Summary Of Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

Judicial power is given to the Supreme Court. All nine federal judges are appointed by the President and serve "during good behavior," usually meaning for life. The judges cannot be removed from office except for criminal behavior or malfeasance. This makes them less vulnerable to political pressure and outside influence. The main feature of the independent role for the courts lies in their power to interpret the Constitution. They review the "constitutionality" of laws and executive orders. There are

When the United States was founded, the theme behind the new government was to establish an efficient system without doling out too much power to any one person. The Founders intended to prevent a rebirth of tyranny, which they had just escaped by breaking away from England. However, when members of Congress such as Tom Foley, who served as a Representative from 1964 through 1995, and Jack Brooks, who served as a Representative from 1952 through 1994, remain in the legislative system for over forty years, it is evident that tyranny has not necessarily been eradicated from the United States (Vance, 1994, p. 429). Term limits are a necessity to uphold the Founders’ intentions, to prevent unfair advantages given to incumbents, and to

The Constitution states that federal judges are to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They hold office during good behavior, typically, for life. Through Congressional impeachment proceedings, federal judges may be removed from office for misbehavior.

What then would be the benefit of limiting the term of a Supreme Court Justice? The reasoning for the limitation begins with the level of contention that becomes present in the United States Senate when a vacancy evolves. For the purpose of enlightenment, we can reflect back to the

Charles Beard lived in a time when a vast majority of politicians and economists considered the views of the founding fathers to be infallible. In fact, many people nowadays still believe that to be the case. Beard, however, held a different opinion in regards to their writing of the Constitution. Whereas most people believe that it was written entirely due to the pressing issues concerning the economic state and unity of the country, Beard believed that it was at least in part due to those same politician’s selfish economic interests since all of them were wealthy men. He argued in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitutionthat the way the Constitution’s system of power and representation “were devices for keeping power in the hands of the rich” [1]. He makes an interesting case in his highly controversial book, but one

The rest of Article III, Section I points to how judges can serve stating, “shall hold Offices during good behavior.” The good behavior portion of the statement is constitutionally recognized that judges may serve to the end of their life time or leave office voluntarily. Over time the meaning of life time has expanded and become the center of the controversy surrounding the extent of service. The framers of the constitution found life tenure appropriate for the justices of the Supreme Court as an expression of their importance to the government, but also that the loss of their cognitive ability was an imaginary farce.

John Dingell, a member of the United States House of Representatives, served fifty-nine years and twenty-one days at this position. With no term limits set for the federal legislative positions in the United States, is this representation becoming redundant? Term limits can potentially be crucial in political reform of the United States that would bring new perspectives to federal legislative positions, warrant regular federal legislative turnover, and reduce incentives for wasteful election-related federal spending. Term limits can also pervert the entire understanding of what democracy is, by substituting the people’s will with term limits that may go against what the people want. United States federal legislative term limits have previously

The issue of limiting the number of terms that a Congressman or a Senator can seek re-election is a huge hot button issue today. It is also an issue that has a rather large conflict of interest stamp behind it. The reason for this is because our Senators and Congressman are in direct control of whether or not this issue is brought out of a committee and eligible to be sent to the States for potential ratification. There is a Constitutional way to get around the Senate and the House from bringing up this issue, but the problem is that we as a nation haven’t done it in over 200 years. What I am referring to is a state’s ability to call a Constitutional Convention to propose and ratify an Amendment.

As a remedy to the issues in Congress, term limits should be implemented in the US Congress because they can prevent corruption and provide turnover in Congress. Throughout the years, working as a Congressman has become

Congressional terms have no limits. Controversy exists between those who think the terms should be limited and those who believe that terms should remain unlimited. The group that wants to limit the terms argues that the change will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. Those who oppose term limits believe that we would sacrifice both the stability and experience held by veteran politicians. They also point out that our election process allows the voter to limit terms, at their discretion. While experience and stability are important considerations, congressional terms should be limited to a maximum of two.

The framers of our Constitution knew that time has a way of changing countries and their citizens. Our country was in a whirlwind of change in 1789 as people were experiencing freedom from the tyranny of England for the first time in their lives. Our country was being molded and formed into a great nation by the founding fathers. Expectations and rules had to be set to protect the rights of the minorities and majorities. Amendments to the Constitution were written to ensure equality for all in changing times.

Numerous Americans are unaware that by next year, the average age of Supreme Court justices will be 75. Unlike other countries, the United States’ Supreme Court does not enforce the idea of term limits. Once a judge is selected, when they leave the Supreme Court is up to their decision. Supreme Court justices may choose to retire early or die. However, as the judges are getting older and older, their health may intervene with the decisions that are being made. Issues regarding the health of the justices’ would not be a reoccurring annoyance if they were to be swapped out with younger and healthier judges; therefore, term limits are a good idea because there would be more diversity in the Supreme Court, mental and health issues would be reduced, and term limits would be long enough for judges to master the job.

The First Amendment is the right to freedom of speech which is given to each and every American according to the Constitution. In an editorial by Arthur Caplan, he believes that doctors do not and should not have a right to freedom of speech when it comes to medicine, health, etc. on the grounds that they carry a higher knowledge of the medical field. Not unlike the old adage that yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater when there is none is not protected speech. One can agree with Caplan on that doctors’ rights should be limited when speaking about medicine and the health aspect, despite presumingly having a vast knowledge and practice in it.

The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm