are you kidding me? go to a congressman or senator with that kind of information they would pick up the phone and call the fbi. they probably should or they might be prosecuted too. there is no immunity for them. this should have been another way to do this rather than running off to any countries. i am also concerned about what he has revealed to them. i don't know what he told the chinese or the russians or anyone else for that matter. the existence of this program, i am glad we know about it. it ought to be shut down. i do believe in a robust intelligence gathering national security and law enforcement operation of the federal government. our national security is certainly one of the primary objectives of the federal government. >> host: mike, could mark expand on any personal anecdotes between him and president

reagan? >> guest: personal anecdote? i didn't see him a lot of times. i saw him may be five times. i don't think i ever mentioned this before. one of the times i was with president reagan in the oval office, i was also with the attorney general meese, and a handful of others, members of the attorney general's family and justice department, and just decided to leave office and president reagan said to the attorney general, coming under attack by the usual radical leftists. president reagan said to him i want to apologize to you. all these attacks that are aimed

at you are really intended for me. i am sorry you had to go through this. that is what ronald reagan said and that was the kind of man ronald reagan was. great man, absolutely great man. >> host: what are you reading? some of your influences, what your favorite books are, here's a look at mark levin's answers. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> host: mark levin, one of the authors you list is raymond aron, the 0 pulliam of the intellectual. it is an absolutely great book. he wrote particularly about the cold war and the iron curtain.

>> guest: he skewered in a brilliant way be elites, the so-called intellectuals. it is just a tremendous book and i learned a great deal from him, these masterminds. he gave great examples of it and the danger of it and talked about the communist elite and liberal elite and academic elite and he didn't agree with every exact thing but the mentality, it was just super. he was not the only one, joseph trumpeter is another one. great economist and philosopher. he did the same thing and he is not alone either. hayek did it in so many of his books too. this is the from with centralizing all these decisions. we accept the fact that men and women are in perfect.

we accept the fact that all our institutions are in perfect. why would we give so few people so much power. so few imperfect human beings with such a narrow number of institutions so much power over the rest of us to impose their imperfect decisions on us? >> host: from your 2009 book liberty and tyranny you write if words can be manipulated or ignored to advance the statist political and party policy preferences, what then binds' allegiances to the statist words? why should today's laws bond future generation if yesterday's laws do not bind this? >> guest: if the constitution is the subject change based on what a particular court says corporate developers and says or

particular generation, why are we bound by what they say? we are not bound in the constitution why am i bound to a supreme court decision, why am i down to a presidential executive order? if the founding governing document isn't to be revered, then why do we honor all these other decisions and statutes and so on, why should we? that is the point. >> host: mark levin is our guest on "in depth". we all less than an hour to go. bill in man had an beach, calif.. good afternoon. >> caller: i love c-span, you guys a terrific. mark levin, you are great asset to liberty, please take care of yourself to begin with. secondly, allow me to appeal to you to bring your terminology down to the average voter.

the average voter is not a business owner. he is not working wall street. he is an employee by and large. change capitalism to free enterprise, change income redistribution to what it is, change on for norship to job creation. appeal to the folks who want to go with you but they don't talk like that. i met the koch brothers once and like to meet them again. the man makes a good point and i do try to do that, not always successful at it. the gentleman makes a good point and i work at it as much as i can, want to use terms people

can identify with. >> host: ashley on our face book page, reducing was the best and worst president and why? >> guest: i have to go with some of the obvious, washington was our greatest president. if washington wanted to be a dictator washington would have been a dictator. all over the world after the so-called democratic revolutions, look that castro and other places, zimbabwe and so forth that is what these men did, became dictators. washington was not only a brilliant general who helped lead the revolution against all odds and win, he was a brilliant statesman. the framers were united in their

desire for liberty and representative government, a lot of opinions on how to get there, washington knew he could push it one way or another and understood he needed to be the invisible hand behind the process, the fact that he agreed to go to the constitutional convention, he had to think about that. you wanted to go back to mount vernon but he cared about his country deeply to the point where he went broke as many of these men did because they were busy in public affairs. so much about what washington did and said and so forth said the nation on of proper course of my give it to him in a close second would obviously be lincoln. even though the nullify years would disagree with me and the neo confederates. did lincoln do some things we would question today? yes. on the other hand nation was --

all hell was breaking loose and he wanted to make sure in the end there was a nation. we can debate the particular issues and so forth, but there have been few men like lincoln and there will be few like him in the future. i would consider reagan one of our greatest presidents. people forget for half a century or so, the cold war was a very serious matter. soviet expansion was a very serious matter. nuclear threat was a very serious matter, among other things reagan defeated the soviet union, through policies and rejected detente, he wanted victory and he got victory. also his economic policies, 25 million jobs created. president obama stands at the white house with unemployed people lined up behind him arguing for more extended unemployment, 99 weeks apparently isn't enough. may be under this president that

is the problem. what reagan would have done is stood behind him who found new jobs. reagan created such an economic dynamos that it went through into the clinton administration. i don't know this nation has ever seen anything like it, certainly not in a hundred years. he brought confidence back to a country that desperately needed it after jimmy carter and the disasters that he was. there have been a number of good presidents too. calvin coolidge was a very good president. james polk was a very good president. some people attack him and call it imperialism. they better leave california and some of the other states. i think he was a very good president. i can't remember all of them. there have been some very poor presidents. martin van buren was a very poor president, james buchanan was a

very poor president. i am no fan of fdr but on the other hand he helped bring us through world war ii so you can't dismiss that although the aftermath was a disaster, him and truman as far as i am concerned. i think obama has to be in the top ten of disasters presidents if not the top five. what he has done to this country, what he has done to our constitutional system, what he has done to one industry after another, his rhetoric, his propaganda, i just think he has been a very destructive -- too bad because the first black president and he could have done so many great things not only bringing the country together

but advancing the cause of liberty and property rights and all these other things that were so crucial to our thinking and to our country and he has done the opposite. he has done your knee-jerk card left radical left-wing agenda and it has been a complete disaster and i think 50 years from now, when we look back on this or other people look back on this i think it will be viewed that way. >> host: mark hula and post on our face book page, when will the republican party give up the marriage amendment and the right to life amendment? they are both losers for the gop? >> i don't think we lose votes over the marriage amendment right to life amendment. how many votes have we left on that? in terms of losers for the gop reagan was strongly pro-life and supported an amendment. obviously the president has no

role. only congress can, legislature is the in terms of the marriage amendment, it takes three force of the states to ratify an amendment. you now have 15 or 17 states that have made same-sex marriage legal, some legislatures have done it, i am not sure how that would workout. i have no problem with people arguing for and proposing these amendments because it is the quintessential nature of federalism, it takes we 3-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify. a loser for the republican party, i don't think it is a loser, what is a loser for the republican party are people who lead it to have no agenda, few

principles and very little confidence in anything. basically hanging on for their own sake. i don't think those are losers. original is amazes me, the social issues. okay, call them the social issues. i don't call from social issues, they are cultural issues. who keeps bringing them up? who is fighting for same-sex marriage? who keeps bringing it up? activist groups, state legislatures, courts, people who object to a particular position not told stop talking, stop standing for what you believe in. if your faith tells you to fight it, given up, it is a loser. these arguments are absurd. why should people give up, they should fight for what they believe that the republican party doesn't stand for traditional values who the hell will? i have no problem with people fighting for these things and i

don't think it is a political loser. i think the moderates who stand for virtually nothing but the political losers. john mccain didn't lose because he supported either of those amendments, mitt romney did not lose because he supported those amendments, they lost because they couldn't connect with the people because they didn't have an agenda, it is liberty, free enterprise as the gentleman said, wealth creation, job creation, business creation agenda, the growth agenda among other things and yes, the traditional faith agendas that i think will get people to the polls. reagan did it twice. >> host: colorado, part of a liberty agenda? >> guest: for all the pot heads that are going to move to colorado right now. something interesting has happened. the federal government to some extent are not going to enforce a lot of federal pot laws.

colorado has passed a pot law. would i vote for it? no way. they voted for it. that is the law in virginia. one of my supposed to do about it others and stay out of colorado? the federal government decided it is not going to enforce the relevant federal statues with respect to that and that is a different issue to me. whether or not you support those laws how in the world to the attorney-general decide i am not going to enforce that law. when did he get that power? never. that would be might issue. of colorado wants to legalize pot then colorado will legalize pot. i think it is stupid. i do favor decriminalizing. i don't think the 17-year-old 420-year-old college student or some pizza delivery guy who is caught with a joint, smoking a

joint should have to do prison time or jail time or be charged with misdemeanor. that bothers me and i will tell you right here, i don't have a bible to swear on but i have never done drugs, i have never done pot, but i still find it troublesome that if some young person has had a joint or something like that and they are caught, i don't know what the answer is but i do favor decriminalization. not know criminalization but decriminalization. >> host: from "liberty and tyranny: a conservative manifesto" all cultures are not equal as evidenced by the aliens fleeing his country for the american culture and american citizen staying put. if someone were shopping for books and came across the american republic," "ameritopia: the unmaking of america" and "liberty and

tyranny: a conservative manifesto," which one should they buy? >> a conservative manifesto" and "the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic". if somebody said to me if you could only have -- if you could only have one, which would you have? i couldn't do that. remember what solomon did? the cutting of the baby in half? he wouldn't agree to that. it depends what you are looking for. let me put it to you that way. "liberty and tyranny: a conservative manifesto" is a the sickly of primer on restatement of conservatism, in 2009 to fill the day, my conservative manifesto at the end and i call it that. "ameritopia: the unmaking of america" is probably the most important to me, the most difficult, it is political philosophy. to me it gets to the heart of

the from of the left, the conflict with those who believe in liberty. the liberty -- "the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic" is crucial because i have callers to my show who say this is all great, what do we do about this? rather than give the usual phony superficial response, it is not good enough. maybe it is good enough for some but it is not good enough because we are on more from our constitutional system. we elective more republicans under george bush from 2001-2007, they control the congress and the presidency. what happened? more federal involvement in education, more federal involvement in health care, expansion of medicare, virtually everything. massive increase in the debt. that alone is not going to be enough. the solution, i think, is rather than be superficial about it and elect more of these folks, in

electing many more conservative republicans, the solution is systemic one and the answer is in the constitution which is the purpose of the liberty amendment. >> host: booktv's book club is reading "the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic". you will see it had that says book club. you can see some video of mark levin, some reviews of "the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic" and you can post your comments. go ahead and read along and post your comments and have a discussion with other readers and other viewers of booktv on the liberty amendments. thanks for halting, you are on with mark levin. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i listened to mark levin, i don't agree with everything he says but one problem -- debate

issues and ask questions. that is the only opining i am going to do. i have three specific questions, either by to get his knowledgeable opinion on these three areas. funding of erection this, doing away with the electoral college and gerrymandering. i would like to hear what he has to say. >> host: let's see what mark levin says. i can't write that fast. >> guest: funds in elections, he left for college and gerrymandering. let me start with corporate funding of elections. there is no corporate funding of elections. the citizens united case was allowing corporations to fund advocacy ads so they concluded not only should unions be able to do it but corporations too. why not?

as long as it is public and we know who is contributing what to these campaigns it got to be online so you can get it immediately and in a lot of cases it is i don't have a problem with that. i have a problem with the shadowy stuff that goes on with members of congress and so on but the front donations is fine. i say this as someone who has a problem, the chamber of commerce conducted self and is now getting in the republican primaries for the purpose of defeating conservative candidates and pushing big government corporate republican candidates. that said, principle is principal, free-speech is free speech. as for the, durrell college of course i support it. there's a movement to get rid of it just as the progressive movement got rid of the state legislatures choosing members of the senate. and of course they want to get rid of the lead for a college and have the direct election.

let us remember the mindset of the framers. the framers did not want a pure the populist majority government. they didn't want a purely democratic government. they wanted a representative republic. the purpose of the elector of college is not only to give some of the smaller states some footing in the presidential process but as a check just in case you have the election of somebody who is the complete and utter tyrant. we talked about checks and balances, we need such things, that is the electoral college and it amuses me that we have some senators who oppose the omaha world college and want the direct election of the president. i think to myself why do we have two senators from every state? why not get rid of the manhattan house of representatives? we have senators who by constitution exists, two in each

state but we don't need them. let's have a parliamentary system. i don't support this. i am being sarcastic. as for gerrymandering, for what basis would you create congressional districts? these good government types pretend they will take care of that. i don't trust most of them. gerrymandering is something that has gone on and off long time and it is something we are stuck with. >> host: robert e-mails claude tepper was in florida in the senate. >> host: that is for sure. nick is calling from los angeles, you are on booktv with mark levin. >> caller: thank you. you helped me drive home every day and help me keep the rage on your show and not on the other drivers so thank you for making me a better driver. you do claim james madison rejected nullification but in

the same document that you cite he was talking about a specific process of nullification that was advocated only by south carolina and later james madison said, quote, nullification is the natural right which all -- i will let me to be a remedy against insupportable oppression so with that my real question for you, is, i appreciate that you talk about the constitution outlining a republic, not a democracy but you share a utopian foreign policy outlook which is unconstitutional. anyone can look up your statement from presidential war powers and put them up against louis fisher with c-span has featured. >> host: are you a fan of mark levin? >> caller: yes. i am also a fan of george washington. if you quote george washington he said the nation which indulges toward another as a

habitual hatred or habitual fondness, in some degree is a slave. >> guest: wire u.s. supporter of notification? >> caller: because i think it runs to the heart of what a constitutional republic is all about. you can't have a republican and an empire too. i think mark levin's blank box on foreign policy and nullification undermines what he purports to be about. >> host: we will get an answer. what kind of work do you do? you say mark levin is on your radio on the way home. what kind of work to you do? >> caller: i am struggling in this obama economy so i have a few different part-time jobs. i work at a couple concert venues in los angeles and i work at ucla as an intern with a nonprofit organization.

i am very passionate about what is going on in the world. affects my generation. i'm 20 years old and affects my generation very much. i pay attention to all the fleeces and try to stay involved but also got to pay the bills with part-time jobs too. >> host: thank you for calling in. mark levin. >> guest: people have to read this 1830 letter on their own. it is not a narrow ladder. long letter, he is addressing what make has to say and endorsing article v which make doesn't endorse. eaton said that he doesn't. professor of this or professor that all they want. there are a lot of knuckleheads who are professors too. so what? fact of the matter is there is an 1832 letter that madison also rose but they say it is specific

to south carolina. there's nothing i can say that will dissuade nick or other is because he didn't tell you what non-profit group he works for. a couple groups are pushing nullification. i am surprised you haven't had a call for secession yet. i am not in favor of destroying the republic. i am not in favor of eliminating the union. i believe we fought a civil war over that. but nullification is not in the constitution. nullification was not brought up at the constitutional convention. it was discussed later. there are letters about it but none of that matters. it is not going to happen but there is no historical support for is this. these guys who are texture royalists who claim to be, accepting this case, they are so angry at the federal government they're willing to turn to anything including what i call the confederate agenda. the fact of the matter is it doesn't work and you can't pursue it won't work.

the neo confederate agenda i speak to is they want to see states split off from the union. are we going to go through that again? sorry, folks, don't count me in on it. i'm pushing the edge of the envelope with the liberty amendment that these guys are on the other edge of the envelope and those are the talking points that are posted, that are argued, that are put out time and time again, ignore this letter. madison didn't mean this. the tenth amendment means nullification and yet they interpret this stuff like the liberals interpret. >> host: we have taken two calls on it and had good discussions and we will end our discussion of it there as well. here is an e-mail from warren who is in los angeles as well. kabc radio airs the mark levin show with the three hours time delayed. 9% of the audience is prevented from calling in and participating in your discussions with what can we do to convince them to carry

program live? >> guest: i am glad i am on kabc. i tell all the affiliate's we don't -- we have a small percentage on the show, taped delay. they do it often at a local host. the vast majority of our affiliates, we are live. you can tell them. here is the thing. some of us in talk radio have other platforms you can listen to. not talking specifically about this particular writer in kabc but i have a mark within apps who has half-million people who use it. there's another way to listen to the show live, you could be a program director. we do a live stream on the internet and on satellite. the patriot. on terrestrial radio like kabc we are on satellite.

we have two apps to pick this up on your smart phone and on the internet so if you want to hear us live you can listen to us live for. >> host: tony is calling from new york, go ahead with your question or comment for mark levin. >> caller: this is tony. and won't be as long winded as your previous caller. i have one simple question. won't give too much background on it, just want your opinion. here is the question. what if anything should we do about the fourteenth amendment? >> guest: in what way? >> host: he is gone. >> guest: it is not the shortest amendment. i would need to know more what he means. >> host: you write about the fourteenth amendment to >> guest: very little. there are a number of things, we feet or four or five things.

he should have been more specific. >> host: barrett is in cumberland, md.. >> caller: thank-you for all you do. thank you for giving us the solutions for conservatives and libertarians. and among grassroots, i want to thank you for the protocol or millennial. and talking about this to people, there's a lot of excitement, and one is the runaway convention, the year of the draft and those people will come around to it. the other is this crowd, and the superiority of article v through the nullification strategy.

would it not put the court system -- in charge of that. >> guest: you are exactly right. mason and the framers that the constitutional convention, the state convention process, they are allowing the proposal of the actual amendments. and the structural abuses of the constitutional system. it doesn't address any of that. this supreme court will allow nullification. what are they going to do about that? under the amendment process at the state legislature to override a supreme court decision that the nullification, it is -- there is no constitutional basis for it. one of the callers earlier, what

did he say? neocon and also i support american empire and stuff of this forest. i don't know where these nitwits get these ideas because i support our troops during the iraq war which i did and i do? and would do again today? we are talking about an extreme fringe element here like i said, the neo confederate element, not even mainstream libertarian as an, an extreme fringe, a couple groups out there flooding your phones right now, flooding your e-mails because they know i am coming on. this is what they do but they have absolutely zero impact on the body politic of the american people. the american people are not going to support this secession. american people are not going to support one state nullifying federal law. they won't support that kind of anarchy. in my view what most of us want

is a return to constitutional government where the state legislatures have power and the federal government has less power. that is what we are talking about. not destroying the constitutional system or the constitution, not destroying the republic, not destroying the union but addressing it and re-establishing the constitutional system. i have nothing in common with these other folks and the vast majority of americans have nothing in common with these other folks. >> host: where did this movement begin? >> guest: a couple groups and a couple professors but i don't know the history of it and -- >> host: chosen you. >> guest: they do this all over the place. it is just that i happen to be on c-span. >> host: gary e-mails in the lie african-american man with conservative views, mostly social and small government conservative, never voted democratic in my entire life.

what is your message to african-americans and for that matter other minorities in the u.s. while many african-americans social security social conservatives on major issues. >> guest: general categories promoting individual liberty, free enterprise and will creation which brings opportunity and traditional american values which would include the power of state legislatures to make many of these decisions and applying them to current events and current issues is the way to go and i think that is what a campaign needs to do to be successful. it is not a question of what do you give to minorities,

hispanics are over here, blacks are over here, whites are over here, straight people later, lesbians are over here, that is not the way we should look at america. we should look at america like liberals do and break us down into physical features and sexual preferences. we should talk about america as americans and we should state publicly to the left during these campaigns that we reject their efforts to divide us along all these different lines. conservative republican candidate can talk about bringing people together to advance the cause of liberty and opportunity and wealth creation and let the liberals talk about extending unemployment insurance and doing all those other things while we are talking about a positive, forward looking growth-oriented agenda based on good old american values.

>> host: from "ameritopia: the unmaking of america," appeals to radical egalitarianism and the fomenting of jealousy and faction through class warfare and collectivism for people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous. >> host: that is the question i ask. >> guest: too late. i don't think it is too late but we're getting to a late time but i have hope that we can avoid it, we can avert this. see the reaction to obamacare, people and not like uniformity and conformity. it does not address their own specific needs and interests and motivation. obamacares about uniformity and conformity and at least in regard to that, that is a positive. on the other hand a majority of those who voted also voted for the man who pushed the very

legislation that they detest. we have a problem here and the problem is republicans have to offer the american people serious alternative. >> host: robert in chicago e-mails to mark levin, you listed several great libertarian thinkers, friedman, kayak, among your favorite singers, where do you, a thoughtful conservative differ with libertarians? >> guest: and economic issues i agree with libertarians mostly. i would say on these social issues i would disagree. for instance if they libertarian believe some guy on the corner should be free to sell heroin, i am not sure i can endorse that position. in the main i am a conservative/libertarian but i call myself a constitutionalist

and there's a movement, reinvigorated constitutional conservatism, which is something i am proud to be part of and proud to be pushing. constitutional conservatism, not secession, not nullification, not destroying our country, not destroying the union, not destroying the constitution but reinvigorating. >> host: richard e-mails in mark levin's live coverage of the capture of the boston marathon bombers earlier this year was compelling, exciting , you're entirely lacking in the speculative, opinionated talking head speak that is so wearisome in the mainstream media. >> guest: that iraq will they not only because of the terrorist attack and all those people who were maimed and killed, but when you are a talk-show host you have to decide how to cover these things. most talk-show hosts if they

can't find reporters on the scene are watching cable networks and reporting, regurgitating the news that is somewhere else. my call screener and producer, i have two great gaius. they have been with me from the beginning. listening to vote police scanner. we were listening for the police scanner, the local police and state police, two police scanners. things were actually breaking, mean breaking. they were telling me exactly what was being said on a police scanner so we were breaking news on our coverage because the great radio station w r k 0, all wonderful station in boston, we were breaking the news without any opinion whatsoever as we were hearing it and near the end

somebody figured it out. i don't know if it was the local police for the state police and they said careful what you are saying on the monitor. i also make clear that nothing we were saying was in danger in what they were doing, nothing. because obviously terrorists didn't have access to the radio and had no idea what i was saying on the radio. that was a very compelling evening. quite remarkable. >> host: in maryland, go ahead with your question or comment for mark levin. >> caller: good afternoon, in joining the discussion. you and i are natives of the city of brotherly love and roughly the same age. i think a lot of what you say makes a great deal of sense, limited government, libertarianism. that makes an awful lot of sense but you and i remember decades

ago when 40, 50, thousand people getting killed on highways and automobile accidents. what happened was the department of transportation put in safety regulations. now we are past that. those were very good government interventions from my perspective. that is why i am so completely amazed, i support conservative republicans agreed deal. guns are dangerous. they are very very dangerous. the position of the republican party as far as i can tell is give everyone a gun. no background checks. if someone is wearing a osama bin laden sweatshirt and goes up to a gun show and says in an arab head address and goes up to a gun show and says, that person can order -- walk away with --

>> host: i think we got the point. >> guest: was that call from colorado? just wondering if he is in to the new movement there. what was his question? safety. let me explain something to this gentleman. the deaths on the road today are not significantly reduced because of safety belts. let me tell you something. the automobile most people drive is lighter now than it ever was due to cafe standards of the guy explained this in "liberty and tyranny: a conservative manifesto". all of the deaths and all of the casualties on our highways as a result of cafe standards and did is remarkable to me that you wouldn't call this program because you are so concerned about human life particularly on our highways and reject government intervention in that case with cafe standards killing

and maiming so many fellow americans on the streets and keep making cars lighter, smaller and smaller and lighter. i am sure you would join me in objecting to that. numbers in 2, the republican party supports giving everybody a gun. that is not true. have the second amendment, it is nice that you don't like guns, nice that you have an opinion about guns. that is all well and good but you don't have the right to tell law-abiding citizens who want guns for safety or hunting or whatever the reason is as long as it is lawful that they can't. that is what the constitution provides just like i can't say see that guy in rockville, md. he doesn't deserve due process because due process for a guy like that endangers the

community. this is the problem with the left, they can decide which parts of the constitution they like and there has been study after study by among others, john lot and so forth that contradict your premise but whatever i say here won't matter to you anyway but it matters to some people out there. >> host: doreen more e-mails, glad to see mark levin's enthusiasm for democracy in america, people from all political persuasions site toqueville's great work is that because toqueville was unclear and practical implications? or something else? >> guest: i don't see him being cited by harry reid nancy pelosi. i don't know if they read two volumes of democracy in america or had them read to them. i have no idea. these are people that said you have to read the obamacare law to know what is in it and apparently none of the red including the president because they didn't know what is in it.

i doubt that the left will cite toqueville. i cite him, i cite him in two books because what he said is so pertinent to what is going on in this country today. he was prescient, he was a man who was very concerned about democracy, was a great fan of america as he travelled this country but also saw weaknesses that he feared. and was very concerned about centralized government. i don't know if the left sites him or not or what they cite him for but he was a brilliant man and worth fighting. >> host: he is featured prominently in "ameritopia: the unmaking of america," mark levin's 2012 title. it is calling from toledo. >> caller: good morning. what i want to bring up, i am -- 1776, article iv section iv republican. i don't have much respect for the republican party although i

do belong to woodson's the chair with an ohio. in order for the state of ohio to become a state it had to have a republican constitution and a republican government. article iv section iv guarantees me and by descendants of republican form of government. the big lie is we are democracy. i get no webster who could write a dictionary define republican because it give sovereignty so we have no king. >> host: we are running low on time. what is your point? >> caller: you have democrats and republicans. why don't we go back to these 0 original words. we have a republic with a republican form of government because the grants sovereignty to the individual. >> guest: i don't know what to say. i am not sure what the question

is. if you ask me in the first hour winds like that people off, now you know why. >> host: dorothy, ocean township, new jersey, go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: it is a privilege to speak to you. i have the honor of seeing you speak a few months ago, you were in inspiration, and i wonder, never fail to demonize conservatives, it gets this hardening in any discussion with a liberal and the topic of the president and his policies come. is this just something we have to live with? >> there are people you can communicate with that have

original discussion with and there are drones. if you get the former try to have a discussion and learn from the person. if you're confronted with a drone, move along, be done with it. >> host: dan, st. paul, minn.. a couple minutes left in our program. >> caller: the general welfare class, liberals previously mentioned, using the general welfare clause to endorse government action. the supreme court used the general welfare clause to justify taking money from one group of people and giving it to another to justify transfer payments. in the 1780s the word general as an adjective, everybody nobody.

the usage of the word general from the author's intend to justify taking money from one part to a group giving it to another. that is one example to come to the point, the liberty amendment, we need to use the legislature to override these ridiculous supreme court decisions. >> host: we got the point. >> guest: he makes the point and many more make that point. madison, jefferson, i could go on and done, the perversion of the general welfare clause is almost comical. the left uses it because the general welfare, just demonstrates contempt for the constitution. >> host: what do you think of john roberts? >> guest: not much. nothing he can do from here on.

in my view justify what he did in the obamacare decision. he was part of the reagan administration. he was fairly conservative lawyer in the justice department before i got there. he knows better. he knows what he did. i read his majority decision. it is a disgrace, incoherent, illogical, it was result oriented. he is going to have to live with that. that will be his historical reputation, that will be his epitaph and he helped unleash this disaster slaw on this country. it is unconstitutional in numerous ways and for him to turn the tax section of the constitution on its head and to rewrite the statute and rewrite the history where obama and the democrat said this is not a tax or penalty, it is a tax and under tax laws in the constitution, it is outrageous

what he did. i have zero respect for him. >> host: bill beattie asks the a twitter, will landmark legal join with the 11 attorneys general in support of president obama's legal authority to change the 2010 affffordable ca act? >> guest: we provide advice in a lot of areas. 40 cases on the liberty issue under obamacare working with other groups. several pieces of litigation going against the environmental protection agency so yes, we will provide whatever support they want from us. >> host: for the last three hours mark levin has been our guest on booktv's "in depth" program. he is the author of five nonfiction books and working on another one as well.

his first book came out in 2005, "men in black: how the supreme court is destroying america". "rescuing sprite" came out in 2007, public policy in that one but a best seller. "liberty and tyranny: a conservative manifesto" in conservative manifesto" in restoring the american republic," "ameritopia: the unmaking of america". "the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic" his booktv's book club selection for the month of january so if you are a booktv watcher and wants to read along with other booktv viewers go to booktv.org, picked up "the liberty amendments: restoring the american republic" and read along and post your comments at booktv.org. it is very simple, click on the ballclub tab 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: restoring the american republic". mark levin, thanks for your time today on booktv. >> guest: great honor, thank you. .. >> and also this weekend a panel discussion on the black power movement with actor and p