"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. >> guest: it's a great honor pete, thank you.

..

>> that reach of integrity is irresponsible and unacceptable to me. on this situation, it began weeks to months ago and i thought the problem was limited and isolated and i believe that. but i no longer believe that it is systemic. i was too trusting of some and i accepted it and i now know that it has been misleading in regard to patient wait times. i cannot explain the lack of integrity among some of the leaders of our health care facility. this is something that i have rarely encountered during my 30 years in uniform. and so i will not defend it because it is not worth defending. but i can take responsibility with responsibility for it. and i do. so given the fact i now know, i apologize with the senior leader

of the department of veterans affairs and i extend my condolences to the veterans of this country and their families and loved ones who i have been honored to serve for 45 years now. i also offer an apology to members of congress and the veterans services organizations including the american people. all of them deserve that are care. and i also know that leadership and integrity can and must be fixed. and it must be now. [applause] >> thank you. [applause]

>> you can watch all of that event without going affairs secretary shinseki at c-span.org . >> on the next "washington journal", we will talk about the resignation of secretary eric shinseki with a defense reporter with politico. and chris carroll, a pentagon reporter with stars and stripes. and "new york times" reporter derek willis on his article finding that the current congress is drafting the fewest legislative proposals in nearly two decades. and the conversation with jerry goodman of people for the ethical treatment of animals on his groups efforts to limit hunting practices. "washington journal" is live on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> so what is in the resolve, i would have this classic economic holdout problem and you would

have companies doing this game of chicken where they cut off service to customers and they are starting to block traffic for customers and the ultimate result is programming costs spiral up and. there is one big reason is that the resolution will be a retransmission where the sec is hamstrung by the rules and the way it is interpreted. the way it is involved here. the easy result is they raise prices and give consumers lots of channels they don't want. so that is what i am afraid of. i think that's used they that that interconnection happens in a private ways great and i think there definitely should be room for private deals. but if we get to that point, i think that would be a tragic outcome. >> this weekend on c-span.

saturday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on booktv. a live three-hour program in depth with this author this sunday. in real america features this award-winning publisher. saturday afternoon at 4:00 p.m. c-span2 providing senate proceedings and key public policy events. her 15 years, c-span is the only channel that brings you booktv, c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you by your local cable light or satellite provider. al-assad twitter and like us on facebook. >> a group of house democrats introduced legislation that would ban the sale of firearms

for certain individuals seen as potential risks. lois capps, congresswoman of ila vista california, and representative mike thompson speak. >> right after the tragic shooting, i was asked to chair the task force for gun violence prevention. some of the vice chairs are here today at the press conference. we worked long and hard to figure out what we could do to make sure that we protected our communities and our children and our grandchildren and our second amendment rights. we came out of that group with a

good proposal. it does save lives and we respect the second amendment. first and foremost, we expand the background checks for anyone who bought a gun. that bill is alive and well at 185 bipartisan co-authors. and so one of the big issues we looked at was how we deal with the mental health problems that affect community safety and specifically gun violence. today we are here to announce that we are introducing today a bill on mental health. it is a bill that is laser focused on gun violence and mental health.

we recognize that people with mental illness are more apt to be the big them of violence and the perpetrator of violence. nonetheless there are some things that we can do that will make our communities safer. the bill that we are going to introduce today is a couple of things and i will go over them briefly. there is an intervention provision and we hear from to specific programs or on the west coast and the east coast that focused on intervention. and this includes state and local government improving and enhancing these programs and that closes loopholes and does list by prohibiting the purchase of possession of a firearm by certain groups of individuals including those who have been convicted of stalking, involuntary outpatient

commitment patients and those who have previously -- there is one category regarding domestic abusers and we expand on that. we expand on that too include the mistake of users and right now it is mostly spouses and people who cohabitate but the truth is we need to it include other individuals who fall into that abuse or category. we also built on a partnership between the federal and state government. and we provide grants so states can allow our law enforcement to get a warrant to remove firearms of the possession of any individuals and those who are a danger to themselves and others. we heard this last tragedy in

santa barbara where parents informed law enforcement that they had concerns about their son. their son sadly killed a number of people what we want to do is make sure that when there is a concern expressed, they know what is available, they know what tools are available and there is a legal process and a warrant process to be able to take guns away from those folks to ensure that they don't do any harm for themselves or others. there are two states that are to have this come about connecticut and indiana and it's something that we can see some real on the ground results from. also temporarily prohibiting the possession of a gun after involuntary hospitalization on an emergency basis due to

serious mental illness. the other things that we want to do is make sure that we get the record into the background check system and we had a pretty good victory yesterday on the floor. an amendment to the bill that actually provide money to states so that they can upgrade these records. so it won't do any good to do background checks unless we further take this on by clarifying that it prohibits the submission of this into the system. and there wires all federal agencies who hold mental health records to share them. and this is one that i think is critically important. it expands the system of state and local law enforcement. if anyone who is prohibited and a felon tries to buy a gun, the

fbi will notify state and local law enforcement so they can follow up. the other categories don't get the same attention and that notification process and this bill would require the state law enforcement knows that when someone is prohibited from buying a gun, they tried to buy a gun. and so this in itself will save a lot of laws. and it's important also to note that we have a uniform and fair restoration process and it would be a minimum that all states would have to do this in order to restore someone's gun rights and ability to process firearms. so i want to recognize that there is no one model will save the life area that is no excuse not to try to do what you can

do. this will protect people's rights and it is respected as the second amendment and is a bill that needs to be asked. there are some groups who works at order of this to help us a lot in our effort to come out with the best bill. i just want to mention them. the coalition to gun violence, sandy hook, national task force to end domestic violence, mental health of america, american psychological association and americans for responsible solutions. we also work with a number of folks who are mental health experts to make sure that this meets the standard and they deserve our thanks also. by now i would like to introduce

the representative from santa barbara who experienced this terrible tragedy over the weekend. someone who has long been a supporter of doing away with domestic violence and a great partner on this particular bill. >> as he may appreciate, my community is devastated. like far too many others around the country, ila vista and the university of california santa barbara are grieving because of gun violence. i came back to washington dc this week after seeing that sadness up close and in person. having heard this voice by students and faculty and community members and parents like michael martinez. they want congress to enact

mental health legislation and they don't want more words. but they want this bill to promote healthy minds for safer communities and it's a good place to build upon the legislation that was passed yesterday. my friend and colleague has introduced it and he has introduced legislation today that strengthens and improves the mental health intervention effort so badly needed. helping to keep guns away from the very people who should not have them. and this includes those talking about the gun violence epidemic. it is the kind of change that my community not only want, but it's the kind of change that my

grieving community needs. do we need right now. thank you. >> thank you, lois. next we will hear from elizabeth from connecticut who represents the sandy hook area. >> i am proud to stand here today and for my friend and fellow members of the task force and other friends and supporters who are committed to ending the scourge of gun violence in this country. we are proud to be promoting healthy minds for safer communities and this act. if you know mike has been a leader for the country and just last night we celebrated a victory in ensuring that we are providing the resources to do the job for american people to help ensure that the records are available to each and every state and each and every

community to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, whether they be foreign or domestic violence abusers or dangerously mentally ill. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. in addition to our efforts over the last year and a half in addressing the gun safety issue, we are all well aware that the mental health topic is exceptionally important. as the representative just mentioned, she has now joined the seemingly ever-growing community of members of congress who have had this kind of carnage heaped upon the people they represent. and it is their duty to protect the people they represent and to help make their community safer so their children can go to school and walk down the street without living in fear. this bill is common sense. it is designed to close loopholes and ensure that the mechanisms in place are broad

enough to cover. as the representative noted at the time of legislation, our understanding of domestic abuse was limited and did not reflect the reality in which you have family members angry parents and brothers and sisters who offered protection. we need to provide support for mental health services as we have seen time and again. families reaching out for supported for this young man and those that did not find the support there. ensuring that families have the support that they need to keep us safe. this bill is a good and important step forward and i am proud of the bipartisan support that we got yesterday to ensure that we have the support that we

have. let me talk about is from yesterday. the work is not done. it's a step forward, but we need to move forward. this congress needs to act with violence prevention efforts starting with a criminal background check. a vast majority of american people who are helping to keep us safer. this is about saving lives. we can and we must do more. we can never forget the loss of 20 schoolchildren and increasing numbers of those experiencing heart-wrenching losses. we can and we must do better

than this bill is an important component in a comprehensive effort for this country to do the right thing to address this topic, empower mental health professionals, family and law enforcement to help keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not having while respecting the right of others. that is why this congress needs to be acting. we need to pass this bill and criminal background check expansion and we need to ensure the family some law enforcement and mental health professionals have the resources and the support that they need to help keep us safe. thank you so much. >> thank you. next we will hear from our vice chair. it's been a while since we came here together. what a great leader and so much help on the issue.

>> would like to thank the entire task force i would like to start with mike thompson. such incredible credibility to this issue and we thank michael for stepping up and taking on this challenge. i want to thank my colleagues here today. you will hear from ed, as well as no stranger to gun violence. like myself, they are are no strangers and we can't forget that as well. anytime we hear about a tragedy, it just harkens back to howell difficult it is and an issue that needs to be addressed. lois capps is a nurse by

profession. her life has been about healing people. and now she has an entire community that she needs to heal. we are going to be there for her not only in words, but also in actions. words have failed us. we fall back on if only if we would encourage and what should we be doing better instead of the status quo. too often we reflect to wonder how did all this happen? we know how these events have occurred it's what's between the gaps and let's not be looking at this in hindsight and wish that something could be done. we have this opportunity in our hands and a comprehensive package that addresses the real

and obvious needs for mental health intervention. it closes the loopholes that stop help from those who need it and that leaves us unable to protect our communities in the moments that matter most. every member of congress should join in supporting this comprehensive legislation. there is the word again, shut it. not would have or could have, because we should do more. thank you. >> thank you. not only is he a cochair of the gun violence protection task force, but a star last night in helping to pass this amendment that would provide the money that we need to do the background checks. you can pull a rabbit out of your hat, but he pulled the

money out to make sure that we can do it in a responsible way. thank you. >> i am pleased to cosponsor an honor to have a chance to work with the congressman in this effort. we were together last september in california we were focused on this question promoting a healthier mind and how to deal with mental health issues related to violence and you never know exactly what is going to happen. one morning we had shootings of the holocaust museums of them all down in colombia and the reality is that it's not just santa barbara and newtown, the 9/11 museum is a place where

people can focus around the events of 9/11. including the victims who are gun shy. we couldn't build and after large enough. all of those young people who have been victims of accidental gunshots in their homes, or those who use guns to commit suicide, situations of people have walked into in movie theaters or into schools. you just think about the tens of thousands of americans who have lives that have been lost and across our country, we didn't understand what the impetus is then mental health is a critically important part of this. that is what this bill is

focused on. this congress has a responsibility. so to do more i am very pleased that we are able to make some progress in the right direction. but we have a lot of work in front of us because we want to have an inclination in some cities in some towns, someone else has lost their lives due to gunfire. >> thank you. iraqi was out in my district for the seminar that we have every year, every store $100 million for mental health area like anyone who comes through this, i say can we show you around and he said i would love to.

and now that i have spoken, i need to fly back to sofia is one and i just couldn't believe it. he was all business, all the time. so thank you. another vice chair of the task force who has been instrumental in and that's in part because he knows firsthand the very and in the tragedy of gun violence in his own district amongst his own constituents. >> often we list the names of the people killed in these incidents where mental health has played a key role in the shooting of so many folks. but as i was listening to my colleagues here, and enlisting names we can list places like columbine, tucson, a friend of

gabby giffords, so make people killed or injured there. colorado, san diego, santa barbara. list goes on and on. so what we have tried to do in this bill is to address severe mental illness and that just doesn't go along with guns. the result is always tragic. we tried to deal with an area where we know that there is this a thick problems with domestic violence and stopping. we tried to address the rights of individuals under the second amendment as part of this effort. and this is a difficult subject for all of us. the damage is done for communities and families and for individuals.

our job as members of congress -- our job as elected officials is to address it in the best way that we can knowing that it's not going to be perfect or foolproof. but try to address it in a way that respects people's right to live in safe communities and address people's rights under the constitution. we have done our best in putting these pieces of legislation together and responding to the needs and concerns and the cries of our community. so i would like to thank the chairman, mr. thompson, and to the other members as well first meeting here, taking on a tough subject that has to be addressed. >> thank you. ..

my thoughts and prayers continue to be with you, the community of santa barbara, my son went to the community, and we know it well. the tragic and terrific shooting has really made us all pause, and we just want to share our condolences and our attention with you from my district and my family to yours. psychiatric show "-- psychiatric social worker raw profession founding a community mental health center, and i know the first and effects of mental health issues on individual families and communities. yet, in recent years we have seen a decrease in mental health

resources. that is why this bill is so important. it includes measures to boost mental health research. can you believe cdc needs to be encouraged and authorized to do research on gun violence? come violence as a public health problem. it is a mental health problem, and we have to understand the ramifications of gun violence on mental health. and so this bill is very, very important for that aspect. also, i am pleased, congressman thompson, that this bill includes a provision for my bill , which would provide grants to states to hire more school - based mental health professionals. so often -- well, we know teachers are often times overburdened. they are teaching. that is what they are there to do. they don't have a chance to identify early on certain issues that could lead to -- certain mental health issues that could lead to violence and to

disturbances on school campuses. so we need more school mental health professionals. i chaired the social work carcass here on the hill, and one of our focus is has been, of course, gun safety, gun violence prevention as well as broadening our mental health work on school campuses to prevent the onset of violence. recent events have underscored the fact that we have individual responsibility to be vigilant in recognizing when our co-workers, friends and colleagues are suffering in silence. oftentimes that is what happens. we have seen, and we have seen the profiles of some of those who have committed these tragic, tragic, brutal homicides. many were suffering in silence. we need to recognize and know that we all have a responsibility to encourage individuals to seek the help that they need.

so the time for action is now. schools should not wait. community should not have to wait. finally, i have to say, we cannot allow only mental health issues to be discussed and addressed within the context. we have to deal with gun safety, gun violence prevention as well as mental health services and psychiatric services and prevention. so much a part of this legislation is about preventing the onset of mental illness and downs and mental health issues. so i thank you, again, for this legislation. i think you all for staying very steady because sometimes the politics gets a little tough. we cannot let the politics of it pushes back. we have to push for because in or later we're going to do what the american people want us to do, to make our country the safest and the world. thank you. >> thank you all for being here this morning. thank you all for your ongoing

work on these important issues. we will now open it up for questions. yes, ma'am. [inaudible question] >> this bill is meant to be a complement to the other mental health bills that are out there. there are a couple of them. murphy has one, were on barber, one of our cochairs has one. this is a complement to those bills. as i said at the onset, this is pretty lazar focused on domestic violence and on the gun aspects of mental health. >> last, after the sandy hook shooting you or not it would have a background check will that have mental of provisions in it. you have admitted, believe, before the power of the gun

lobby, what you think this time or do you think this time it can be any different? >> i don't think there is any one time that is different, better, or otherwise. this is an incredibly important issue. lives are at stake. the safety of the communities are stake. it is incumbent upon us to do everything we can to pass sensible gun laws. and as, i think, as i know you know and i am assuming everybody else knows, i am what is sometimes referred to as a gun guy. i have guns. i am a hunter. i have experience with firearms, both from our recreational perspective and i also carried an assault weapon for tour in vietnam, so i know guns pretty well. i have to tell you, as a guy and ashamed that we cannot step up and pass sensible gun laws to protect our children and our

grandchildren and make our communities safe. there is nothing to be afraid of in the legislation that we have put forward. this mental health bill or the background check bill or the added funding to make sure that the knicks system has the data necessary to use to make sure that dangerously mentally ill individuals and criminals to not it comes. and if we cannot do everything that we can to provide our first line of defense to keep guns away from and out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill and the criminals, it is a sorry state of affairs. yes, sir. >> you had bipartisan by hand. is there any interest in this bill on the other side of the aisle? >> we have bipartisan by and on my background check bill. and that is a function of working hard with all of our colleagues, working with the republicans that we know and can

work with and preventing the faxed to them and working with the outside groups also to make sure that these folks come to the table and work with us. we will do the same thing here. i have shopped this with some republican colleagues. i will continue to do that. after all of you leave here today and right those wonderful stories that you are going to write and they appear on these papers drought the country and electronic media puts this press conference on the air, i am sure people will be lining up to sign up. as of right now there are 20 co- authors, all democrats. >> the intent is different in you can't prevent everything, but looking at what is in this bill i cannot see anything in here that would have prevented what happened in santa barbara. >> well, i will let lois speak,

but you're right. we cannot prevent everything. and i said that right at the beginning of this conference, but that is no excuse to do nothing. we have to do everything that we can to try. in regard to any one specific tragedy, and the one you raised is not in santa barbara, there may be some things in here that out. we have the provision that allows law enforcement to get a warrant to to remove guns from the position of someone who could be a danger to themselves or someone else. had this provision ben long, it may have been a measure that would have helped in this regard . >> his house, they talked to him , and they did not -- >> under current law they do not have the ability to get the warrant to remove the gun. had that been an option, had that been an arrow in their quiver, two and a box, then they

may have gone the next step and actually removed the guns. i don't know. again, because something in this bill or nothing in this bill would deal with a particular situation is no reason to do nothing. >> i just wanted to make the comment that at the same time california does have some strong gun safety legislation already in place. that is another cause for frustration. well, you have all these measures. still, look what happened. we learned tragically from this kind of situation. and the local representatives, a state senator and a person representing in sacramento are introducing legislation that when combined with bofa resources from yesterday and also perhaps some of the ingredients of this legislation could give the state the tools that it needs to move in the direction if people want to see.

>> anyone else? >> have you ever seen a bill come to the house that. [inaudible question] >> i have not. and in addition to that, i am from the state that was just pointed out has strict on loss. and there is nothing that california has passed that has prevented me from having the guns that i have. the only thing that has prevented me from having the guns of want, pocketbook and my wife. >> then why does the gun lobby is have you guys and i'm not where you cannot do anything? >> well, i don't think it is correct to suggest those guys because we are -- we are out there doing something. there are 189 code-authors of background check build.

so there are a number of members of congress to recognize the protecting second to fire someone second amendment rights and protecting someone's children, grandchildren, and community are not mutually exclusive. you can do both. hands-off to them. i think we have a lot of work to do with some of the others, but there is no question about it, there are advocacy groups who are very successful in stopping of legislation, and those are the things that we need to be trying to turn around. and if you would drill deeper and look at the los well recognized organization who advocates on the part of gun owners and gun rights, there is a, like, 65 percent or something or 80 percent of their believes in background checks. so they're not even representing there. they are speaking to a higher

authority of some sort. >> mental health and all we hear that sometimes the problem can be identified, but they're just aren't the resources to follow through and make sure that for months and years ahead those people are still protected. is there anything that looks at that particular issue, the long-term fallout for? >> this is very narrowly focused on the domestic abuse and mental health as it pertains to guns. you certainly raised a valid point. you know, there is never enough money to do everything that needs to be done. if i could "former president clinton, anyone it tells you they cannot solve the problem by throwing money at it is always talking about someone else's problem. anyone else? >> we have the affordable care act and we have parity as it

relates to mental health. the fallout. once this bill is enacted i am very confident that people who need them mental health services will be able to receive them. the path -- in the past that has just not happened. >> anything else? thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] >> this week on newsmakers california congressman buck mckeon, the chair of the armed services committee talked about u.s. military objectives and the department of veterans affairs as well as the defense authorization bill. president obama's plan to cut

the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan. newsmaker sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> so, my son, paul, was in the hospital at children's national waiting to have his open heart surgery, and he had been diagnosed with congenital heart defects and had have surgery or he would die. part of the waiting for the surgeon to come back from overseas was being in that hospital realizing all these other families of there. you're kind of in the trenches with them. this family, maggie's family, maggie had been through nine surgeries in nine months. various different problems. as daunting as our situation was we are feeling for them. we're in their waiting room every day walking past maggie's bet on the way the polls bassinet. and the day of paul surgery we came in, and maggie's family was

not there. she has passed away the night before. and it was really, really hard to imagine that the family had spent so much time waiting for her to get out of the hospital and she did not make it. so we went into surgery that day , and 8-hour surgery, his first open heart surgery of three, and as we are sitting in the cardiac intensive care unit watching through a clear plastic bandaged my son's heart beating, you know, which was a moment in and of itself, the nurse comes over and says, you have a phone call. and they brought me the phone. it was maggie's mom checking on paul's surgery. the strength and the grace and the fortitude it took for the mother had lost her child the night before to call and check on our child, i think, was a moment that we will always

remember. >> fox news channel anchor on his career and his book which chronicles the life and near death struggles of a son. >> you can now take c-span with you wherever you go with our free c-span radio ad for your smart phone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv channels or c-span radio any time, and they're is a schedule of each of our networks so you can tune in when you want, but what kass of recent -- recent shows take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free at up on line for your iphone, android or blackberry. >> coming up next on c-span, a conversation with author and radio personality marked with an on book tv in-depth series.

after that the house foreign affairs hearing. doesn't over the next three hours a conversation with mark levin, the author of five nonfiction books including liberty and tyranny in the liberty amendment as a lawyer and former reagan administration official the talks about the role of the federal government, the supreme court, and the upcoming 2014 midterm election. ants. >> host: author mark with income and your most recent book, restoring the american republic, you proposed amendment to the constitution, including term limits for members of congress, a repeal of the 17th amendment or the senate, establishing term limits for supreme court justices, limiting federal spending, limiting federal taxes, limiting the

federal bureaucracy. which of these and most important to you? >> guest: they are all of the same genre. .. the goal or the purpose of the books to not only talk about how to revive the constitution and restore the republic, but to inform people on what the republic is supposed to look like, how the constitution is supposed to function and to move

some of the decision making away from the centralized government back to the state legislatures acting collectively as the framers intended. >> host: you write in the liberty amendments about the 17th amendment. the 17th amendment serves not the public interest, but the interests of the governing masterminds and their disciples. its early proponents advance, it is not because they championed democracy or the individual, but because they knew it would be one of several important mechanisms for empowering the federal government and unraveling constitutional republicanism. >> guest: right. the framers didn't create a pure democracy. that would be absolute nonsense and crazy. in fact, if you look at the constitution, it's very complex, what they created here. you have a value government with limited enumerated powers, three branches, each of which is supposed to be working with each other sometimes, checking each

other. and, of course, you have the states where all the plenary power is supposed to exist, and the individual where all the individual sovereignty, obviously, exists. so this idea that direct elections is what the framers intended is not correct. they intended it for the house of representatives, and madison's notes make this clear. they debated this at length, what the senate was supposed to look like. they went back and forth with different models, but when it came to the senate, madison and the others made quite clear that you could not have the direct election of senators without creating this all-powerful, centralized national government. they wanted a federal republic, not an all-powerful, centralized government. and they even made this case to the states when it went to the states for the ratification of the constitution. they said, look, the senate is made up of individuals chosen by the state legislatures, so you're going to have a role in the federal law making process, among other things. so the federalists used the

senate, among other things, and the nature of the senate to persuade the antifederalists to support the constitution. and if we had had direct election of senators in the original constitution, there the would not be an original constitution. the states would not have ratified it. furthermore, who do the senators represent? it's the most bizarre body man has ever created. there's two from every states, we get that, that was to balance the large states and the small states, but you have situations now where senators voted for, say, obamacare in states where the governor and the attorney general fought obamacare in court. and the state legislatures are trying to protect their citizens from obama. it's very bizarre. the senate today really is an odd construct. so the purpose of the senate was to empower the state legislatures and the federal law

making process, not to have another ability to vote. >> host: recent rule changes in the senate to limit the filibuster, do you agree with those? >> guest: no. i think in the case of harry reid and the democrats in the senate, they abuse the rules, whatever the rules are. i'll give you an example. they were using the filibuster to block judicial nominees under george w. bush like no senate in american history. period. then they complain when they're in power and they can have the majority about the republicans not confirming executive officials quickly enough and not pushing through obama's legislation fast enough. and the very people who abused the filibuster rule -- and taught the republicans how to do it should the republicans choose to do it -- have now eliminated it for purpose of judicial nominees, the appellate level as well as executive officials.

look, what the senate is today, 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 the institution of congress which is what the framers intended, you actually have the majority in the senate today doing everything it can to support the executive branch in any way it can even if it means diminishing its own authority. this would be crazy to the framers. matter of fact, it would have been crazy during franklin roosevelt's period. you may remember franklin roosevelt tried to stuff the court. he tried to pack the court with liberal idealogues who agreed with him and his agenda. the individual who fought it the hardest was his vice president who'd been the former speaker of the house and many democrats opposed it, the democrats in congress, and they wouldn't go along. so you have to have people of integrity, people of virtue in

whatever level of government we're talking about. we clearly don't have that in the senate or in most of our institutions today. >> host: one other issue that's come up is whether or not it's fair that a state like california, 50 million or so people, two senators; wyoming, less than a million people, two senators. >> guest: well, that's exactly the point. the two-senator issue dose to the fact -- goes to the fact that the constitution never would have been ratified by all the states, ultimately, if only the big states -- virginia, massachusetts and pennsylvania, to name three -- could have as many senators as they wallet. and this goes back -- as they want. this goes back to the point where the house of representatives is the house of the people, quote-unquote. direct elections, states based on their population. that's how you determine the number of members of the house. senate is a different institution. matter of fact, the senate was supposed to be considered in many ways, and i hate to shock

people, as the house of lords. but it hasn't worked out that way. >> host: some of your other liberty amendments, to promote free enterprise, to protect private property, to grant the state's authority to directly amend the constitution, to grant the states authority to check congress and to protect the vote. number nine, to granted the states authority to directly amend the constitution. what do you mean by that? >> guest: that three-fifths of the state legislatures would be able to amend the constitution. look, today it takes one justice to amend the constitution, and they're doing it all the time. today it takes the president of the united states, as this president does, refusing to uphold the law, refusing to adhere to the law, refusing to acknowledge certain aspects of a particular law, changing a law like obamacare. they're constantly amending the constitution and amending statutes. congress passed obamacare, dodd-frank, these are blatantly

unconstitutional laws that confer power on the administrative state and do other things that are outrageous. so the notion that three-fifths of the state legislatures should be able to amend the constitution should hardly be radical when the supreme court is, in essence, a constitutional convention every time it meets, same with congress, same with the president and his cabinet. in order for that to happen, we'd have to amend the constitution in the first place to allow the states to do that, which is one of the things i propose in my book. >> host: in your fist book, "men in black," you write: the supreme court in particular now sits in final judgment of essentially all policy issues, disregarding the constitutional limitations, the legitimate roles of congress and the president and the broad authority conferred upon the states and the people. >> guest: yeah. the progressives have won. and i don't know why they're complaining or challenging what i'm writing, you know? since before woodrow wilson and franklin roosevelt and so forth,

they made clear what their objectives were; an all-powerful, central government. they didn't like this idea of checks and balances, they didn't like this idea of state sovereignty, and they did everything they could at the time to undermine that, to usurp that. so we have a supreme court now that sits in decision of virtually anything it wants to consider. look, whatever your opinion is, look what happened in california with proposition 8. hook what's happened with doma, with all these issues. we all sit restlessly, how's justice kennedy going to go, how's justice this one going to go, that one going to go? these are nine individual human beings. they're as imperfect as the rest of us. they're of blood, they're of skin, they're of bone, they're of brain matter, and the idea that a great republic with 310 million people has to await the decision of really one justice depending on how that justice

swings or five justices to determine, you know, a particular social or cultural issue for the entirety of the nation is absurd. and the idea that there's no recourse whatsoever is absurd. and nobody, nobody can point to anything that took place at the constitutional convention or any of the state ratifying conventions that supports such a judicial oligarchy. there would be no constitution if that's what the constitution created, and it didn't. so one of my amendments, actually two of them, attempts to address this by term limiting supreme court justices, because my view is 12 years is enough whether you're a great justice or, in my view, not such a great justice. it's gotten way too political, and the other is that three-fifths of the state legislatures -- if they act within a two-year period -- can override a supreme court decision. and why shouldn't in this be recourse beyond one justice with the body politic, where the

people of the united states if they can raise the resources and drive the agenda, can get three-fifths of the legislature, a soup majority, it's not that simple, to say, no, court, you're wrong. no, justice kennedy, you're wrong. why would that be so horrible? i don't think it would be. >> host: when you talk about your liberty amendments, are you calling for a constitutional convention? >> guest: no. there can be no constitutional convention. i'm calling for what article v calls for, a convention of the states. it's not a constitutional convention where everything is up for grabs. it is a convention of the states where two-thirds of the state legislatures make application to congress to have a convention. congress has no substantive role whatsoever. it's clear from madison's notes during the debates at the constitutional convention, and

it's also clear from federalist 85 that was written by hamilton, it's a ministerial task. so two-thirds of the states basically call for a meeting. and rather than congress itself having the power to propose amendments, two-thirds of the states sending their delegates to this meeting, to this convention, they then come up with finish if they choose to -- amendments which then have to be sent to all the states. and you still need three-fourths of the states to ratify. >> host: mark levin, are these amendments doable? >> guest: god, i hope so. if not them in particular, something like them because otherwise, i think we're doomed. i think the trajectory of the nation is toward an out of control federal government that is becoming increasingly more centralized. you can see the increase -- and i don't mean to panic people -- in what i consider the police powers of the federal government. the idea that the irs is now going to enforce health care laws and things of this nature is really disgusting.

it's preposterous. and i'm looking for a lawful, legitimate, civil, constitutional way -- this is in the constitution. i didn't want create article 5, the framers did -- to address an increasingly repress i have and centralized government. that's what george mason was concerned about. it was unanimously adopted by the constitutional convention and by the ratifying conventions this the states. i hope at some point thai doable. i mean, we've come a long way in six months. there was a meeting december 7th at mount vernon called the mount vernon assembly where a hundred state delegates met from 32 or 34 different states to begin the process of talking about this. in indiana the legislature's passed two bills to prepare for this, outlining how they would choose their delegates and what the authority of the delegates would be, and the governor

signed it. i mean, we shouldn't fear this. people need to understand, from my perspective we are in a postconstitutional period in respects. the system is upside down. it's top-down rather than bottom-up, and it's going to get worse. and i'm trying to say let us use the constitution to save the constitution and restore the republic. >> host: in your book from 2012, ameritopia: the unmaking of america, you with talk about you taupe yangism. what is it? >> guest: it's a whole book. briefly put, what i'm saying is if you listen to the left and if you really understand the left, what they keep doing is promising they're going to create these perfect systems or these magnificent rube goldberg type systems. just surrender more of your liberty and your private property. we're going to improve our financial system, just give us

more and more power in washington to control it. we're going to end poverty, just give us more and more of your wealth, we'll have this war on poverty. and on and on and on. and when it doesn't work, and it won't work because it's impossible, it's impossible for a few master mienlds in washington, d.c -- master mienlds in washington, d.c. no matter how big their administrative army is to know what 310 million people know if terms of their own lives, in terms of what benefits them and so forth. but that said, the problem is that it becomes increasingly more centralized. so that's the basic proposition. >> host: you write: utopianism is irrational in theory and practice for be it ignores or attempts to control the planned and unplanned complexity of the individual, his nature and mankind generally. utopianism's equality is intolerant of diversity,

uniqueness, debate, etc., for utopianism's purpose requires a single focus. there can be no competing voices or causes, slowing or obstructing society's long and righteous march. >> guest: that's right. and you can see the attack on free speech whether it's television, a&e, "duck dynasty," whether you see it on our college campuses, the languages being hijacked, fewer and fewer ideas are allowed to be espoused. and it's really quite troublesome, to me. but in addition to that, the this utopianism notion, i call it utopian statism. and it always requires the federal government to have more and more power over the individual. and you can just listen to obama. and it's not just obama. you know, if you listen to the republican leadership, today sound like neostatists themselves. but obama in particular -- excuse me. i have the flu.

i just want everybody to know i've been fighting it for three days. this utopianism, i mean, and it can never fail. i'll give you an example. when obamacare fails, what's the problem? and not enough money? not enough power? not enough bureaucrats? not enough something or another. it can never fail even though it's a complete failure. and this is the problem we constitutional conservatives have in fighting it. these folks are always talking about what can be, what should be rather than reality, what they've done and the damage that they've caused. and, you know, it is our responsibility to try and do a better job to explain that, i think. >> host: mark levin, in your book prior that to that, 2009, you talk about statism. how do you define that? >> guest: well, i wanted to write a book, a restatement of conservativism. recruiting a stating conservativism, you need to address liberalism. and then when i started to

really think about it and, you know, do an enormous amount of research, starting to pull these things together, the names, you know, marxism, socialism, social democracy, liberalism, progressivism, i just decided to reach back to aristotle and use a word that kind of encapsulates all of it: statism. and so i can remember when i used that word, my editor said what's this word "statism" mean? well, statism is essentially those who believe in the power of a central government and less so in the power of the individual and lower levels of governing. and statism pushes the notion that government has as its purpose a good purpose which is the devouring of the civil society.

and those of us who know enough about history and tyranny and liberty and so forth, we reject that idea. but you can see today the statists as i call them, some call them progressives or liberals, what have you, utopian statists more and more are devouring the civil society. so rather than the government existing in a limited form, you know, to insure that justice occurs -- and by that we mean legal justice, justice before the law; enforces contracts, takes care of basic necessities like national security, securing the boarder and so forth -- we have a federal government that is ubiquitous. it's hard to think of areas of our life where the federal government is not involved in some way. >> host: should liberty and tyranny, the liberty amendments, should they with read as a trilogy? >> guest: well, as an author, i would hope so. [laughter] but, well, one does work after

the other. you know, liberty and tyranny, you know, it just took off. it was, as i say, sort of from the my perspective a restatement of conservativism because i was really sick and tired of the republican party and the republican leadership and john mccain and some of these others who were really mushing up the message and really didn't stand for a hell of a lot and really weren't explaining the principles of conservatives, conservativism and juxtaposing it to the left. and so i felt it was time for that. and ameritopia takes a much deeper, it's really a book on political philosophy, but takes a much deeper look at the left and juxtaposes that, the central figure, to conservativism. you know, this utopian statism as an example, it's not new. it's plato's republic. it's more utopia, it's hobbs'

leviathan, and i try to point that out, this most aggressive form. it's marx's perfect worker's paradise. and i youngs juxtapose that to n locke, to charles demontague, to the framers of the constitution where you can really see the genius, the brilliance of liberty and then the bleakness and the darkness of tyranny. and i make the point that the left today, the statists today, really their philosophy is nothing new. it's steeped in many of the old philosophers who were preaching're in a fictional or nonfictional way the power of the state. and the power of the state is our undoing. >> host: mark levin, who's your favorite philosopher? >> guest: that's impossible. it's a good question, but it's impossible. there's so many. i mean, 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 nature of man and natural law and had an enormous influence on our founding fathers. he was most-read philosopher during the revolutionary period, john locke was, by the colonists. and month skew, which is one of the reasons i have both of them in the book, ameritopia, was one of the most widely-read philosophers during the constitutional period. his argument for three separate branches of government, he's the one that maybe not first proposed, but most predominantly proposed it. so, and, you know, adam smith and david hume, and i can go through a whole list of them.

modern day, i guess i would say that people consider them philosophers, sort of milton friedman, high yak, men of that -- hayak, men of that sort. and there are many others, i'm sure i can't remember them all. not one in particular, but all together. and by the way, the framers were well read on -- obviously, not men who didn't exist at the time, but many of the men at the time and before their time who did exist, they were well of informed about the enlightenment, about what had taken place before history. you look at jefferson, the declaration of independence borrows heavily from locke's second treatise on government. the constitution borrows heavily from montasgue's laws. these are the philosophers and others, many others, who should be the focus of our educational

system, who should be the focus of our public discussion. but i fear other than a very small percentage of the population, most people have never heard of them and certainly don't know much about them. so i try to do my best to spread the word. >> host: who's on the other side? >> guest: the processer ifs on the other side -- philosophers on the other side? well, marx and edge ls. i think when people talk about progressivism or democratic socialism or even liberalism,of them may not realize -- many of them may not realize how much they take from marx in one form or another. doesn't mean you have to round up people and put them in gulags, although that clearly has been done. the european socialists borrowed heavily from marx. i think the progressives at the turn of the last century borrowed from marx. this whole distributing wealth and radical egalitarianism and so forth, these are all marxist. but that said, 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 never withers away, in fact, the state becomes oppressive, horrific and all powerful. >> host: and once the state is under the control of the proletariat, its objectives will generally include the following ten tenets: yeah. i'd say that we've covered, what, six or seven or eight of those? that's there marx. and the communist manifesto.

and that's, those are his ten planks. and i think six or seven of those you just mentioned we've adopted. so, look, the so-called progressives and the progressive era, these people clearly rejected -- but let me put it to you this way, you cannot be a utopian statist and support increasingly centralized government and the diminution of individual liberty and state authority and support our constitution. i mean, it's just not possible. and this is why i say we're in a postconstitutional period. and the trajectory's completely in the wrong direction. it's increasingly centralized. i mean, today it's health care. god knows what it'll be tomorrow. but the fact of the matter is what these people are are pushing on the left and have been pushing is, is not within our constitutional framework. as a matter of fact, it attacks our constitutional framework.

so you cannot be -- i just want the liberals out there listening to understand -- you cannot be a hard-line liberal or as i call it a statist and support the constitution. you simply can't and you don't. >> host: we've talked about statists, we've talked about utopianism. another book that you use in "men in black," originalism. and you quote robert bork, and you say, this is robert bork talking: originalism seeks to promote the rule of law by imparting to the constitution a fixed, continuous and predictable meaning. then you go on to write: originalists object to the judiciary grabbing power in the name of advancing a social good or remedying some actual or perceived injustice. >> guest: a couple of points there. first of all, the idea that the courts -- let's take the supreme court -- is this wonderful

institution that never gets it wrong is simply preposterous. it was the supreme court that issued the dred scott decision. it was the supreme court that issued the plessy v. ferguson decision. itfrom my perspective, the supre court that issued roe v. wade, these are inhumane, horrific, in some cases genocidal decisions. because these are imperfect human beings, and that's been my point, and that will continue to be my point. i have no problem with a court system, with an implied judicial review power because it's implied. an implied judicial review power where the courts or the justices understand the limitations on their roles. on the other hand, when they don't, there has to be recourse to this. short of a constant national loggerhead situation where one group feels this way and one group feels another way. and that's why i propose that the state legislature, three-fifths of them, have the

powers to override a supreme court decision. wouldn't it have been wonderful if three-fifths of these state legislatures had overridden the the dred scott decision, as an example? but there's a lot in there, in those one or two lines that i can address. i mean, the whole notion of the judiciary today as having the final word, um, season has to have of a final -- somebody has to have a final word at some point. i get that. but when the final word is so outrageous or so disconnected from the constitution from a perspective of a large segment of the community, of the nation, then the final word really doesn't have legitimacy, particularly if the court does it in a way where the court steps outside its bounds with. as for this notion of originalism, it simply means this without getting into the different disputes and there are about what it means among originalists, what it simply means as a general matter is

this: when a judge or a justice is deciding a constitutional matter as opposed to a statutory matter or a matter of equity and so forth, they are to try to discern what the framers meant, first, by the words in the constitution, then by the supporting historical record. and if none of that exists, that doesn't give them the option of going wildly into the darkness, imposing their personal policy preferences on the nation. nothing gives them that power. so you can have originalists like a scalia and thomas who approach their job properly but come up with a different result. that happens. and that's the key. it's not the result, it's the manner in which you seek to interpret the constitution and enforce the constitution, not necessarily the result that comes from that. so the alternative to that is you have a handful of lawyers who wear black robes who you

call your honor who happen to get on the supreme court who impose their own wishes, who rewrite the constitution, who do whatever the hell it is that they want to do, and that is lawlessness. so, you know, lawlessness in the supreme court is a problem. >> host: good afternoon and welcome to booktv's "in depth" program. this is our monthly program with one author looking at his or her body of work. this month it's author, radio show host, lawyer, mark levin. he has written five nonfiction books beginning in 2005, "men in black: how the supreme court is destroying america." and then in 2007 a book we haven't discussed yet but we will, "rescuing sprite: liberty and tyranny," came out in 2009. "ameritopia," in 2012, and this past year, "the liberty amendments: restoring the american repluck."

202 is the area code if you'd like to participate in the conversation, 585-3882 if you live in the east and central time zones, 585-3881 for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zones. and if you can't get through on the phone lines, you can send a tweet @booktv our twitter handle. you can also make a comment on our face book page, facebook.com/booktv. and finally, you can send an e-mail to booktv@cspan.org. mr. levin, where'd you grow up? >> guest: i grew up outside of philadelphia in a township called chel tonham for most of my youth in a community called elkin's park. >> host: why did jack and norma live there? >> guest: that's a good question, because they were born in philadelphia, and they started a nursery school and day

camp right outside of philadelphia in springfield township, pennsylvania. so pulling back just a little, i was originally raised in erdenhime, and then we moved to the other township which wasn't far away. so they were small business people. my mother was a former teacher. my father was a artist, and they started that business together, and they ran it for almost 20 years. >> host: are they still living? >> guest: they are. my father's 88, my fore's 82. -- mother's 82. they are just, you know, they're wonderful. -- >> host: still in the philly area? >> guest: they live in florida. and be i have an older brother, doug, who lives in philly, a younger brother, rob, who lives in virginia. and my parents were role models for us. i mean, my belief in this country, my love of this country, my desire to do what i

can in my own role, in my own way to preserve it, that comes from my parents. the notion of hard work wasn't just taught to us, i saw it how they worked 15, 18, 20 hours a day to make it work. and after they were done with the school and the day camp and sold it, they started a small store in pennsylvania which sold furniture, things of that sort. >> host: why'd you go to law school? >> guest: because i had to. i wanted to be a lawyer. i went to law school. i mean, i -- i don't know why. i mean, i feel i could have been a lawyer without having gone to law school, but that's the system, so you've got to go through the system. because i wanted to deal with these issues. i mean, you need that certificate. you know, you need that diploma in order to be able to do what i do in another part of my life which is as president of

landmark legal foundation. so i don't just write and talk about these things. we try and litigate around these issues, whether it's the epa or obamacare, immigration and so forth. so i felt that that degree would give me a tool i needed in order to advance that i consider the cause of liberty. >> host: and how did you use that degree? or how do you use that degree? >> guest: well, that degree -- by the way, i don't know that i could actually find the diploma anywhere. i'm sure it's hanging somewhere. why i use it? as the president of landmark legal foundation. but i also use it in my radio show to analyze court decisions and other issues that may come up and also in my writings. i'm not sure the degree itself really gave me an edge in terms of my own studies and drawing from scholarship and writing and so forth. it didn't hurt, but, you know, i was in a hurry. i got out of high school early,

i got out of college early. i wanted to get out of law school early, but the dean wouldn't let me. so i wanted to get through all that and jump into what i'm doing to do. >> host: you worked with ed meese. >> guest: great man, great mentor. he was attorney general of the united states. i was, among other things, his chief of staff. this notion of originalism, he reintroduced it and promoted it in the 1980s as ronald reagan's attorney general, which was absolutely crucial. we had some hectic times there because the left hated him because he was so effective. so they would try and unleash prosecutors and so forth. but the fact of the matter is, he was a really effective, forward-thinking attorney general. so a lot of the people you actually see on the courts today or in different organizations promoting liberty and the constitution and so forth worked

in the meese justice department in one unit or another, one division or another. so there's a whole army of conservatives/libertarian constitutionalists out there who got their first job or the most prominent job in the meese justice department. >> host: how did you get from chief of staff to ed meese to a radio show? [laughter] >> guest: wow. well, i'll tell you, let me put it way, i've always been enamored or talk radio. i'm 56. when i was a teenager, i would listen to the transistor radio outside philadelphia, to talk radio in philadelphia but more often in new york. and i would listen to various hosts there, gene shepard, barry farber, my favorite was bob grant who just passed away, and i just want to say one thing

quickly about him. grant was an icon in talk radio. he was always very gracious and kind to we, and he will be deeply missed because he, he really helped blaze the trail for conservative talk radio today. so i'd listen to him, and i wrote the local radio station, it was wcau at the time, i think it's wpht now. and asked if i could do a talk show. i was 16 at the time. they let me in, i did one show, and that was the end of that. it wasn't intended to be a permanent show, but probably to get me off their backs. i wasn't planning on making it a career. and then over time in the '90s and in the early 2000 i was often on cable tv debating a clinton impeachment or what have you. and then, you know, i was a big fan of my friend, rush limbaugh, who's a mentor of mine, a big

fan of sean hannity who's a mentor of mine. and i subbed for rush, but i subbed numerous times for hannity when he would take vacation. and the program director said, you know, i think you have a knack for this, would you like to try a sunday show? he said, now, we can't pay you anything. i said, that's fine, and i tried it. and sean kept prodding me to do it. and so i did it for a little over a year, and then i guess they wanted me to do more, to now i'm doing more, and now we have a very successful syndicated show. so that occurred post-reagan administration. i'm not sure if there was one specific thing that did it. it just kind of came together. >> host: what makes for a good radio talk show host? what's that key ingredient? >> guest: integrity.

not being a phony. not getting on the air, listening to consultants telling you to talk about bologna sandwiches, to lighten up, talk about this, that or the other. you know, to try to get to the millennials, to try and -- be yourself. have integrity. have substance. be compelling. and all of that, hopefully, is interor taping. don't be be a -- entertaining. don't be a circus clown, you know? don't be a clapping seal. the most successful talk radio hosts, in my view, it's not something you can learn, it's not something you can teach. you either are or you are not. you either come through that mic and are compelling as your own personality, your own thinker, your own substantive person, or you're not. and you can tell when people are peaking. the audience -- faking. the audience, the other thing i would say is the audience is smart. the audience is really smart.

particularly in talk radio. so don't act like they're stupid, and don't talk down to them, and don't try and mislead them. my radio audience the most important -- is the most important thing i have in radio. my radio audience is what makes me successful. otherwise i'd be talking to the walls, you know, i'd be talking to the ceiling. and have respect for your audience. so i try to come in every evening when i do my show hours and hours and hours of preparation, of thought, of what i might say that is interesting, that might entertain as well and that affect people's lives. so, you know, i crack jokes, i get angry. you'll see my, you know, all moods, personality. that's the nature of the beast. that's the nature of every human being. but as i say, integrity is crucial and having 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 to do it or need to do it. i figure what i have to say, i say on the radio every day. people want to hear it, they can hear it. i'm not into tv that much. it's not to say i don't like it when i do it, but, you know, the nearest studio's 40 miles away. that's an 90-mile round -- 80-mile round trip. and to sit there for five minutes and listen to some liberal in my left ear while i'm trying to get some comment out, it seems like a waste of time to me. you never know, maybe i'll do more of it. we get invitations all the time, and i do appreciate the invitations, i just don't accept many. accepted yours. >> host: we appreciate that. how much anonymity do you have? >> guest: well, my face is on all these books, so the last one i asked them to take it off. >> host: why? i noticed that. >> guest: well, how many of my faces do people need to see? [laughter]

and if you google me, there's a sal pictures -- southbound pictures of me. i don't go to a lot of parties, i don't want go to a lot of events. maybe i'll speak three or four times a year. i don't do paid speeches, even though i get the offers to do those. you know, i like my anonymity, but on the other hand, i understand the times where i don't have anonymity. i have a great life. i'm blessed. i enjoy every aspect of it. anonymity or no anonymity. >> host: well, mark levin is our guest, and now it's your turn to talk to him. by the way, his most recent book is the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic. that is our featured book this month on booktv's book club. you'll see book club at the top of booktv.org. click on book club, and you'll be able to participate in the

conversation with other viewers, other readers of the liberty amendments. as, and this will be for the entire month of january. laura in new york city, please go ahead. you're the first call for mark levin. >> caller: hi. i've listened to mark levin's show every night for years now, and from what he means by liberty is the criminal elite looting this country clean, impoverishing the middle class and paying no taxes on the wealth they've stolen. what he means by liberty is to public money for social security, medicare, medicaid, education or the rebuilding of our crumbling infrastructure. he is a prop begannist for the criminal elite posing as a right-wing conservative. and his liberty amendments are to bring to an end once and for all in the united states of america any political representation for anyone in

this country by the criminal elite. >> host: that was laura, new york city. >> guest: she figured me out. i confess, i'm part of the criminal elite. , i confess. i get callers like this all the time. one of the things that c-span does is you give 'em 60 seconds. i give 'em about 6 seconds. so what do you want me to say? there's -- yeah. >> host: why do you give them six seconds? >> guest: because air time is precious. i take the audience and their time very, very seriously, and kooks, you know, i could play a kook for ten minutes. that's are entertaining. i could go back and forth with her, but what's the point if is she's a kook. >> host: because she disagrees with you? >> guest: not only because she disagrees with me, as most kooks would with, not that they necessarily disagree with me, but that they're kooks. no, but that i don't believe in any public spending what so far. i believe in the constitutional

system. there is public spending under the constitutional system. i'm not an anarchist or anything of the sort. the other thing is the criminal elite taking everybody's money, i'm not in the government. how am i part of the criminal elite, taking everybody's money? like i say, i could sit here and try and rationally respond to that, but it's like the peep hoel in the mental institution where the guy's bouncing off the padded walls. what am i supposed to do, have a conversation? it's entertaining, but i'm not going to have a conversation. >> host: this e-mail, this is from andrew in shorewood, wisconsin. i've been a listener of mark's radio show for years. recently, i've been listening to noam chomsky on youtube, and i was struck that the language mr. chomsky used was strikingly similar to that used by mr. levin using terms like statism and tyranny. i find it interesting that these two men would use such similar language and yet seem to be on opposite sides of the political

spectrum. wondering if you would comment on that. >> guest: he should stop using the words that i use, that would help. listen, he's a left-wing kook. anticipator, professor, you are. -- that's right, professor, you are. dressed up as a professor. and he is a radical, utopian statist. why is it my responsibility to bring raggalty toker -- rationality to irrational people? i can't explain chomsky. from my perspective, chomsky hates american and its constitutions. he would disagree with me. how am i supposed to make sense of of him or that? i can't. i just don't know how guys like him get tenure. well, actually, i do, because academia's full of people like that. but he can use whatever words he wants, i explain myself, and he can explain himself. >> host: janis is calling from smithfield, utah. hi, janis.

>> caller: hi. first of all, mr. levin, i am a great admirer of yours. i think you're a national treasure. so don't let the kooks get you down. >> host: janis, why do you think he's a national treasure? >> caller: i think he's got so many things right and so many -- he's got a wonderful mind. [laughter] i just admire his wonderful mind. but there was one thing i wanted to ask him, and that is as a conservative i'm, i've been concerned about the division among conservatives not over goals, but over tactics. it seems to be kind of creating a fission that i think's going to be very detrimental in the success of the goals we all want to achieve such as, you know, abolishing obamacare and stuff like that. because we argue amongst ourselves over the tactics of how to get there, and i wondered if you felt like that was a real concern or what your answer to that is.

>> guest: i think that's a good question. the problem is, um, the republican establishment, the part of the ruling class, they've got withen their way. they nominated mccain, and he lost. today nominated romney, and e lost. -- he lost. mitch mcconnell and the boys in the senate are pretty much the same ilk. boehner, unfortunately, is pretty much the same ilk. some of us have just drawn the conclusion that the country is perilously close to the abyss. when you look at now over a trillion dollars in understood funded obligations -- unfunded obligations. when i finished liberty and the amendments, we were talking about a $17 trillion fiscal operating debt, now it's $17.3 and rising. these are unsustainable. the social security trustees say that social security's unsustainable. the medicare and medicaid trustees say that's unsustainable. obamacare's unsustainable. unless and until the republican

leadership and the republican bureaucracy figures out a way to address this, that's not timid and not deceptive, the republican party's going to keep losing elections. it'll win one here and there, but the trajectory, as i say, not change. so from my perspective, the republican party has to get back to its roots, its grassroots, and become a party of principle again. not purity, but principle. it has to have positions that juxtapose the left and what this president and this administration is doing. also, unfortunately, when you look at the prior republican administration, the debted grew the highest -- the debt grew the highest in american history until this democrat administration. so i think we have to be truthful to ourselves about what's taken place and rational about what our responses should be. and i don't know how this is going to work out, but i think the days of the republican establishment and bureaucracy just getting their way without challenge, i think those days are over.

>> host: and from the liberty amendments, mr. levin writes: the federal government consumes nearly 25% of all goods and services produced each year by the american people. yearly deficits routinely exceed $1 trillion. the federal government has incurred a fiscal operating debt, more than 17 trillion, far exceeding the total value of the annual economic wealth created by the american people which is expected to reach about 26 trillion in a decade. it has accumulated unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs exceeding $90 trillion which is growing at a 4.6-6.9 trillion dollars a year. this e-mail from miles schmidt: do you believe -- to follow up on what you were just talking about -- do you believe the gop will realign around constitutional principles without a credible threat of defection by its base to to a third party? >> guest: i don't support this

third party stuff because that would mean endless victories by the hard left. that's number one. and reagan didn't support it either, and i agree with him. i think what's needed, to cut to the chase here, is a new republican party. and i think you need a new republican party, it seems to me, about every 25 years. we have people who are effective at climbing the ladder within congress and getting to leadership positions, but that doesn't make them statesmen. and they're not statesmen. and they're not effective at articulating very much. so my concern now is that the republican party needs to be improved. you know, i'm not a flag waver for the republican party. i've been a republican all my life. i've been a mag waver for liberty -- flag waver for liberty, and we need a party institution that's going to represent more of us. unfortunately, you have people in the republican party that have been in congress 30 years, 25 years, and they're part of

the problem. they may say some things, some platitudes which people will quote, but they're ineffective, and they're timid. and so we need a new republican party. >> host: from ameritopia, you write: the tea party movement is a hopeful sign. its members come from all walks of life and every corner of the country. these citizens have the great -- have the spirit and enthusiasm of the founding fathers, proclaim the principles of individual liberty and rights in the declaration and insist on the federal government's compliance with the constitution's limits. >> guest: thank god for the tea party. the tea party is the modern day conservative constitutional movement. or -- and without it, the debt would be bigger, the unfunded liabilities would be bigger, and the federal government would be even more consolidated. so i think it is a crucially-important movement, and i think it needs to grow. and i think if the republican party wants to go to war, apparently it does with the tea

party movement, then the republican party's going to lose. because the tea party movement is, as i say there in ameritopia, is really nothing more than millions of citizens, tax-paying, hard working citizens who have had enough. who see the over 90, over $100 trillion now in unfunded liabilities, see the massive federal debt just more and more and more, see the fecklessness of the republican party and the radicalism of the democrat party, and they say enough is enough. and so, of course, both parties turn on the tea party and attack it, as do the media. which is to be expected. this is a washington-centric mentality versus the people. that's exactly why i wrote "the liberty amendments." and the whole state of the convention process is to bypass the federal bure rack si, is to bypass the federal courts exactly as the framers intended at the constitutional convention. every single one of them who

attended voted for article very so that we -- v so that we, the people, can at least make an effort to take our republic back. that's not to say every state legislature's great. not too far or from here you have maryland. that's a disaster. you've got california, illinois -- i get it. there's a lot of disastrous, dark blue state legislatures out there. but a lot of the state legislatures are good or more positive. and, you know, if we can get a movement going, and i think it's starting but time will tell, and i feel that the worse things get in this country, the more likely this movement will pick up steam whether it's in two years or 25 years. i have no way of knowing. the fact of the matter is, the only serious recourse to what's going on today, it just is, and as i say in the last chapter of the "the liberty amendments, "even the most intelligent, politically-muscular conservative who's elected

president, and god knows i want one, cannot reverse what's going on in this country today. can slow it down, as reagan did, can try and pull some of it back as reagan did, but reagan leaves office, george h.w. bush comes in, he essentially denounces the reagan agenda, and off we go again with the fdr model. so if people are serious about this, they should turn to the framers of the constitution and look at article v where george mason said should congress become repressive, he's your recourse. >> host: so if you're living in kentucky, would you support mitch mcconnell in the primary and/or the general? >> guest: i couldn't support mitch mcconnell, not that he's not necessarily a nice person or so forth, but he's an ineffective republican leader. he's an ineffective senator, in my personal view. that whole immigration bill that went through the senate he sat back, he didn't take a lead in trying to fight it, then he shows up and votes against it.

this whole notion of the president having the power, in's is sense, to veto congress should congress decide not to raise the debt ceiling, mitch mcconnell came up with that idea and said it should be temporary, of course. nothing's temporary. not only that, congress doesn't have the constitutional power, the power of the purse, to anybody, a president, an entity, anything of the sort. and so, you know, i remember when he fought mccain-feingold and was standing up for the first amendment, and i was very proud of him. i really was. but that's the first and last thing that i can remember. so, no, i wouldn't personally vote for him. >> host: len is calling from cedar hurst, you're on booktv with mark levin. conclude hi. >> caller: hi. i think that mark would probably

call me a kook along with that first caller. i think the persons that she was referring to were the koch brothers, amongst most. you know? the koch brothers are the ones that fund the heritage foundation which pays for half of this guy's commercials, and they're the ones that fund other organizations that buy his books that create them as bestsellers, and then they give them away because nobody would really want to spend the money on them. [laughter] and the koch brothers are the people who pay for the buses that take the tea party people to their rallies because they really -- and they also now are paying the people who organize, who hand out the leaflets, people who don't necessarily even know that they're being paid for by the koch brothers in order to get people to rallies. which, of course, for white, older people is a very easy thing to rally against.

>> host: so, len, all that 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 an b .. ..he s ..the .. 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 p