are people that said you have to read the obamacare law to though whats in it, and apparently none of them read it including the president , because they didnt know whats in it. So i doubt that the left, many, cite alexis de tocqueville. I cite him in the at least two of my books because what he said so pertinent to whats going on in this country today. He was prescient. And he was a man who was very concerned about little d democracy and was a great fan of america as he traveled this country but also saw some weaknesses that he feared. And was very, very concerned about centralized government. So i dont know if the left cites him or not or what they cite him for, but he was a brilliant man and very worth citing. Host and hes features prominently in ameritopia. Eds calling from toledo. Caller good afternoon, gentlemen, and shalom. What i wanted to bring up, im a 76 article iv, section 4 republican. And i dont have much respect for the Republican Party, although i do can belong to it since its near ohio. But the northwest ordnance and what allowed ohio to become a state, it had to have a republican constitution and a republican government. Article iv, section 4 gash guarantees me and my descendants a republican form of government. Now the big lie is that were a democracy. So i guess noah webster, who could write a dictionary, defined republican because it gives sovereignty so we have no king but king jesus host so, ed, were running low on time here, whats your point . Caller my point is that you like democrats and liken democrats and republicans. Mark, why dont we go back to these original words . We have a republic with a republican form of government because it grants sovereignty to the individual. Guest i dont know what to say. Im not sure what the question is. You asked me in the first hour, somebody did, why do i cut people off . Now you know why. Host dorothy, ocean township, new jersey. Please go ahead with your question or comment. Caller mr. Levin, its a privilege to speak to you. I had the honor of seeing you speak at a [inaudible] a few months ago. And you are an inspiration and a true patriot. I wonder, it bothers me when liberals never fail to demonize conservatives as much as they can, and it gets very disheartening when im in a discussion with a liberal and the topic of the president and his policies come up. And right away the response is, oh, youre a racist, youre saying that because hes black. And is there a solution to this, or is there no solution . Its just something we have to live with until the end of the term . You know, in life there are people who you can communicate with and try and have a rational discussion with, and then there are the drones. So if you happen to be confronted with the former, then take the time to really have a discussion. And and try and persuade the person or learn from the perp. If, on the other hand, youre confronted with a drone, my suggestion is move along, be done with it. Host dan, st. Paul, minnesota. Got just a couple minutes left here on our program. Caller yeah. Im just calling to say, comment about the general welfare clause. A couple of, i think, liberals had previously mentioned using the general welfare clause to enforce government action. I read a wonderful work on that. In [inaudible] v. Davis the Supreme Court used the general welfare clause to justify taking money from one group of people, giving it to another to justify transfer payments. Yet in the 1780s the word general as an adjective which was in all kinds of writings meant to apply to everybody or nobody. The Supreme Court changed the usage of the word general from the authors intent to justify taking money from one subpart to a group, giving it to another. I just give that as one example to come to the point in marks book in the liberty amendments, the excellent point that we need to be able to use the legislature, the congress to override these ridiculous Supreme Court decisions. Host all right, dan, thank you. We got the point. Guest and he makes a very good point. There are many more who makes that point, madison, jefferson, joseph story, i could go on and on and on. The perversion of the general welfare clause is almost comical and yet, you know, the left uses it because its a simple hey, the general welfare. It just demonstrates their contempt for the constitution. Host what do you think of john roberts . Guest not much. Nothing he can do from here on. Can, in my view, justify what he did in the obamacare decision. He was part of the Reagan Administration. He was a fairly conservative lawyer in the Justice Department before i got there. And he knows better. He knows what he did. I read his majority decision. It is a disgrace. Its incoherent. Its illogical. And it was resultoriented. So he, hes going to have to live with that. That will be his historical reputation. Thatll be his epithet. And he helped unleash this disastrous law on in this country. Its unconstitutional in numerous ways. And for him to turn the tax section of the constitution on its head and to rewrite the statute and rewrite the history where obama and the democrats said this is not a tax, its a penalty, and he says, oh, no, no, its a tax, and and under our tax clause in the constitution, its just so outrageous, what he did, that i had a lot of respect for him. I have zero respect for him now. Host bill beatty asks via twitter, will Landmark Legal join with the 11 attorneys general in court on president obamas Legal Authority to change the 2010 Affordable Care act . Guest we dont we provide advice, and we are provide advice. We will provide advice in a lot of these areas. For instance, theres over 40 cases on the liberty issue under obamacare where were working with other groups. Weve got several pieces of litigation going against the Environmental Protection agency. So, yes, we will provide whatever support they want from us. Host for the last three hours, mark levin has been our guest on booktvs in depth program. He is the author of five nonfiction books and working on another one as well. His first book came out in 2005, men in black how the Supreme Court is destroying america. Rest pewing rescuing sprite came out in 2007. Not a lot of Public Policy in that one, but a best with seller. Liberty and tyranny, in 09. Ameritopia in 2012, and the liberty amendments just came out this past year, restoring the American Republic. By the way, the liberty amendment is booktvs Book Club Selection for the month of january. So if youre a booktv watcher and want to read along with other booktv viewers, go to booktv. Org you can pick up the liberty amendments, you can read along, and then you can post your comments at booktv. Org. Its very simple, just click on the book club tab up at the top of the page, and youll see there theres a format for posting your comments, and you can read along all month on your own time. Well be posting questions and comments as we go throughout the month on the liberty amendments. Mark levin, thanks for your time today on booktv. Guest great honor, pete, thank you