i think that it's to a bill as quickly as possible. >> host: representative sheila jackson lee, a democrat from texas. thank you for being with this year. >> guest: it's been a pleasure . >> book tv in print ad. next, in depth with author and radio personality mark levin. .. sprite, liberty and security and is 2013 release, liberty and ants.

>> host: author mark with in >> host: mark levin, in your book, you propose amendments to the constitution including term limits, an appeal for the 17th amendment, establishing term limit for the supreme court court justice, limiting federal taxes. which is most important to you? >> guest: they are all of the same genre because the goal is to restore the republic. the federal government is so unhinged from the constitution it would be nice to break them into three accept -- separate --

blanches but it is more mush now. there is the massive administrative branch as well. the 4th branch as i call it. the goal or the purpose of the book is to talk about revising the constitution and the republic but also to reform people how the republic is supposed to look and how the constitution is supposed to function and move some away from the government to the states acting collectively. >> you write about the 17th amendment saying it serves not the public interest but the interest of the governing masterminds and their crew. it is because they knew it would be one of several important mechanisms for empowering the

federal government and unraveling constitutional republici republi republic. >> guest: if you look at the constitution, it is complex. you have a central government with limited power, three branches working with each other, sometimes checking each other and of course you have the states where the individual power exist and the individual sovereignty exist obviously. so this idea that direct elections is what the framers intended is not correct. they intended it for the house of representative's and madison's notes make it clear they debated this at length what the senate was supposed to look like. but when it came to the senate, madison and the others made it clear you cannot have the direct election of senators without

creating a powerful centralized government. they wanted a federal government. not a centralized government. they made the case to the states even. they said look, the senate is made up of individuals chosen by the state legislator so you will have a role in the federal lawmaking process among other things. so the federalist use the senate to persuade the anti-federalist to vote for the constitution. furthermore, who exactly created this? two from out of state. we get that. that was balanceme but you have situations now where senators

voted for obamacare in states where the governor and attorney general fought obamacare in court. and the stage legislator doesn't protect their citizens from it when they voted against it. the senate is odd today. so empowering the state legislators in the law making process this wasn't it have another availability to vote. >> host: rules the limit the filibuster. do you agree with those? >> guest: no, i think harry reid and whoever abused rules. they were using the filibuster to block nominees under george

bush li bush like no other. and now they are complaining about not pushing through obama's legislation enough. and the very people that abused the filibuster rule have now eliminated it for purpose of nominee at the appellate and executive officials. what the senate is today is a rubber stamp for obama. harry reid might as well be in obama's cabinet. and this is a very odd thing because rather than protect the institution of the senate and congress, which is what the framers intended, you have the majority in the senate doing whatever it can to support the executive branch in whatever way it can. this would have been crazy to the framers and in fact it would

be crazy during franklin's days. he tried to pack the court with people that agreed with his agenda. the vice president is the one who fought it the most. many democrats wouldn't go along. so you have to have people in virtu and we don't have that. >> host: is is fair a state like california and wyominging, for example, have the two senators? >> guest: that knows to the point that the constitution would not have been ratified if only the big states, virginia,

massachusetts, and pennsylvania, could have as many states as they wanted. this goes back to the point the house of representative is the house of the people. quote unquote. the states based on their population. that is how you determine the number of members of the house. the senate is a different institution. the senate was considered to be a house of lords. i hate to shock people. but it hasn't worked out that way. >> host: some of your other amendments: at a promote free enterprise, grant the state authority to amend the constitution, check authority and to direct the vote. what do you mean by direct the authority to amend the constitution? >> guest: that 3/5th of the

legislators would amend the constitution. today it takes one justice. today it takes as this president does refusing to uphold the law and adhere to the law changing a law, they are constantly amending theitution and statute. congress passed obamacare and dodd frank and they are blatantally illegal. so the notion 3/5th of the legislation should be able to direct the constitutional shouldn't be radical. of course in order for that to happen we would have to amend the constitution to allow the states to do that in the first place which is one of the things i propose in my book. >> host: in your first book "men in black" you write the supreme

court sits in final judgment of all policy issues disregarding the constitutional limititations and the legit roles of the congress and the president and the broad rules preferred on the people. >> the progressives have won. i don't know why they are challenging what i am writing. they made clear what their objectives were. an all powerful central balance. they didn't like the idea of checks and balances and state sovereignty and did everything they could to undermine that. so we have a supreme court now that sits in decision of anything it wants to consider. whatever your opinion is look what happened in california, doma, look what happens with all of these issues. we sit on the edge of our chair

in june, how is justice kennedy going? this one? that one? these are nine individual human beings as imperfect of the rest of us. they are of blood and bone batter and they are imperfect and the idea that all of us have to wait the decision on one justice or five justice to determine a social or cultural issue for the entire nation is absurd and the idea there is no recourse whatsoever is absurd and no body can point to anything that took place at the constitutional convention or the state radifying convention that support such. there would be no constitution if this was existed.

i think we should limit the term limit. i think 12 years is enough. whether you are a great justice or not. it is way too political. and the other is 3/5th of the state legislator can override a supreme court decision. why shouldn't there be recourse beyond one justice with a body politics? the people of the united states -- if they can raise the resources and get 3/5th of the legislator to say no, court, you are wrong or no justice kennedy you are wrong, why would that be so horrible? i don't think it would be. >> when you talk about your liberty amendment, are you calling for a constitutional conventi convention? >> guest: no.

calling for what article five is. a convention of the states. it is a convention of the states. not where everything is up for grabs. but where 2/3rds of the state legislator make application to congress to have a convention and congress has no role whatsoever, it is clear in madison's notes during the debate and federalist 85 written by hamilton. 2/3rds of the state call for a meeting and rather than congress having the ability to propose amendments, 2/3rds of the state come up with amendments that have to be sent to all of the states and you need 3/4ths to radify. >> host: are these amendments

doable? >> guest: i hope so. otherwise i think we are doomedidoomed. we have an out of control government that is becoming centralized. you can see it, and i don't know mean to panic people, in what i consider the police powers, the idea the irs is enforcing health care law is disgusting. i am looking for a constitutional way. i didn't create article five. the framers did. to opress a centralize government. that is what madison was worried by and they radified this. i hope they are are doable. we have come a long way in six

months. the was a meeting on december 7th called the mount vernon assembly where a hundred delegates met to start the process of talking about this. indiana the legislator has passed to bills outlining how they would chose the delegate and what the authority of the delegates should be. we should not fear this. people need to understand we are in a post-constitutional period in many respects the system is upside down. it is top down rather than bottom up and it is going to get worse. i am trying to say let us use the constitution to save the constitution and restore the republic. >> host: in your boo boobook book "amer-topia" you talk about

utop utopia -- what is that? >> guest: i am saying if you listen to the left and you understand the left they are promising they will create these perfect systems or these magn magnificent systems. we will improve your health care, your financial system, we will end poverty just give us more and more of your wealth and on and on. when it does want work, and it won't work because it is impossible for a few masterminds in washington, d.c. to know what 310 million people know in terms of their own lives and what motivates and benefits them. but that said the problem is it becomes increasingly more

centralized and so that is the basic proposition. >> host: you write utopia attempts to control the planned and unplanned complexity of the individual and his mankind and nature. it is intolerant of diversity, uniqueness, etc. for its purpose requires a singular focus. there can be no competing voices or causes slowing or disturbing society's long and righteous march. >> guest: fewer and fewer ideas are allowed to be espouged and

it is disturbing to me. this state always requires the federal government to have more power over the individual. you can listen to obama and it isn't just obama. you listen to the republican leadership and they sound like neo-satist themselves. excuse me. i have the flu. th th this utopism -- when it fails what is the problem? not enough money or something else. it is complete failure it will never fail. so his is the problem the constitutional conservatives have in fighting. these folks are talking about

what can be, should be rather than reality of the damage they have caused. it is our responsibility to do a better job of explaining that. >> host: >> host: your book "liberty and tyri tyriny" tell us about that. >> guest: when i started to think about it, and did an enormous amount of research and pulled things together, the names marxism, socialism, liberalism, progress, i decided to reach back to aristotle.

my editor said what was this title mean? and i said it means you believe less so in the power of the individuals and levels of governing. and statism pushes the fact the governor has a good purpose to devour the civil society. and those of us that know about liberty and history we reject that idea. but the statist and some call them liberals are devouring the civil society more and more. rather than the government existing in a limited form, you know, two ensure justice occurs and we mean justice before the law, enforces contracts and takes care of necessities like

securing the border. we have a federal government that is involved in every way of life. >> host: should liberty and tyranny be read as a trilogy? >> guest: as an author, i hope so. one does work after the other. liberty and tyranny took off. it was, as i say, from my perspective a restatement of conservatism because i was tired of the leadership and john mccain who was mushing up the message and didn't stand for a lot and wasn't explain ing the principles and i thought it was

time for that. amer-topia take as much deeper look at the left. it is book on philosophy. and it compares to conservatism. this utopia isn't new. i opposed it to john locke, to the framers of the constitution, and you can really see the liberty and the darkness of tyranny and i make the point that the statist today, their

philosophy is nothing new. it is steeped into many of the old philosophers who were preaching in a fictional or non fictional way the power of the state and the power of the state is undoing. >> host: who is your favorite philosopher? >> guest: that is impossible. locke would be one of them. locke, in my view, really laid out the most cohesive, or comprehensive case for the civil society and the natch nature of man and the natural law. he had a huge impact on the founding fathers. in montisque, and one reason

they are both in the book, was one of the most wildly read during the constitutional period. this argument for three separate branches of government -- he is the one that maybe not first preposed it but most dominantly proposed it. and adam smith and david hume and modern day milton freedman and many others i am sure i cannot remember them all. but not one in particular. but all together -- and by the way the framers were well-read on -- many of the men before their time that did exist they were well informed about the enlightment and what had taken place in history.

you look at the declaration of independence and it is heavily from locke. and this is a good thing. and the constitution is from the spirit of the law. many philosophers should be the focus of the education system and the public school system. i will other than a small percentage of the population very few know about him or have hurt about them. >> host: who is on the other side? >> guest: the philosophers on the other side? marx and angles. when people talk about being liberalism, or socialism, many

don't realize how much marx they read. doesn't mean you need to round up people. but the socialist -- the european's barrowed from marx. these are marxist ideas. but marx talked about the withering away of the state. the problem is as lenin himself said we can't figure out how that works. the state becomes oppressive and all-powerful. >> host: and you write once it is under the control its objectives will be abolition of property in land of all land of public property, a heavy graduated income tax, abolition of inheritance, centralization

of the property of immigrants and rebels; centralization of credit, centralization of communication, equal liability, farming with manufacture and free education for public school. >> guest: i would say we have covered 8 of those? that is from marx and the communist manfesto. those are his ten plank and i think 6-7 of them we have adopted. look the so-called progressives and the progressive era clearly rejected -- let me put it to you. you cannot be a utopia state and support the individual liberty and state authority and support our constitution. i mean, it just isn't possible.

this is why i say we are in the post-constitutional period. today is health care and who knows what it will be tomorrow. but the fact of the matter is what these people on the left are pushing and have been pushing is not within our constitutional framework. as a matter of fact, it attacks the framework. you cannot be -- i want the liberals to listening. you cannot be a hardline liberal or as i call it a statist and support the constitution. >> host: another word you use is originalism and you quote robert block saying it seeks to impart a fixed, continuous, and

predictable meaning and then you go on to write originalist reject to advancing the justice. >> guest: a couple ideas there. let's take the supreme court. thinking they never get it wrong is ridiculous. plussy versus fergson that were issued. in my view roe versus wade was another thing they got wrong.

implied review power where the courts or justice understand the limitations on their roles. there has to be recourse to this short of a constant national logger head situation where one group feels this way and another feels this way. and that is why i propose the state legislature, 3/5ths, can override this. wouldn't it have been wonderful if they could have overroad the dred-scott decision. there is a lot more in the. the whole notion of the judiciary is having the final word. someone has to have the final word at some point. but when the final word is so outrageous or disconnected from

a perspective of the community and the nation the final word doesn't have any legitimicy. as for the notion of originalism, it simply means this without getting into disputes, as a general matter it means when a judge or justice is deciding a constitutional matter as opposed to a statutory manner, they are try to discern what the framers meant by the words of the constitution, then looking at historic records, if that doesn't exist they are not allowed to go into the darkness and impose their personal views on the nation. nothing gives them that power.

so you can have originalist who approach the job properly but come up with a different result and that is the key. it as a the manner you which to interrupt the communication. you have a handful of lawyers who wear black robes that you call your honor and happen to get on the supreme court and impose their own wishes and rewrite the constitution and do whatever they want to do and that is lawlessness. lawlessness in the supreme court is a problem. >> host: good afternoon and welcome to our monthly program with one author looking at his or her body of work. this month it is mark levin.

he has written five books. rescuing sprite, men in black: how the supreme court is destroying america, liberty and tyranny: a conservative manifesto, ameritopia: the unmaking of america, and the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic. tea par"ameritopia" if you cann through on the phone lines send us a tweet. at booktv is the twitter handle. you can make a comment on our facebook page at facebook/booktv or you can send an e-mail as

well. where did you grow up? >> guest: i grew up outside of a town of philadelphia in a community called elkins park. it was a wonderful place. >> host: why did you grow up there? >> guest: that is a good question. they were born in philadelphia and they started a nursery school and day camp right outside of philadelphia in springfield township, pennsylvania. i was raised in springfield township and then we moved not too far away. they were small business people. my mother was a former teacher and my father was an artist. they ran that 20 years almost.

>> host: are they still living? >> guest: they are. they are wonderful. they live in florida. i have on older brother in philly, rob in virginia, and my parents were role models for us. my belief in this country and my love of this country and my desire to do what i can come from my parents. the notion of hard work wasn't just taught to us. i saw it. i saw them working 15-20 hours a day to make it work. after they were done with the school and the day camp and sold it they started a small store in jake town, pennsylvania. they sold furniture and lamps and things of that sort. >> host: why did you go to law school? >> guest: because i had to.

i wanted to be a lawyer. i don't know why. i feel i could have been a lawyer without going to law school but that is the system. because i wanted to deal with these issues. i mean -- you need that diploma in order to be do what i do in another part of my life which is president of land mark legal foundation. so i don't just write and talk about these things. we try to litigate around them whether it is the epa, obamacare, or immigration and so forth. i thought that degree would give me a tool i needed to advance the cause of liberty. >> host: >> host: how do you use that degree? >> guest: i don't know that i could frame the diploma anywhere. while i use it as the president

of the land mark foundation, but i use it in my radio show to analyze court decisions and also in my writings. i am not sure the degree itself really gave me an edge in terms of my own studies and drawing from scholarships and writing and so forth. it didn't hurt. but i was in a hurry got out of high school early, college early, wanted out of law school early but the dean wouldn't let me. i wanted through it to jump into what i am doing today. >> host: you worked with ed niece? >> guest: great man. attorney general of the united states. i was his chief of staff. this notion of originalism he row introduced it and promoted it as reagan's attorney general which was crucial.

we had hectic times there because the left hated him because he was effective so they would try to release prosecutors. but he was an effective, forward thinking attorney general. a lot of the people you so on the courts today are in different organizations promoting liberty and the constitution and so forth worked into the niece justice department in one unit or division or another. so there is a whole army of conservative conservatives/libertarianian constituti constituti constitutionist out there who got their first job here. >> host: >> host: how did you go from chief of staff to ed niece to a radio show? >> guest: let me tell you this way. i have always been enamored with

talk radio. i am 56. when i was a teenager i would list listen to the talk radio in philadelphia but more often in new york. i would listen to gene shepherd, gary fisher and my favorite was jim grant. he passed away and i want to say he was an icon. he was kind and he is going to be deeply missed. he helped blaze the trail for conservative talk radio today. i would listen to him and i wrote the local radio station. i think it is wpht now and asked if i could do a talk show. i was 16 at the same. they let me in, i did one show, and that was the end of that. it wasn't intended to be

permanent but probably getting them off my back. i wasn't planning on making it a career but overtime in the '90s and early 2000's i was on television debating the clinton impeachment and i am a big friend of sean hannity and also rush limbaugh. i would sub for them and the program director said you have knack for this. would you like to try the sunday show? we can't pay you they said. but i did it for a little over a year and they wanted me to do more and now i am doing more and

we have a successful sindicated show. that occurred post-reagan administration. i am not sure if there was one specific thing that did it. it just came together. >> host: what makes for a good radio talkshow host? >> guest: integrity and not getting on the air to talk about this weekend or the other. just being yourself and having inte integrity, be compelling, don't be a circus clown or clapping seal. the most successful talk radio

host -- it isn't something you can learn or teach. you come through the mike and you are compelling as your other than personality and thinking and person or you are not. and you can tell when people are faking. the other thing i would say is the audience is smart. they are really smart. particularly in talk radio. don't act stupid and talk down or try to mislead them. my radio audience is the most important thing i have in radio. they are what makes me successful. otherwise i am talking to the walls or ceiling so have respect for your audience. i try to come in every evening hours and hours of preparation, of thought, and of what i might say that is interesting and

might entertain as well and that affects people's lives. i track jokes. i get angry and you will see all moods of personality. but integity and respect for your audience. >> host: you don't do much tv anymore do you? >> guest: i don't do a lot of tv unless i want or need to do it. i figure what i have to say is on the radio and people can it if they want. i am not into tv. not to say i don't like it but the nearest studio is 40 miles away and that is 80 miles around trip and sitting there listening to a liberal in my ear seems

like a waste of time. we get invitations all of time but i don't accept many of them. i accepted yours. >> host: we appreciate that. how much anonymity do you have? >> guest: my face is all over the books. but i asked them to take the last one off. >> host: why? >> guest: how many pictures of my face do people need to see? i am not a social butterfly. i don't go to a lot of parties or events. maybe i will speak 3-4 times a year. i don't do paid speeches even though i get the offers. i like my anonymity but i understand there are times i don't have anonymity. i have a great life. i am blessed.

>> host: mark levin is our guest and his most recent book is the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic. that is our book of the month. you can click on the book club at the top of the tab and you will be able to participate with other viewers and readers of the the liberty amendments: the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic. lorea laura in new york city, go ahead. >> caller: what he means by liberty is no public money for

social security, medicare, medicaid, education, or the rebuilding of our crumbling infrastructure. he is posing as a right wing conservative. he is trying to bring to an end once and for all any political representation for anyone in the country by the criminal elite. >> host: that was laura in new york city. >> guest: she figured me out. i am part of the criminal elite. i get callers like this all of the time. c-span gives them 60 seconds. i give them about six. what do you want me to say? >> host: why do you give them six seconds? >> guest: airtime is precious. i take the audience and their time seriously. and i can play a cuke for ten

minutes. i could go back and forth but there is no point. she is a cuke. >> host: because she disagrees with you? >> guest: well, no, but that i don't believe in any public spending whatsoever? i believe in the constitutional system and there is public sending under the constitutional system. i am not an anarcist. and the criminal elite taking everybody's money -- how am i doing that? i could sit here and try to rationally spond respond but it is like the person bouncing off the walls in the mental home. it is entertaining but i am not having a conversation.

>> host: this is an e-mail i have. i have been listening for years to mark levin and i was listening to nom chanski and i found it interesting their language was similar but they are on opposite sides of the political scheme >> guest: listen. he is a left wing, cuke. that is right, professor, you are. he is a radical, statist. why is it it my responsibility to bring rationality to irrational people. from my perspective he hates america and its institutions.

he would disagree with me. but how am i supposed to make sense of him or that? i can't. i don't know how guys like him get tenure. well, i do. he can use whatever words he wants. >> host: janice is calling from smith field, utah. >> caller: i think you a treasure. >> host: why do you think he is a national treasure? >> caller: i think he has so many things right. and so many -- he has a wonderful mind. i just admire his mind. i wanted to ask him, as a conservative, i have been concerned about the division among conservatives over tactics

that creating a division that is going to be against the success of the goals we want to achieve such as getting rid of obamacare and stuff like that because we argue among our ourselves over the tat tactics to get there. i wonder if that is a concern for you. >> guest: part of the problem is the party has their way. nominated romney and lost, same with mccain. boehner is the same elk. some of us have drawn the conclusion the country is close to abyss when you look at $120

trillion in unfunded obligation. you were talking about a $17 trillion fiscal uperating debt. these are not sustainable. the social security trusties they that is unsustainable, obamacare is unsustainable. unless and until the republican leadership figures out a way to address this that is not timid, the republican party is going to keep loosing the elections. the trojectory will not change. the republican party has to get back to its grass roots and become a party of principal. it has to have positions that oppose what this president and administration is doing. and unfortunately when you look

at the prior administration the debt grow the highest in history until this administration. we have to be truthful to o ourselves about what is taking out. i think the days of the republicans getting their way without challenge are over. >> host: >> host: and you write the federal government consumes 25% of all goods and services produced each year by the american people. yearly deficits exceed $1 trillion and the uperating debt is more than $17 trillion. far exceeding the economic wealth of the american people. it has accumulated unfunded

libelties that is growing at a 4.6-4.9 trillion a year. this e-mail from mile smit. did you believe, it follow up on what you were talking about, did you believe the gop will realign around principles without a credibility threat by the base to the third party? >> i don't support this third party stuff because that means endless victories by the hard left and reagan didn't support it either. i think what is needed, to cut to the chase, is a new republican party. and i think that happens about every 25 years. we have people effective at climbing the ladder but they are not statesman and not effective

at articulating much. the republican party needs to be improved. i am not a flag waver of the republican party. i am a flag waver for liberty. we need an institution that represents more of us. unfortunately you have people in the republican party that have been in congress 25-30 years and they are part of the problem. they may things, platitudes that people will quote but they are not effective. we need a new republican party. >> host: from "ameritopia" you write the tea party movement is a great sign. they come from all over and the people have the spirit of the founding fathers and proclaim the individuals liberties and insist on the federal government's compliance with the

constitutions limits. >> guest: the tea party is the constitutional movement and without it the debt would be bigger, the unfunded libelties would be biging and the government would be more consolidated. i think it needs to grow. i think if it republican party wants to go to war with the tea party movement the republican party is going to move because it is as i saw in "ameritopia" nothing more than millions of tax paying hard working citizens who had enough and see the $90 trillion dollars. see the fecklessness of the republican party and the radicalness of the democrat party. both are turning on the tea

party and attack it. the whole point of the state convention process is to by pass the federal government and to by pass the federal courts and that is what the framers intended. all of them in attendance voted for article five so we the people in the state legislature can make an effort to take it back. that is not to say every state legislature is great. maryland is a disaster, california, illinois, rhode island. a lot of the state legislatures are good or more positive. if we can get a movement going and it is starting and time will tell and i feel the worse things

get i feel it will pick up steam. it is the only serious resource to what is going on today. it just is. as i say in the last chapter of the liberty amendments even the most perfect republican, and god i want one, can't reverse what is going on in this country. he can pull it down. bush came into the office and deannounced the reagan agenda and off with the fdr again. so if people are serious about this they should turn into the framers and look at article five when george mason said should congress become oppressive here

is your recourse. >> host: if you were in kentucky would you support mitch mcconnell? >> guest: he is an ineffective leader and senator in my personal view. that whole immigration bill he sat back and then showed up and voted against it. this whole notion of the president having the power in essence to veto congress should congress decide not to raise the debt ceiling. mitch mcconnell came up with that saying it should be temporary. nothing is temporary first of all. but the congress can't decide to defer the power to the president, entity or anything of the sort.

i remember when he fought mccain and was standing up for the first amendment and i was proud of him. but that is the first and last thing i can remember. so no, i would not personally vote for him. >> host: lin is calling from cedar hurst, new york. >> caller: i think, steve, mark would call me a cuke along with the first caller. i think the persons she was referring to were the coch brothers amongst the most. the coch brothers are the ones that fund the heritage foundation that pays for half of this guy's commercial and then they fund the books and give them away because no one wants

to spend money and they pay for the buses that take the tea party people to the rallies because -- and they also now are paying the people to organize and hand out the leaflets. people don't know they are being paid for by the coch brothers in order to get people to rally which of course for white older people is a very easy think to rally against. ... said, what's wrong with that? is that, is that wrong that they, you know, if that's the case? >> caller: let's talk about tyranny. i mean, basically -- simply. basically, what mr. levin is arguing about is that the tyranny comes from people organizing to decide that while in the preamble it says that we should be promoting the general welfare, and he remembers that there are 310 million people in this country, he can't accept the possibility, he can't accept it, and i'm a kook who can't

speak for six seconds on his show because i can't get through the screener, okay? >> guest: can't imagine why. >> caller: well, you can't get through the screener -- >> host: all right, you know what? -- >> guest: we have a new line here at c-span. it's called the kook line. now, let me try and remember some of this, because i can't remember all of it. number one, the koch brothers don't fund anything that i do. number two, no groups buy my books. number three, i can't remember everything. >> host: buses, leaflets. >> guest: i have no idea about buses or leaflets, but so what if they do? gee whiz, the democrats never use big money to fund anything. let's see, what was the other thing he said, do you remember it all? yeah, i know, it was so memorable. but -- i can't think of everything that he said. but -- >> host: he couldn't get through on your screeners. ing? that's a good screen or. [laughter] sometimes they sneak through,

sometimes they don't. but everything he said there is a lie. every single thing he said there is a lie. >> host: but to the larger issue or to another issue -- >> guest: yes. >> host: -- of talking with and reading people you disagree with, do you do that on a regular basis? >> guest: i like to have discussions with people i disagree with. you know, substantive, intelligent decisionings. but if a guy calls me and says somebody funds something that they haven't funded, you know, if they're pushing the left-wing conspiracy crap, what am i supposed to do, sit there and have a discussion with the guy? i cut 'em off and say get the hell off my phone. call somebody else and have a good time. now, if you want to discuss the amendment process, the the constitution, unemployment, the debt, if you want to have a serious discussion about those things, fine, i'll have a serious discussion about those things. but this, you know, the

accusations that are -- what am i supposed to do? i cut them off. >> host: mark levin, do you enjoy the writing process? >> guest: i love it. you know, it's a lot of work because i actually write it. i actually research it. i actually do scholarship. and i have to spend every weekend and every night after my show working on these things. so it does take a lot of time away from other things. but it's just something i believe very strongly in and, look, there's a discussion now at least in part of the country about the amendment process. ..

what really drives me in trying to push sales is to get my books and my arguments into as many hands as i possibly can, because my books are intended to try and dissect people's thinking, give them ideas, maybe things they haven't thought about, and as i say, i can't imagine other authors aren't thinking the same way but that's where i'm coming from. i had one of the greatest editors in publishing, mitchell eye verse, or ivers, and he is terrific and has an eye for this. he might say you might want to

re-organize this chapter or that chapter, but he is also gracious about how hes to it, knowing full well i'm a little stubborn, like i think most authors are but i certainly am. he might say, may not want to include that, and i'll say, i am, and -- so i like to bounce things off him. in the end i make the decision. has there ever been head-butting? no. have i ever turn in a book where they've said, good lord, no: they've said they're thrilled to have the book because i hand them the complete book, with all the end notes, all the sourcing in the book, all the arguments in the book, all the chapters in the book. i put it together and i hand it in, and at the end of this desk, for instance, they returned a few of them to me. and i don't know that other authors do that. other conservative authors do that. i just don't know.

but in my case, because i have no ghost authors or cowriters, they're just glad i turn them in and turn them in on time. they're things i want to write about, things i want to talk about. life is short, and they don't need to say, you've missed your tedline. i'm excited to get my book in and emand i'm ready with the next one. it's hard work, and it is, because i do a radio show, and i'm not a done until 9:00 at night eastern time, and that mean is work until 3:00 in the morning when i'm working on a book, and i work every weekend, so it does have an effect on your social life, but this is what i do, what love. people say to me what do you door in a hobby? this is what i do. it's a hobby, and it's work, and i love it. >> host: so, mr. live victim, what's -- levin, what's the next book? >> guest: i'm not going to reveal what the next book is yet.

>> host: topic? >> guest: i think i'll call it -- i'm not going to get into it. i'm not even allowed to discuss it. >> host: are you allowed to discuss when it's coming out? >> guest: all right, we'll leave it there. i i wanted to tell the prior caller your name is not steve. >> host: this is jim in georgia. you're on book tv with author mark levin. >> hey, mark, and i think it's pete. anyway, one thing those kooks are good at is projecting, and i -- you mentioned earlier how you used to -- one thing, i'm always frustrated when i'm listening, is i agree wholeheartedly but i'm just -- hear one of you guys recount a conversation with mitch

mcconnell or john boehner or anybody who gets in front of a camera somewhere and just says stuff that is absolutely not true. are you guys -- the platform you guys have, are you able to -- not necessarily put them in front of a camera but to at least speak to them and say, hey, what you said today is flat out wrong? >> guest: they don't talk to me anymore. i've never talked to john boehner in my life. i think i met him once. accidentally. several years ago. but i haven't heard from john boehner, and i don't -- used to get calls from mcconnell. we don't anymore, as you might imagine. i don't support his re-election. so, i don't initiate calls with politicians. some of them try to initiate calls with us, sometimes i'll take them, sometimes i won't.

most time is don't. because some of them are my friends but i don't want to get too friendly with too many of them because it becomes much more difficult to speak about them and about what they're doing. so, i limit that as much as i can. >> host: so, speaker boehner's office called and said, hey, he'd like to talk with mark levin on the air? >> guest: on the air? hell, we've invited him to come on the air multiple times. he can come on the air. we'd love to talk to him. >> host: a tweet, ask mark about the left pointing to general welfare clause to justify their agenda. >> guest: that's it. that's what i forgot. the general welfare clause. it's funny, that is discussed at length in the liberty amendment. so, people who saw they're familiar with me and my books and so forthand -- so forth, many of themn't. the general welfare clause is

not intended to neutralize all the rest of the constitution. you'll hear the left talk about it all the time. they'll say, the general welfare clause says, yes. what about all the rest of the constitution? and it's interesting because this issue did come up and the framers made quite clear that it is absurd to say that the general welfare clause would neutralize all the rest of the work that went into drafting and establishing the constitution, the specific powers of the different branches and the limited powers of the federal government, vis-a-vis the states and bill of rights and so forth. you can't just pass along and say because it affects the general welfare i'm going to pass this. what the framers meant by that is, it has to affect the general welfare and then has to meet all the other standards. so, in other words, they can't pass a law that is specific to

say, twin, pennsylvania, when it comes to x, y, z. it has to have a general purpose. it's up to the state of pennsylvania to address local issues. so that's what is mentality by the general welfare clause, not to complete evil racing of the rest of the -- evisceration of the constitution, and this isn't an, ament anymore to argue that the general welfare clause is the power of the federal government to do whatever it wants to do. simply false. >> host: j.d. redding tweets: the problem of only relying on the framers for viewing the constitution is they sanctioned slavery. >> guest: they -- no. they didn't sanction slavery in the constitution. matter of fact, when the british kept importing slaves into the united states, into the colonies, because we didn't have much control over our borders then, either -- there's a

provision in the constitution that specifically ends the emport addition of slavery. i would tell the gentleman to reed abraham lincoln, who is also cited in the book, and he praises the framers of the constitution, many of whom were slave owners, and he knew it. and he said, because they could not resolve this issue there and then, they left it to their progeny to do it, and that's what the declaration of independence does, as i've explained in my books, took as abraham lincoln explained over and over and over again, the same men who wrote and adopted the declaration of independence, which talks about the natural rights, the inailennable rights of individuals, not just white men, not just men, not just whites, but every human being,

set the stage for at some point the abolition of slavery. this lincoln's position, it's my position, it's really the only rational position there is. why would you cop dem the constitution? you condemn the fourth amendment and the due process rights and 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 couldn't be completely free of slavery then, is free of slavery today, and

that's what the constitution sets -- that's what the declaration of independence sets forth. in other words, it's 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 didn't sign the constitution was because he didn't 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 couldn't resolve some of these very difficult and -- issues at the time, and i would say one other thing. if the constitution had failed there wouldn't be a united states, would there? there wouldn't have been a civil

war, would there? and slavery wouldn't 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 they'd pull up from my radio show and run with the 30-second 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, it's 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. i've thought about it. i've 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 i've 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 don't get trouble, have a number of favorite politics. ted cruz and mike lee and i like rand paul. now i'm 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 shouldn't be done. so, yeah, there's aspects of his record i like as well. >> host: 2016, jeb bush vs. hillary clinton. >> guest: disaster. a disaster for everybody. i don't 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 one-up 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 -- it's a complete disaster, and you can see they're not taken seriously. the egyptian military, which runs egypt now, is now building ties with the russians, something that democrat and republican presidents have prevent since sadat. we're losing turkey as it's 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 that's 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 don't support him amnesty. pushing for this common core federal education mandate on the states. i mean, we have been there done that, and it's 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 presidential 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 don't we have people who can stand up confidently, koa airportly, and advance our principles. don't have to be purists, just conservative. s. just don't think this is asking too much. why reject the one example two

massive national landslides, reagan, and keep embracing the losers? i don't know. but i think two bushes is enough. let me put it that way. >> host: chris christie. >> guest: i don't 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 won't explain why he did it other than the lame argument he didn't want to spend the money. doesn't 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 pro-am necessary city, pro gun control. again, why would the republican party go to another northeastern republican. they went to romney. that failed. christie, that's not going to work. don't think his temperment will fly in much of the country. but, no, i'm 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 it's 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 don't 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 wasn't interested in writing anything. and then because of sprite. >> because of sprite -- >> guest: i just wasn't 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 it's 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, let's

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 it's a very personal book. people who have adopted shelter dogs or even if they haven't but have lost a dog or an animal and had to put them down, they get much solace out of this book, and i'm 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 don't 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 i'm 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 i'm done with radio and all

the rest of it i'm going to spend my time trying to save as many of these dogs as possible. >> host: sean in hawai'i, thank you for holding on, you're on with author mark levin. >> caller: i am from hawai'i, 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, it's not perfect. no country is going to be perfect. no government is going to be perfect. but we're not talking about

perfection. we're 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 won't end but the republic part will expend that's important. no nation is guaranteed existence in perpetuity and none of them do exist forever, but there's never been a perfect society, we just talked about the framers. they weren't 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 re-establish

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 don't have these discussions you and i are having today or i'm having with the callers. they're there because they're americans and because they're there to protect america to protect our liberty and our constitution. and that's what they're -- they're not fighting, putting their lives on the line for obamacare or dodd-frank or unemployment compensation. they're putting their lives on the line because of america. the american republic. it seems to was we civilians who aren't putting our lives on the line, the least we can do is make the case here at home before it's 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 self-control. >> guest: laughing. i don't purposely exaggerate anything. i am a guest here on c-span. it's like being a guest at a wedding or being a guest at whatever, and you conduct yourself as a guest. now, c-span is not talk radio. when i do my show, as i said earlier, this program, the host has to have integrity, so if you're as passionate as i am about these issues and the future of the country, that comps across on the microphone. i don't do npr orthos people have to intentionally sit there and speak like zombies. that's what they're told to do and that's what they do. i am myself.

on the radio, and i'm myself here, too. you're asking me intelligent questions so i'm giving you straight answers. if a kook calls i call him a kook. but i'm a guest here and i know how c-span conducts itself. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2. this is our in depth program. this mark we're featuring mark levin. bruno, arizona, you're 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 i've 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 won't 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 don't 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: let's get an answer. thank you for calling in.

>> guest: i'm a big fan thereof the koch brothers. they're 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 don't 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 don't comply with the constitution today, obama as an example -- what makes you think that it will comply with these amendments. that's the brilliance of the

process. whether they comply or not, the states will decide what they states comply with. so if three-fifths 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 you're going to have a president, like congress, that is so lawless now, that they blatantly violate something of that sort, there's no reason they states have toed a their what the -- to adhere to what the president and the congress are doing. we're 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, we're living in it right now, and what i try and do in -- actually all four of these books, men in black, liberty and tyranny, ameri-topia and the liberty amendments, is to discuss it at some length and make the case, and we do live in a largely post-constitutional 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 so-called 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, there's 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 -- didn't 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 don't 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." ameri-topia, 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 won't tell us anything about it. bruce in oregon, you're 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. there's a lot of former house members in the senate, and i have never heard of a senator running for the house. >> guest: that's a very good point. i haven't thought it through. maybe there's one somewhere. we do know a former president who ran for the house, john quincy adams, but a former senator? i think it's happened but i can't remember off the top of my head, but it's a good point because the house of

representatives really is meant to be the people's house, and the senate really is meant to be the house of the state legislature, and the senate really isn't the people's house. it's not the house of the state legislatures. we don't know what it is. it's 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 we're enfranchised. we can vote for our own senator. the problem is you're voting for a senator who is anxiousable -- answerable to whom? they treat the states like just another group. so they'll 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 that's right. i don't think there's any justification for it. but you have a lot of members of the house who think it's 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. doesn't this prove there's class warfare going on in this country, the very wealthy against everyone else? >> guest: the very wealthy --

let's assume we round up the very wealthy. we take everything they have. how is that going to improve this gentleman's life? not going to improve it at all or anybody else's. 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 dodd-frank, 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 don't know if those figures are an accurate but let's 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 there's 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 we're talking about. >> host: hank, maryland. go ahead. >> caller: hello, mark. i'm 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. i've 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. it's 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. that's what i think. but that's not to say all teachers are bad. all teachers aren't 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 you're going to see this happen. i mean, the social engineering, what isn't controlled by the federal government in the school system right now? even the damn cafeteria is controlled by the federal government. it's 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 can't find which book that is in. >> guest: that would be probably "amar'e-topia. "that's my guess. rob, let me explain what is meant by that. what is green, what is harvestes, hough it's packaged, how it's shipped, how it's 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 didn't hang up on that person. i laughed. that's where that comes from, from hannity. >> host: another e-mail is there an antireligious bias in america? >> guest: is there an -- there's an antireligious bias in the government and an antireligious bias in hollywood. it's 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 doesn't necessarily mean churches and so forth, but business people or individuals who are religious in and of themselves who do not well-to

pay for policies -- do not wish to pay for policies that support payments for abortion or contraceptives or whatever you have, and they're being told, you must. it's mandated. that's clearly a violation of first amendment. we'll see what the supreme court decides at the end of our -- another june will come and we'll 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 there's an antireligious bias, and let me be even more specific. there's an antichristian bias in my view. certain things you can't say about certain religious groups and so forth. but if you're a traditional, practicing christian, you're written off as a nut, as a fundamentalist, and it's 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 judeo-christian background, ethics, principles. and you know franklin, yes but particularly when it comes to the first amendment which we all know was adopted later but and we are in an extremely tolerant country with respect to all religions and religious practices and that's because of the judeo-christian ethic at the time of the framing. so yeah i think there is hostility en masse media and by the government against religion generally but particularly christiachristia nity and they say that as a. >> and mark levin's most recent

book "the liberty amendments" he has several proposals for the constitution number one established term amendmentamendment s and repeal the 17th amendment establish term limits 12 years for the supreme court justices limit federal spending, limit federal taxation limit the federal bureaucracy promote free enterprise protect private property, grant the state's authority to directly amend the constitution, grant the state's authority to check congress and protect the vote. professor green e-mails in mr. levin why do you continue to claim that james madison opposed nullification when he clearly stated in that document you reference that thomas jefferson's idea of the rights of nullification is the natural right. what is nullification?

>> guest: you know this happens from time to time. there is a relatively small fringe effort out there to push an agenda and nullification is one of them and there are others too. even the secession movement going on. i would ask the professor can he point to one place in madison's notes the most conference of notes of the constitutional convention where nullification is mentioned? he can't. can the professor point to anywhere in the constitution were no vacation is mentioned? he can't. so what he does and others do as they try and construe the 10th amendment which leaves all powers not specifically conferred on the federal government with the states. a nullification amendment, the there's no such thing. they act like liberals the way they twist and spin and reinterpret what took place. he talks about jefferson. i have a great admiration for jefferson.

jefferson was active in the constitution so that's interesting but so what? what did eldridge have to say about a? nothing. he was at the constitutional convention but what did madison have to say? he was at the constituconstitu tional commission and had it made your role. but when you point out a letter that he wrote in 1830 a rather lengthy one in which he provides exposition to great lengths he goes into it and he also endorses the article v which you would imagine he would because he voted for it. he comes out squarely and strongly against nullification. but then they'd say it oh no that relates to south carolina and another letter in 1872 so there's no winning this argument because it becomes circular. i entertain myself now and then but then i move on to the point is this notification is a notion and again it depends on who's promoting it because they have

different arguments. it's the notion that on its own nullifies the statute of the federal government that the state legislature concludes that the federal government doesn't have the power to do it. as a practical matter putting aside all of this where would that take us? let's say marilyn's doesn't like a particular statute passed by the federal government and says do you know what? that doesn't apply to us. we are now find that because we have concluded here in maryland that that's unconstitutional so what if 10 states take that position? in other words this is called anarchy and on top of that i view these folks and they may not like it as neo-confederates. i'm looking at the constitution, the language in the constitution 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. it's right there.

we know who proposed it and we know who voted on it. we know what madison said about it later and so we have this movement that says no it's an impossibility let's go for state no vacation. the big nala fires out there as far as i'm concerned have been on the left. they have been nullifying the constitution as far as i can tell which is one of the reasons i think it needs to be reestablished and revised. >> host: professor if you can show me anywhere in the constitutional convention where nullification was addressed you can send it to me and show me anywhere in the constitutional nullification as mentioned rather than your implication or your interpretation. you can send that to me too which means he won't be sending me anything. >> host: brian pikesville maryland. good afternoon to you. >> caller: i thoroughly enjoy watching c-span's booktv and i regularly watch it on a sunday.

i recall some time ago you had a lady by the name of melanie phillips from england who has written a book the world upside down and i was very impressed by the remarks you made as to the one word that progressives do not wish to hear and that is the truth. i think that really hits the nail on the head. i was at a party not so long ago i was mentioning something about obamacare is problem. there was a problem and as soon as i mentioned that without any further discussion i was told i was a right-winger and i was a fascist. what i would like to ask mr. levin whom i respect very much is what is the mentality of people of different ideologies? people have equal intelligence

who agree with his concept and people on the other side of the issues. i would really like to hear some discussion on that. thank you very much. >> guest: what is the mentality? i'm 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 don't believe conservatism is an ideology. i believe conservatism is what naturally flows from human experience. conservatism is based on human experience. conservatism is based on reality it's based on practicality. and it's based on reason and knowledge. that's why so many conservatives opposed obamacare from day one. it's not an ideological thing. it's just that we know all this power over the individual and

individual health care and medicine and so forth in a centralized government run by politicians and bureaucrats is a dangerous thing and it's also an impossibility. in other words it won't work well. and so we don't say that for ideological reasons. we say that based on human experience. the other thing for those promoting obamacare they are ideologues. they reject human experience and reality of all these things that are important in making rational decisions. so i would say conservatism is not an ideology. it's a way of life, it's a way of thinking. it's a way of being based on human experience and status and more liberalism is an ideology and it's based on utopianism. that is why when you said at the party some of the examples of why obamacare failed or is going to fail you recall the right-wing whatever --

you were called a right-wing whatever so the truth is you're probably being questioned by a kook but then again i've arctics that. >> host: martin l wants to know what mr. levin thinks about the club for growth. >> guest: i like these conservative groups, these free-market groups, these constitutional groups that voluntarily operate, that raise money in the privates sector with no government support whatsoever and use it to elect conservatives. i think we need more of this, not less of it. i like the coat rather's and i like the club for growth and these other organizations. why not? >> host: larene from flushing new york these go ahead with your question or comment for mark levin. >> caller: hey marketti enjoy you very much. i have a couple of questions in light of what's going on with the nsa and what was your opinion about the overreach of government and the other question was in the very

beginning of the formation of this country we had great minds who came together agreed to disagree about move the ball forward. who do we have now do you think who is in the same mind-set where we have another renaissance in that regard? >> guest: i think there is a worth of such people at this point to be honest with you. i don't know, i don't know. i mean look at congress. what a disaster. i could go around the country and pick people who were smarter, wiser, better judgment who would look at what's going on in terms of the debt in the deficit in not securing the border and all these other things that make more rational intelligent decisions than these people yet there they are so i don't know. i i hope they're there somewhere at some point. that's why i rely on state legislators. not all of them but a majority,

a majority of them. i think we have to work for the bottom-up. what was the other -- oh the nsa. my position on the nsa is simple. i don't think the nsa should be collecting everybody's phone numbers and phone patterns and i think it is a complete waste of resources at the time. i don't think they could point to a single example where this would stop any terrorist event in any time i ask whether it's by a committee or this obama commission or whatever it was they don't come up with supportable positions. i think it is unlikely that it highlights the fourth amendment. i guess we are going to find out but i think it's stupid and it ought to stop and i do think the fourth amendment or no fourth amendment it does violate our individual rights and you know i'm a strong supporter of intelligence gathering. i'm a strong supporter of law enforcement. heck heck i worked in the justice department in the reagan

administration but this goes way too far. i do not like this kind of these police state -- and i certainly don't like them in the hands of this particular administration as we have seen with the irs and so forth so no i don't 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 knee-jerk way as some kind of national security intelligence thing and it's not in my view. it would be like a local cop who is on a murder scene and what does he do? sees in manhattan and he grabs the manhattan phone book and starts looking up phone numbers. you don't work the case that way. you find out the specific, you look for specific issues specific patterns and so forth and then maybe you go to the manhattan phone book and so forth which is probably why despite all the effort and the resources and man power they

can't show one example where this is actually stopped somebody. >> host: edward snowden, whistleblower or traitor or somewhere in between? >> guest: is probably somewhere in between. luckily i don't have to make that decision but i will say this. i don't like the fact that he is in china or i don't like the fact that he's in russia. those are two of our enemies. on the other hand people say all he had to do was go to a congressman or senator with the information. are you kidding me? if you go to a congressman or senator with this kind of information they'd pick up the phone and call the fbi as they probably should. otherwise they might be prosecuted too. there is no immunity to them so i think there should have been another way to do this rather than running off to enemy countries and i'm also concerned about what he is revealed to them. i don't know what he is told the chinese and the russians or anybody else for that matter. but the existence of this program, i'm glad we do know

about it because i think about to be shut down but i do believe in a robust intelligence gathering national security law enforcement operation of the federal government because you know our national security is certainly one of the primary objectives. >> host: mike gallo of norwalk connecticut. could market expound on any personal anecdote -- anecdote between him and president reagan? >> guest: a personal anecdote? well i didn't see him a lot of times. i think i saw him a total in my lifetime of maybe five times. i don't think i have ever mentioned this before but one of the times that i was with president reagan in the oval office i was also with attorney general meese and a handful of others including some members of

the attorney general's family and the justice department. and attorney general meese had just decided to leave office, and president reagan said to attorney general meese who is coming under attack at the usual radical leftists, and president reagan said to him i want to apologize to you. all these attacks that are aimed at you are really intended for me. i'm sorry that you have had to go through this. that is what ronald ronald reagan said and that's the kind of man ronald reagan was. and ed meese too. a great man, absolutely great man. >> host: one of the things we like to do with our "in depth" guest is asks what they are reading and their favorite influences some of their favorite bookseller. here is a look at some of mark levin's answers.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> host: mark levin one of the others you listed as your favorite raymond eric -- the intellectual. >> guest: he is a friend of mine and it's an absolutely great book and he was a great thinker. there is a philosopher that i didn't mention. he wrote particularly about the cold war and the iron curtain and but he's skewered in a brilliant way the elites, the so-called intellectuals and it's just a tremendous book and i learned a great deal from him. these are not necessarily words that he used that i'm using and he gave great examples of it and the danger of it and talk about the communist elite in the liberal elite and the academic elite and while i didn't agree with every exact thing but the

mentality and it was just superb. he's not the only one to do that. joseph shumpert there is another one, a great economist and philosopher. he did the same thing and he's not alone either. hayek did it in so many of his books too so this is the problem with centralizing all these decisions. you know we accept the fact that men and women aren't perfect. we accept the fact that all of our institutions are imperfect. well then why would we give so few people so much power, so few imperfect human beings in such a narrow number of institutions so much power over the rest of us to impose their imperfect decisions on us? >> host: from your 2009 book sub "liberty and tyranny" you write if words other meanings can be manipulated or ignored to

advance the status -- statists political and policy preferences what ben bynes allegiances to the statists words? why should today's laws find future generations if yesterday's loss does not bind this generation? >> guest: in other words the constitution is subject to change based on what a particular court says our particular president says or even a particular generation. then why are we bound by what they say? i mean we are not found by the constitution why am i bound by a supreme court decision? why my bound to federal edict? why might bound by a presidential executive order? if the founding governing body is to be revered then why do we honor all these other decisions and statutes and so forth? why should we? that's the point.

>> host: mark levin is there just this month on "in depth" and we have a little less than an hour to go. bill and manhattan beach california warrant on the air and good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon. i love c-span. you guys are terrific and mark levin you are a great asset. please take care of your health to begin with. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: allowed me to appeal to you to bring your terminology down to the average voter. the average voter is not a business owner. he's not working wall street etc.. he's an employee by and large and change capitalism to free enterprise. change income redistribution to what it is. change entrepreneurship to job creation so appeal to the folks who want to go with you but they don't talk like that. thank you. >> guest: i don't think i know anybody on wall street come to

think of it. the koch brothers but i don't really know them either. >> host: have you ever met them? >> guest: i met them once, wonderful people and i'd like to meet them again. i saw george soros photo wants too. the man makes a good point and i do try to do that but i'm not always successful. the gentleman makes a good point and i work at it as much as i can. you want to use terms that people can identify with. >> host: ashley on her facebook page post this comment. who do you think was the best and worst presidents and why? >> guest: well i have to go with some of the obvious. i think washington was our greatest president. if washington wanted to be a

dictator washington would have been a dictator. you look all over the world after the so-called democratic revolutions. you look at castro and these other places zimbabwe and so forth that is what these men di. washington was not only a brilliant general who helped lead the rebbe lucian against all odds and win, it was a brilliant statesman and while the framers were united in their desire for liberty and representative government and a lot of opinions on how to get there, washington new 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 and the fact that he agreed to even go to the constitutional convention, he had to think about that but he decided he would go. he wanted to go back to mt. vernon and that's where he wanted to stay. he cared about his country deeply, to the point where he went broke.

they were busy in public affairs but so much of what washington did and said and so forth set the nation on a proper course in my view. that is why a very close second as lincoln even though the mill fires would disagree and the neo-confederates. did lincoln do some things that we would question today? yes 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 there will be few men like him in the future. i would consider reagan one of our greatest presidents too three people forget for half a century or so the cold war was a very serious matter. expansion was a very serious

matter. nuclear threat was a very serious matter. among other things reagan defeated through a for ivf policies and rejected detente and he won the victory and he got victory. also his economic aussies. 25 million president obama stands at the white house with unemployed people behind him arguing for more extended unemployment. 99 weeks apparently isn't enough. maybe into this president that's a problem but what reagan would have done is stick behind, have people stand behind them have found new jobs. reagan created such an economic dynamo that went right through to the clinton administration. i don't know that this nation has ever seen anything like it's certainly not a 100 years. 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 presidents too.

coolidge was a very good president. in my view james polk was a very good president. some people will attack him and call him in perilous than i guess i better leave california and some of the other states but i thought he was a very good president and there were others. i can't remember all of them and there've there have been some very very poor presidents. martin van buren was a very poor president. james buchanan was a very poor president. oh, i'm no fan of fdr but on the other hand he helped bring us through world war ii so you can't dismiss that although the aftermath was a disaster, him and truman as far as i'm concerned. but i think obama has to be in the top 10 of disastrous

presidents if not the top five. what he is done to this country, what he is has done to our constitutional system, what is done to one industry after another, his rhetoric, his propaganda. i just think he's been a very destructive divisive force in its too bad because you know the first black president any credit done so many great things not only bringing the country together but advancing the cause of liberty and property rights and all these other things that were so crucial to our thinking and to our country. and he's done the opposite. he has. he is done you knee-jerk hard left radical left-wing agenda and it's been a complete disaster. i think 50 years from now when we look back on this or other people look back on this i think it will be viewed that way. >> host: mark houlihan posts

are those the page mr. levin when will the republican party give up the marriage amendment and the right to life amendment. they are both losers for the gop. >> guest: i don't think we lose votes over the marriage or right to life amendment. how many votes if we lost on them? reagan was strongly pro-life and supported amendments. obviously the president has no role and only congress can order the states, the state legislatures and in terms of the marriage amendment, it takes three force of the states to ratify an amendment. well you now have what is it, 15 or 17 states that have made same-sex marriage legal, something like that? some legislatures have done it in some courts have done it but so i'm not sure how that would work out but i have no problem

with people arguing for proposing these amendments because it is the quintessential nature of federalism. like i said it takes three force of the state legislatures to ratify it. so that's a loser for a republican party don't think it's a loser for the republican party. i think it is a loser for the republican party are people who lead it through have no agenda who have few principles and very little confidence in anything. basically are hanging on for their own sake. but i don't think those are losers. the size amazes me. the social issue they call it, the social issue. call them the social issues. i don't call them social issues. there are human issues. there are cultural issues. who keeps bringing them up? who's fighting for same-sex marriage? who keeps bringing it up? activist groups state

legislatures, courts so people who object to a particular position they are told to stop talking, stopped standing for what you believe in. if your faith tells you to find a just give it up, it's a loser? these arguments are absurd. why should people give it up quick they should fight for what they believe. if the republican party doesn't stand for traditional values who the hell will? i hear people fighting for these things and i don't think it's a political loser. i think the moderate to stand for virtually nothing there the political losers. i mean mccain didn't lose because he supported either of those amendments. romney didn't lose because they supported those amendments. they lost because they couldn't connect with the people because they didn't have agenda for the people and its liberty free enterprise as the gentleman said wealth creation and job creation business creation agenda the growth agenda among other things

and yes the traditional faith agenda that i think we'll get people to the polls and win. reagan did it twice. >> host: pot sales and colorado is that part of the liberty agenda? [laughter] >> guest: all the potheads are going to move to colorado right now. something interesting is happening now. the federal government to some extent holder announced they are not going to enforce a lot of these federal pot laws in colorado has passed a pot laws. i mean would i vote for at? no way that they voted for it and that's the law in that salon colorado. what the hell am i supposed to do about it other than stay out of colorado? and again the federal government has decided it's not going to enforce the relevant federal statutes with respect to that and that's a different issue today. whether or not you support those

laws how in the world is the attorney general decided i don't like that line and not going to enforce at? where did you get that power? never. so that would be my issue there. if colorado wants to legalize pot in colorado will legalize pot. i think it's stupid. i do favor decriminalizing it though. in other words i don't think a 17-year-old or 20-year-old college student for some pizza delivery guy caught with a joint smoking a joint should have to do prison time or jail time or be charged with misdemeanor. that bothers me and i will tell you right here, i don't have a bible to swear on but i have never done drugs. i've never done pot but i still find it troublesome that some young person has had a joint or something like that and got caught. i don't 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 as evidenced in part by the million fleeing his own country of the american culture and the american citizen staying put. if someone were shopping for books and they came across "liberty and tyranny" and "ameritopia" in "the liberty amendments" they could only buy one, which one should they buy? >> guest: "ameritopia", "liberty and tyranny" or "the liberty amendments". if somebody said to me if you could only have one of these books. if you could only have one which could you have a couldn't do that. remember what solomon did? the cutting of the baby in half. he wouldn't agree on it what he? it depends on what you're looking for. let me put it to you that way.

"liberty and tyranny" is basically a prim or on a restatement of conservatism which i felt in 2009 is sorely needed. it provides my conservative manifesto and a call at that too mock marks an economist manifesto. "ameritopia" which is the most important to me is the most difficult. it is political philosophy and to me it gets to the heart of the problem of the left and the conflict with those who believe in liberty. the liberty amendment i think are crucial because i have callers on my show and others who say mark this is all great but what do we do about this? rather than get the usual phony superficial response that's a republican, that's not good enough. maybe that's good enough for some but it's not good enough to cause we are unmoored from our

constitutional system. we elected more republicans under george bush from 2001 and 22,007 and the control could congress and would have been? more federal involvement in health care and expansion of medicare. expansion of virtually everything. a massive increase in the debt. i mean alvon is not going to be enough. so the solution i think is rather than be superficial about it and say oh will just elect more of these folks even though i favor electing more conservative republicans the solution is a systemic one and the answer is in the constitution and is the purpose of of "liberty and tyranny." >> host: speaking of "liberty and tyranny" booktv's book club is reading that this month so if you go to booktv.org you will see a tablet there this is a club. you can go in there and see video of mark levin's reviews of

"the liberty amendments" and you compose your comments. a simple to read along and post your comments and you can have a discussion with other readers and viewers on booktv on "the liberty amendments." todd from connecticut thanks for holding. you're on with mark levin. >> caller: thank you very much for taking my call. one of the problems i see is debating issues and all i get back his -- but that's that still my opining i'm going to do and i have three specific questions that i would like to get his knowledgeable opinions on. corporate funding of elections doing away with the electoral college and gerrymandering. i would like to hear what mark has to say about those things. >> host: thank you todd. we will see what mr. levin has to say.

the electoral college and gerrymandering. >> guest: all right i will start with the corporate funding of elections. there are -- there is no corporate funding of elections but the citizens united case did was allow corporations to fund advocacy ads so they concluded that not only should unions be able to do at the corporation should able to do it too. why not? as long as its public, as long as we know who is kutcher beating what to these campaigns than it ought to be on line so you can get it immediately ended many cases it is. i don't have a problem with that. i have a problem with the shadowy stuff that goes on with members of congress and so forth. but out front donations is fine and i say this is somebody who has a 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 in pushing big government corporatist republican candidates. with that said principle was principle and free speech is free speech. as for the electoral college is of course isis toward it. there's a movement to get rid just as the oppressive movement got rid of state legislatures choosing the senate and of course the electoral college. let us remember the mind-set of the framers. the framers did not want populist majority in government. it didn't want a purely democratidemocrati c government. it wanted a representative republic. the purpose of the electoral college is not only to give some of the smaller states some footing in the presidential 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 unique checks in with my balances and such sort of things. that's electoral college and it amuses me that we have some senators who oppose 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 don't we get rid of them and just have a house of representatives? here we have senators who buy constitution exist, two in each state that we don't need them. we will just have a parliamentary system. i don't sub board that. as for gerrymandering i don't how we confront that. i'm what basis do you create congressional districts collect these good government types pretend they will take care of it and i don't trust most of them that gerrymandering is something that's gone on for an awfully long time and something i think we are stuck with. >> robert scardino e-mails in

claude pepper of florida was in the senate. >> guest: he's right. good deal. that's right. >> host: nick is calling from los angeles. you are on with author mark levin. >> caller: thank you c-span. hello mark. you help me drive home every day and help me keep the rage on your show and not the other driver sorts of thank you for making me a better driver but you do claim that james madison rejected golf vacation but in the same document he was actually talking about a specific process nullification is advocated only by south carolina. later james madison said and i quote here know -- nullification is the natural right which is a right against oppression. without my real question for you is you know i appreciate when you talk about the constitution outlining the republic not a

democracy that you share a utopian foreign-policy outlook which is not constitutional. anyone can look up your statement on presidential war powers and put them up against thomas d. woods or louis fischer >> host: so nick are you a fan of mark levin? >> caller: yeah and i'm also a fan of george washington. if you "george washington he says the nation which indulges toward another as habitual hatred in some degree --. >> host: nick why are you a supporter of so-called mobile vacation? >> caller: i'm a supporter of notification because i think it runs to the heart of what a constitutional republic is all about and i think you can't have a republic and an empire to. i think mark levin's blind spots on fortification no vacation

undermined what he purports to be about. >> host: all right we will get in answer. nick just a little bit more for me though. what kind of work you do? you said mark levin is on your radio on the way home. what kind of work do you do? >> caller: i'm struggling in this obama economy so i have two part-time jobs. i work at a couple of concert venues in los angeles and at ucla as an intern with the nonprofit organization. i'm very passionate about what's going on in the world. i think it affects my generation. i'm 28 years old so i pay attention and try to stay involved but also i have got to pay the bills with part-time jobs to match. >> host: nick thank you very much for calling in. mark levin. >> guest: here we go again. let's see. people have to learn this 1830 letter on their home. it's not in their letter, along

with her. it's addressing more than what nick has to says and also endorsing article v which nick doesn't endorse. it's sad but he doesn't. 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 there is an 1832 letter that madison also wrote that they say specific to south carolina. there's nothing i can say that's going to dissuade nick or others because he didn't tell you what nonprofit group he works for. there are a couple of groups that keep pushing nullification. i'm surprised you haven't had a call for secession. i'm not in favor of destroying the republic. i'm not in favor of illuminating the union. i believe we fought the civil war for this but nullification is not in the constitution. nullification was not brought up in the constitutional convention.

it was discussed later. there are definitive letters about it but none of that matters. it's not going to happen but there is no historical support for this. these guys who are textualists or originalists who claim well except in this case because they are so angry at the federal government they are willing to turn tube anything including what i called the neo-confederate agenda. the fact of the matter doesn't work and you can't pursue it and it won't work. the neo-confederate agenda that i speak to is they want to see states split off from the union. good lord are we going to go through that again? i'm sorry folks don't count me in on this. i am considered pushing the edge of the envelope with the liberty amendments that these guys are ready on the edge of the envelope. those are the talking points that are posted that are argued that are put out there time and again. madison didn't mean this. the tenth and amendment needs bold vacation the big through

purpose of constitution. >> host: we have taken two calls on it now and had a good discussion so we will end our discussion there too as well. here is an e-mail from warren who's in los angeles as well. kabc radio in l.a. marks -- airs the mark levin show with a fair time delay. 95% of the lar audiences prevented from calling in and participating in discussions. what can we do to convince kabc to carry your program mark? >> guest: i guess i'm just glad i'm on kabc. i tell all the affiliates we only have a relative small percentage and they do it often with the local host. the vast majority of our affiliates we are live. you can tell them but there are also other ways. here's the thing. some of us and talk radio have

other pot forms you can listen to. i'm not talking specifically about this particular kabc but i have an app which has half a million people who use it. the i heart radio app is another way to listen to the show. you can listen to it live in fear on program director. obviously we do a live stream on the internet and satellite the patriot. i'm on terrestrial radio and kabc in satellite. too lacks where you can pick us up on your smartphone and the internet so if you want to dress like you can listen to his life. >> host: tony is calling from new york. go ahead with your question. >> caller: hi mark. i'm not going to be as long-winded as the previous caller. i have one question. i'm not going to spend too much time but i just want your opinion and here's 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: the 14th amendment is not the shortest amendment so i would need to know more. >> host: do you write about the 14th amendment? >> guest: very little. there are a number of things he could mean by that so rather than me doing this and tying up three, four or five things he should've been more specific. >> host: garrett is in cumberland maryland. hi. >> caller: hi and mark thank you so much for all you do and i want to thank you for giving us a solution. i've been talking to a fellow conservative libertarian. i want to thank you for supporting the millennials. i recently had a letter published in the local paper spreading the word and in talking about this to people i

found there's a lot of excitement. their two peoples that seem to have reservations about it. one is the runaway convention crowd and i believe those people will come around to it. the other is this crowd that has been on a couple of times today to talk about nullification. i wanted you to speak to the superiority of article v to the nullification strategy and also nullification, would it not put the court system -- yeah. you can talk about it. >> guest: all right. first of all you are exactly right. the brilliance of mason and the framers of the constitutional convention or the state conventional process is that they are proposing, they are allowing the proposal of amendments to address things that have occurred in the structural abuses of the

constitutional system. nullification doesn't address any of that. that's number one. number two the supreme court won't allow nullification and has already said they won't allow an old vacation so what are they going to do about that? the amendment process and the state legislatures can overwrite a supreme court decision but an altercation, it's anarchical. there is no concert xuzhou faces for it. that said one of the callers earlier, what did he say, neocon and also that i support american empire and stuff of this sort. i don't know where these nitwits get these idea. because i supported our troops during the iraq war which i did and i do and would do again today? so we are talking about an extreme fringe element here like i said the neo-confederate

element, not even mainstream libertarianism. it's an extreme fringe. there are a couple of groups out there flooding the phones right now and flooding e-mails right now because they know i'm coming on. this is what they do but they have absolutely zero impact on the body politic of 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. they're not going to support that kind of anarchy. you might be what the american people want is a return to constitutional government where the state legislatures have power and the federal government has less power. that's what we are 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 folks. >> host: where did this movement began? >> guest: is a couple of groups and a couple of professors but i don't know the history of it. >> host: they have chosen you. >> guest: they have chosen me. they do this all over the place. it's just that i happen to be on c-span. >> host: gary e-mail sent to you i'm an african-american with conservative views mostly a social and small government conservative never go -- never voted democrat in my entire life. what is your message to african-americans and for that other other minorities in the u.s. while many african-americans are social conservatives on the major issues same-sex abortion etc.? how can conservatives and republicans reach minorities that vote traditionally? >> guest: i think the general categories 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 and applying them to current events and current issues is the way to go. i think that is what the campaign used to did -- needs to do to become successful. it's not a question of what you give to minorities. the hispanics over here in the lacks or for here and the whites are over here. do straight people here and the are here. that's not the way we should look at america. we should look at america like liberals do and break this down into physical features and sexual preferences. we should talk about america as americans and we should state publicly to the left during these campaigns that we reject their efforts to divide us along all these different lines.

a conservative republican candidate can talk about people people -- bringing people together 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 we are talking about a positive forward-looking growth oriented agenda based on good old american values. >> host: from "ameritopia" as the pavlovian appeals to radical faction to class warfare and collectivism in addition to people who accept our demand compulsory uniformity is just and righteous. >> host: >> guest: that's the question i asked. i don't think it's too late but

i think we are getting to a late time. but i do have hope 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. obamacare is all about uniformity and conformity and top-down authoritarianism. at least with regard to that that's a positive. on the other hand the majority of those who voted also voted for the man who pushed the legislation that they detest so we have a problem here. i think part of the problem is the republicans have to offer the american people a serious alternative. >> host: robert in chicago e-mail sent to you mr. levin elicit several great libertarian thinkers friedman hayek among your favorites the years. were you a thoughtful conservative differ? >> guest: i would say on economic issues i agree with libertarians mostly. i would say on some of the

so-called social issues i would disagree. for instance if a libertarian believes that some guy in the corner should be free to sell heroin i'm not sure i can endorse that position. as a matter fact i wouldn't so i'm not saying that's the positions and so forth. i would say in the main i'm probably conservative/libertarian but i like to call myself a constitutionalist. i believe there is a movement here reinvigorated if not a movement of constitutional conservative as some which is something i'm proud to be part of an something i'm proud to be pushing. constitutional conservatism not secession not an altercation not destroying our country not destroying the guinean not destroying the constitution but reinvigorating it. >> host: richard e-mails and mark levin's live coverage on a show of the capture of the boston marathon bombers earlier

this year was compelling, exciting accurate and entirely lacking in the speculative opinionated talking heads speak that is so wearisome in the mainstream. >> guest: that was a remarkable day not only because of the horrific terrorist attack and all those people who are maimed and killed but you know when your talkshow host you have to decide how to cover these things. most talkshow hosts if they can find reporters on the scene they are watching one of the cable networks or something and reporting with dashed they are regurgitating the news from somewhere else. my call screener and producer two great guys. they have been with me from the beginning. 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 policemen. as things were actually breaking and i mean breaking, they were telling the exact way what was being said on the police scanner so we were breaking news on our coverage because the great radio station wrko who is one of our affiliates and a wonderful station, we lost them. we were breaking the news without any opinion whatsoever as we were hearing it and then near the end somebody figured it out. i don't know if it was the local police or the state police and they said careful what you are saying. i also made clear that nothing we were saying was endangering what they were doing, nothing because obviously terrorist number two didn't have access to radio and i have no idea what was said on the radio. that was a very compelling evening. it was quite remarkable.

>> host: lee and walk for and walk feel maryland please go ahead with your question or comment for mark levin. >> caller: good afternoon gentlemen. enjoying this discussion. mark you and i are both making decisions and brotherly love and are roughly the same age. i think a lot of what you say makes a great deal of sense libertarianism. it makes an awful lot of sense that you and i remembered decades ago when 40, 50 or more thousand people were being killed on the highways. in automobile accidents. what happened was the department of transportation came in and put in safety regulations. now it's half that. those were very good interventions in my perspective and that's why i'm so completely amazed and i support conservative republicans a great deal.

they 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 arab headdress and goes up to a gun show that person can away with -- an ak-47. >> host: i think we got the point. mr. levine. >> guest: is that caller from colorado? i just wonder fees into the new movement there. >> host: rockville maryland right here in the suburbs. >> guest: what was his question? gun 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 café 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 café standards and it's remarkable to me that you wouldn't call this program because you are so concerned about human life particularly on our highways and reject government intervention in that case with the café standards maiming and killing so many of our fellow americans on the streets and they keep making these cars lighter and smaller and lighter. i'm sure you would join with me in objecting with that. that's number one. number two, the republican party supports giving everybody a gun and? that's not true and i can't speak for the republican party. i will speak for myself. we have something called the second amendment sir just like we have a fourth amendment in the first amendment and a ninth

amendment. it's nice that you don't like benson is nice that you have an opinion about guns. that's all well and good but you don't have the right to tell law-abiding citizens who want guns for safety or hunting whatever their reason is that they can't. i'm sorry that's what the constitution provides just like i can't say see that guy in rockville maryland he doesn't deserve due process because due process for a guy like that endangers the community. so this is a problem with the left. they can't decide which parts of the constitution they like if any of the constitution and there has been study after study by among others jon locke and so forth but whatever i say here won't matter to you anyway. it may matter to some people out there. >> host: during moore e-mails into mr. le pen glad to see marked enthusiasm for democracy in america. people from all political persuasions sites de

tocqueville's great work. is that because tocqueville was unclear and practical implications are because -- [inaudible] >> guest: i don't see him being cited that often by harry reid or nancy pelosi and i don't know if they have read the two volumes of democracy or had them read to them. i've no idea. these are people that have said you have to read the obamacare law to know what's in it and apparently none of them read it including the president because they didn't know what was in it. so i doubt that the left's woodside alexis de tocqueville. i cite him in at least two pipe books because what he said is so pertinent to what's going on in this country today. he was a man who is very concerned about liberty and democracy and was a great fan of america as he traveled this country but also saw some witnesses that he feared and was very concerned about centralized government. i don't know know if the left's

cites him or not and what they cite him for but he was a brilliant man of very worth citing. >> host: he is featured prominently in "ameritopia" mark le pen's title. ed is calling from ohio. >> caller: good morning gentlemen and shalom. i am a 1776 article iv section 4 republican and i don't have much respect for the republican party of the i've belonged to -- in ohio. in order for the state of ohio to become the state it had to have a republican constitution and a republican government. article iv section 4 guarantees me and my descendents a republican form of government. now the big lie is that we are democracy so i guess no webster who could write a dictionary defined republican because it

gives sovereignty so we have no. >> host: so ed we are running low on time. what is your point? >> caller: my point that -- why do 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 don't know what to say. i'm not sure what the question is. you asked me in the first hour why do i cut people off, now you know why. >> host: dorsey ocean township new jersey please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: mr. love then it's up privileged to talk to you. 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. it's very disheartening when i'm in a discussion with a liberal and the topic of the president and his policies, then right away the response is you are a racist. you are saying that because he's black. is there a solution to this or is there no solution and this is something we have to live with until the end of his term lacks. >> guest: in life there are people who you can communicate with and try to have a rational discussion with and then there are drones. if you happen to be confronted with the former and take the time to have a discussion to try to persuade the person and learn from the person. if on the other hand you are confronted with a drone by suggesting this move along and be done with it. >> host: dan from st. paul minnesota we have just a couple of minutes left on our program. >> caller: just a comment about the general welfare clause

i think liberals have been using the general welfare clause to endorse government action. 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 the word general as an adjective which in all kinds of writings apply to everybody or nobody. the supreme court changed the usage of the word general to justify taking money from one sub part of a group giving it to another. i get that is one example to come to the point that we need to be able to use the legislature and commerce --

congress to override these ridiculous. >> host: dan, thank you. we got the point. >> guest: he makes a good point and there are many more that make up point. madison jefferson i could go on and on. the perversion of the general welfare clause is almost comical and yet the left uses it because it's simple. the general welfare. it just demonstrates their contempt for the constitution. >> host: what you think of jon 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 and was fairly conservative lawyer in the justice department before i got there. he knows better. he knows what he did. i read his majority decision.

it is a disgrace. it's incoherent and it's illogical and it was result oriented. so he is going to have to live with that. that will be his historical reputation and that will be his epitaph and he helped unleash this disastrous law in this country. it's 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 for obama and the democrats saying this is not a tax it's a penalty. he says no is a tax and under our tax clause in the constitution is just so outrageous what he did. i have zero respect for him. >> host: bill beanie asks via twitter will landmark legal join with the 11 attorneys general in court on president obama's legal authority to change the 2010 affordable care act? >> guest: we provide advice.

we will provide advice and in a lot of these areas for instance 40 cases on the liberty issue under obamacare, we have 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 booktv's in-depth program. he is the author of five nonfiction books and is working on another one as well. his first book came out in 2005 "men in black" how the supreme court is destroying america. rescuing sprite came out in 2007 not a lot of public policy but a bestseller. sub or a conservative manifesto,

"ameritopia" in 2012 the unmaking of america and "the liberty amendments" just came out this past year restoring the american republic. by the way the liberty amendment is booktv's book call up selection for the month of january so if you are booktv watcher and want to read along with other booktv viewers go to booktv.org and pick up your liberty amendments, you can read along and you can post your comments at booktv.org. it's very simple. on the look club tap up at the top of the page and you will see there is a format for posting your comments and you can read along all month on your own time we will be posting questions and comments as we go throughout the month. on the liberty amendments. mark levin thanks for your time today on booktv.