for the daily fix for the latest cultural and political recaps. and that is it for us tonight. thanks for watching. i'm laura ingram in for the bill o'reilly. the spin stops right here because we're looking out for you. welcome to the special audience issue of "hannity." tonight we're joined by best-selling author mark levine and then the studio audience you can see of distinguished guests. but first inside "the liberty amendments, restoring the american republic." now, levin is proposing amendments. mark, the first step towards reclaiming the country that belongs to you, the american

people. here to explain, why he wrote the book, author himself, the great one, ladies and gentlemen, welcome mark levin. [ applause ] many ways, you wrote "liberty and tyranny," sold over a million copies. am i right in reading this book and thinking this is like a third in a series? >> you know, it really is. i want people to understand, i'm not running around writing amendments to the constitution. what i'm doing is talking about re-establishing constitutional republicanism because we do not have it today. we can get in to that a little bit later. what i'm saying is unlike our opponents who evade the constitution, eviscerate the constitution, try to centralize the government as much as they can in violation of the constitution, those of us who believe in individual liberty and private property rights and the rule of law and the constitution need to look at the

constitution for answers. and it provides one under article v. two methods to amend the constitution. >> as you say, we'll put on the screen to explain. >> two methods. one of which has been used successfully. we have 27 amendments to the constitution. one which is not. but that second method is not radical. it's not weird. it's there because the framers put it there and they put tlit for a reason. the second method for amending the constitution. the first is two thirds of the congress proposing. in this instance, it's two thirds of the states. calling a convention. not a constitutional convention. article v talks about a convention for the purpose of amending the constitution. you still three three fourths of the state to ratify. we have a runaway congress and supreme court and bureaucracy

and president. this is a system put in place specifically by the framers and george mason insisted on it and got the support of the other members, the other delegates to the constitutional convention. he said, look. if congress turns oppressive, if the federal government is oppressive, what is recourse ore than violence? we have to have a way to address this and the recourse is the states get together as they often did, as they did to give birth to the nation and propose these amendments and you still three three fourths of them to approve them. >> there's 27 amendments and one method is use. >> right. >> you write at length how the framers in particular foresaw that this day would come, a day you call a post-constitutional america. explain what you mean by that, give examples of what you see that defines that. >> well, the entire construct of the constitution is intended to

prevent what's happening today, this centralized, concentrated power of government. a handful of lawyers on the supreme court issuing edicts. the president of the united states legislating and ruling by fiat. congress involved in every aspect of our life. this is all contrary to the we can't defund it. you're stuck with it. but the more our government

legislates and operates like this, the worse it gets. the barriers, the firewalls to the constitution have been breached. >> you talk and go in to great detail that the left has been the progressives, the statists, as you call them, have been successful. in other words, beyond their wildest dreams. which is why you say post-constitutional america. now, how does this give more power to the states and what was the anticipated? you quote the federalist papers a lot throughout the book. what were they intending by putting this specific process in to place that it could be used one day? >> first of all, they had to do this in part because the constitution would never have been ratified. at the state conventions, they were our framers, too. and these delegates to the state conventions were very skeptical of the notion of the central government. you know, people don't know if you read what's available on the state convention debates, massachusetts almost voted down the constitution. john adams wound up having to

twist arms. he was fighting mostly his cousin sam adams, an anti-federalist. you look at virginia, the constitution was almost defeated. you are talking about the home of madison and washington and so forth. and new york. the constitution was almost defeated. so they had to make sure if they were going to get the other states to ratify when they presented them with the constitution it would empower the states, it would ensure that the states retain their sovereignty. it would ensure that the central government had specific powers, limited powers and the final thing they had to do because the states were proposing changes to the constitution. and they didn't want to have another convention was they agreed when the first congress met, they would propose amendments to further limit the federal government vis-a-vis the individual and the individual's liberty. this provision in the constitution, article 5, is very, very important. it is the only way we have today that i am aware of and if somebody has a different idea

they ought to put it on the table for the american people in a civil, legal, constitutional, thoughtful way to work with their state legislatures over time. not tomorrow. to begin the process of reclaiming their republic. otherwise these centralized decisions are not only going to continue but become additionally coerciv coercive. >> you quoted madison who pointed out that the powers dedicated to the federal government are few and they are defined. how far have we left that original intention? >> now the states have few, very little powers and live at the behest of the federal government. think about this a second. the states created the federal government. the states gave life to the federal government. now the states live at the behest of the federal government. really, the federal government can step in whether it's voting, the environment, the road system, whether it's the tax

system. the federal government is preempting the field in all respects so rather than checks and balances between the three federal branches, for the most part they're giving their ideas one after another. obama care. whether it's these other acts of the federal government so it's the federal government working and the massive bureaucracy against the states and against the individuals. >> you looking at a constitution to provide the mens for restoring self government and you even go as far as to suggest otherwise there is the potential of social collapse. >> well, i mean, when you have a federal government that has unfunded liabilities under $93 billion and 3 years ago over $67 trillion, it's growing that fast, a federal government imploding and expanding at the same time, when you have a federal reserve that's just mindlessly, you know, printing

money through quantitative easing and so forth and when you have poll tins only rewarded if they spend your children and your grandchildren's money and future, not if they try to draw the line and so the system is broken because we're unmoored from the constitution. so the notion of limited government was all swept away with a big exclamation mark with obama care and so many laws before it. >> all right. we'll take a break and come back and continue much more with mark levin an engo through the levin an engo through the if you've got it, you know how hard it can be to breathe and man, you know how that feels. copd includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my obstructed airways for a full 24 hours. you know, spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms.

tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? don't wait to ask your doctor about spiriva. i'm bethand i'm michelle. and we own the paper cottage. it's a stationery and gifts store. anything we purchase for the paper cottage goes on our ink card. so you can manage your business expenses and access them online

instantly with the game changing app from ink. we didn't get into business to spend time managing receipts, that's why we have ink. we like being in business because we like being creative, we like interacting with people. so you have time to focus on the things you love. infrom chase. so you can. male announcer ] the distances aren't getting shorter. ♪ the trucks are going farther. the 2013 ram 1500 with best-in-class fuel economy. engineered to move heaven and earth. guts. glory. ram. the new ram 1500. motor trend's 2013 truck of the year.

grrrrreat outdoors,00. and a great deal. ahhh let's leave the deals to hotels.com. perfect! yep, and no angry bears. up to 30% off. only at hotels.com. a quarter million tweeters is beare tweeting. and 900 million dollars are changing hands online. that's why hp built a new kind of server. one that's 80% smaller. uses 89% less energy. and costs 77% less. it's called hp moonshot. and it's giving the internet the room it needs to grow. this&is gonna be big. hp moonshot.

it's time to build a better enterprise. together. welcome back to the special audience edition of "hannity" as we take you ideas "the liberty amendments." you have, what, 11, that you propose? >> 11 proposed. >> an amendment to establish term limits for members of congress. before you tell us, i'll turn to the audience. there we have it up on the screen and ask all of you, how many think that this would be a good amendment as proposed by mark? we have some -- steve, you disagree. you can argue in a minute. but explain this amendment. >> well, term limits for president of the united states. i thought we ought to have term limits for members of congress because the history of our republic, the framers never intended there to be professional politicians. that's why they staggered their

terms and limited the terms and the senate was actually made up of members appointed by the state legislatures. they would be appalled by career politicians and you can read their letters. you can read their writings. they expected the people to go home and retain the farms and stay as farmers and business men and so forth. they didn't believe in a permanent legislative class. as a matter of fact, professor rotunda has written that the house of representatives turns over less than the house of lords. >> you put that in the book. >> even in 2010. >> 85%, which was a wave election. we call it a tidal wave election. 85% still re-electedre-elected. >> some of them didn't run. we're cheering it. whereas, you know, in the 1800s, you had 50% turnover after 2 years. and 80% turnover after 4 years. >> from 1850 to 1898, in the book, turnover rate of 50.2%.

>> right. >> if i can, let me go over to steve bannon. why would you be against this, steve? >> i like the book. all 11 amendments hung together. this is the one i had a problem with. i don't think particularly today that you want engagement in the democracy and this takes the vote and the tool and i realize that with the power of media and all of that, it's really gotten to be like the house of lords where they never leave and if you forecast it, it takes that one thing away from the people and i would support it if it was totally tied in as an organic hold. this is the one i had the biggest problem with. >> you brought up in the book how historically this is how it was intended to be. why don't you explain maybe to steve. >> historically, it was. it's not that people can't vote. vote for state senators, representatives, governors, members of the house or still vote for them. and you can still vote in primaries. it is that they are limited to how long they can serve and

there's a reason for that. you can see -- look. you can't talk about breaking up the ruling class and the mentality without breaking up the ruling class and that mentality. and more than any group up there, congress has become very insular. they pass these laws. i mean, obama care was pass around 10:00 at night, 12:00. nobody got to see the final legislation. that's because they pat each other on the back. they get along. all great and so forth. in terms of citizen participation, because of incumbency like gerrymandering, free media, look at jahmeshia is on tv about every 14 minutes as an example, it becomes more and more difficult for citizen challengers to be effective. that's what the framers wanted, really. >> you look at gerrymandering in this country. the house of representatives. depending on the district is extremely difficult to dislodge an incumbent. what i'm saying is there ought to be a -- and the framers, i

think, based on their own writings would be stunned by what's going on. so i think we ought to try and portray what they were intending to do. >> let's go to the second amendment to call to restore the senate and the first thing you do, the 17th amendment is here by repealed and all senators shall be chosen by the state legislators as rescribed by article i. anybody disagree? terry jeffrey. we'll get to you in a second. this was the original intention and the way we used to do it. explain. >> and it was defective. but this was part of the progressive movement in 1913. this along with the federal income tax. and the reason is the progressives were trying to weaken the states as they always are. so, they attacked the states where the states had the only institution where they had a voice in the federal government and it was absolutely crucial, too, or there would be no constitution today because the states insisted on a say in the

making of federal legislation. so, the federalists have always tried to diminish the states' role. always tried to empower the federal government. now you can see, you have senators -- i'll give you an example. the commonwealth of virginia. you had the attorney general of virginia ken kunichinlli suing on obama care and then two senators from virginia doing what? voting for obama care. because their allegiance isn't to the state legislature or anything of the sort. it's not as important as some powerful lobby group on k street. >> people don't know this is the way it was done for 124 years. terry, your opposition to this? >> i agree with every other amendment mark proposes in the book it's unnecessary with the amendment steve opposes. it's 12 years in congress period. right now you can only serve six years in the senate and two terms would be max and people in

the senate serve in the house and people serving only one term in the united states senate. i saw john kerry say the other day he spent 29 years in the united states senate. he was many of those years a junior senator to ted kennedy and no turnover as mark says in the congress but you get the term limits in there and you let the people vote directly for the senators and that's going to keep people active in the politics just by the way i think mark's call for the convention is going to make people more interested in the grass roots on who gets in to their state legislature. >> quick response to you. >> well, 12 years, they can do a hell of a lot of damage. we have a president for eight years and the term limits is very, very important. but who are they representing in the 12 years? they claim to represent the people of the state. they don't -- they may or they may not. the problem isn't just limited to 12 years. the problem is the states don't have any say in the legislation coming down the pike, there two months or five years or 25

years. >> we'll take a break. >> we'll take a break. as we continue on this special license and registration please. what's this? uhh, it's my geico insurance id card, sir. it's digital, uh, pretty cool right? maybe. you know why i pulled you over today? because i'm a pig driving a convertible?

tail light's out.. fix it. digital insurance id cards. just a click away with the geico mobile app. accomplishing even little things can become major victories. i'm phil mickelson, pro golfer. when i was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis, my rheumatologist prescribed enbrel for my pain and stiffness, and to help stop joint damage. [ male announcer ] enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events

including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. you should not start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doct if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have symptoms such as persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or palens. nce enbrel helped relieve my joint pain, it's the little things that mean the most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists.

welcome back to the special audience edition of "hannity"

and now bringing in the studio audience. now amendment three, term limits for the supreme court justices and a super majority legislative override. audience, agree? hands up. how many disagree? all right. well -- this -- go ahead, andy. >> why a super majority, mark? >> of what? >> why a super majority to override the supreme court? one unelected lawyer can -- >> today it's zero and so -- and i do respect the notion of the independence of the supreme court. and i'm not advancing the notion of majoritarianism but i don't believe there's a historical justification and i challenge anybody to present it to have one person on the supreme court shifting the nation radically in

one direction or another on a whole host of issues that don't belong in front of the supreme court. that belong in the states if even there. these are nine imperfect human beings. historically, some have been extremely imperfect. the supreme court's had some great decisions and some real doozies. dread scott is the prime example. but there are many. what if we had recourse to dread scott short of civil war? look at roe v. wade. whatever your opinion is, the nation is permanently divided on this without resolution. i don't know how you can call it a constitutional republic when something of that nature occurs. judicial review is an implied power in the constitution. somebody has to make a final decision. but a final decision that affects society's so thoroughly and the society is still anxious

and frustrated by it, there has to be some kind of recourse to it and why should n't it be a broader segment of the populati population, a broader segment of the society. not popular vote. three fifths of the states. you know, we conservatives, we talk about federalism all the time. so do we support federalism or don't we support federalism? are the states so rotten and the federal government so wonderful? is the supreme court so beautiful and nobody else can make decisions? i don't believe that for a minute. >> anybody want to respond to that? >> i have silenced there. >> jeffrey lord, go ahead. >> you mentioned settled law. i mean, i remember arlen specter grilling roberts or alito about can't we consider roe v. wade as settled law? we don't think it's settled law and how do we decide what's settled law in terms of opposing these things? >> it is more settled if society more broadly makes the decision.

it is unsettled if a supreme court uses invisible ink and adds language to the constitution that simply does not exist. and this is a broader point i'd like to make. the left is in a nullification. the left nullifies the constitution. it nullifies parts of the constitution. and then when somebody like me dares to say, well, let's embrace that part of the constitution that allows us to re-establish it, you don't support the constitution? these people are doing the fan dance and what i'm trying to say is, these are suggestions i'm making to re-establish a constitutional republic. i don't have unassailable knowledge. we'll have an opportunity to avoid what i think is, you know, as a republic, doom. because i don't think we have a lot of time and i think this is something i hope that people will begin to talk about whether they agree with the particular

amendment or not. >> you talk about lincoln and dread scott. you talk about jefferson. he was upset over marlboro madison. you talked about woodrow wilson you said endorsing tyranny an you look at three phases where they have accumulated a lot more power than you think were originally intended. >> what's particularly interesting about madison is that there's a belief that that was a great decision. well, at the time it was considered a power grabby the supreme court by jefferson and madison and others. and jefferson's arch enemy was, in fact, marshal. marshal was the secretary of state. who signed those certificate for the judge who is later sued when jefferson became president claiming that they had a right to those appointments. and madison was his secretary of state and said, no, you don't and there's marshal who's chief justice of the united states supreme court ruling on decision

that is he made and apart from that, saying, hey, look, we have the right to make some of these decisions on the constitution. somebody has to. when it wasn't a constitutional question. all i'm saying is, great, marlboro versus madison. today's it's judicial activism. >> 'em not talking about judicial independence but judicial supremacy. i read these cases. as part of my living that i make. some of them are so outrageous and outlandish and to sit here in june every day to sit on the edge of our seats to wait for a breathtaking decision coming down from on high when you read it and say, good god, what a knucklehead decision here and it affects the entire nation? i think a great republic can do better than that. >> we'll take a break and come back with more. the new book "the liberty amendments." log on to the special companion site. you follow the live show, share your thoughts on this and much more and twitt

[ greg ] i like to golf all morning.

that's why i eat belvita at breakfast. it's made with delicious ingredients, then carefully baked to release steady energy that lasts. we're golfing now, buddy! i got it! belvita.teady energy. all morninlong. [ female announcer ] and now introducing new belvita soft-baked breakfast biscuits. made with delicious ingredients and whole grains, they'll give you 20% of your daily fiber... and a new way to get nutritious morning energy. available in mixed berry and oats & chocolate. available in mixed berry help the gulf when we made recover and learn the gulf, bp from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap

and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, whe experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger.

welcome back to the special audience edition of "hannity." we continue to mark levin. let me throw up four of the amendments. number four, two amendments to limit federal spending and taxing. number five, an amendment to limit the federal bureaucracy. number six, an amendment to promote free enterprise. number seven, an amendment to protect private property. it's a lot you're throwing up there. but especially as it relates to limiting spending and taxing, you talk at length how this is a coming ka it iscatastrophe. this is our undoing. a nation cannot survive with unfunded liabilities. >> there's no question about it an they're not going to do anything about it.

every time there's a continuing resolution, it passes. with a debt ceiling resolution, it passes. under a republican president, democrat presidents. the most profly kated administration before this was the republican administration before it, george w. bush, and for six years, a republican house and republican senate. that did it for me. i thought, let's elect republicans. it doesn't work that way. and even when you look at obama care right now, it's as if we're talking about armageddon to try to defund it. we can't have the fight over it because we might lose seats. well, let me suggest this to the republican party. why don't you propose tripling the spending on obama care, change your name to democrats and you might win seats then. the bottom line on all of these amendments is this. yeah? >> i want you to add one thing. talking about taxing no more than 15% of an income and you want the deadline to file taxes the day before election day. not april 15th. the day before election day. >> i decided to look at a

calendar. like the two furthest dates possible are election day and tax day. make them the most closer. instead of what they say, we feel what they have done to us, those of us who still pay taxes and fresh in our mind in that voting booth and ticked about what they have done to us and our country. if we don't have a constitutional amendment to limit the spending, borrowing and printing of the federal government and if we don't have a sister amendment to limit the type of taxing and the limit on taxation, we're not going to be a free people. milton freedman made the point over and over again. your profit rights, whether it's income, intellectual, physical labor, that is intertwined with the liberty and you can see now in the federal government, you need more skin in the game. 40%, 50%. i would just make this point. when you wake up every day and go to work and you come back every night after you've worked, the government like the mob is

claiming 40% orof what you have, no matter how they waste the money, no matter if they vit la the constitution and talk about redistributing weather and the rest, these are ill legitimate purposes. >> you write in the book, he writes about we're on the path to financial ruin, 2008, $10 trillion debt. now $17 trillion debt. reaction? >> first of all, i applaud you not only for your books but every day making the constitution come to life. >> thank you, nigel. >> it is important because for us to be successful we have to bring the constitution to life and we have to educate and inform the low informed and the misinformed voter. i see us all here as missionaries for preaching the gospel of limited government. >> well said. >> is that something that you think is a priority for us? >> i think it is the priority. and you know, before any of these things can happen, we have to make the case. that was beautifully said. my point is, that we're all paul and paulette reveres.

we don't have to be experts on the constitution but a working knowledge of what it is we're trying to do. i think the american people are disgusted and fed up. you look at the rating congress gets, the rating the president drops and the supreme court dropping. and you know what? the worse it gets and going to get worse, the more the people are going to be disgusted with their government. this gives them an out. it at least gives us an opportunity to discuss what's possible under our constitution. >> congratulations on the book. great to see you. >> thank you, monica. >> 2008 president obama spoke repeatedly about the fundamental trance or the mags of the nation. we have five years of evidence as to what he meant by that. meaning, move the united states away from a constitutional republic based on individual liberty and economic freedom toward a government dependency and welfare state. my worry is he's moved us, he and the left moved us past the tipping point and more people are dependent on government than not and changing the very

character of the country. i worry about it. i hope i'm wrong. what do you think? >> i worry about it. i hope we're all wrong. but on the other hand, i'm not about to crawl up and surrender the greatest nation on the face of the earth. my father fought. my great uncle fought and would say get off your ass and do something about it. do we beg the congress to fix itself? begging that the supreme court comply with the constitution? that obama stay in town to do what he's supposed to do? no. they have a design and they're not the first. this is just, you know -- the trajectory in the nation is very bad. we had a respite with reagan and that was it. in the next republican president came in and lurched right back to the new deal notion. let them amend the constitution for them. if they want to redistribute wealth, let them try to amend the constitution. i'm suggesting that we propose a

nonradical constitutional way to try and address this and ultimately, monica, if the people don't want to be free they won't be free. >> we'll give you more of the amen [ shapiro ] at legalzoom, you can take care of virtually all your imptant legal matters in just minutes. protect youramily... and launch your dreams. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.

and launch your dreams. cheryl burke is cha-cha-ing in depend silhouette briefs for charity, to prove that with soft fabric and waistband, the best protection looks, fits, and feels just like underwear. get a free sample and try for yourself. i don't know. how did you get here? [ speaking in russian ] look, look, look... you probably want to get away as much as we do. with priceline express deals, you can get a fabulous hotel without bidding. think of the rubles you'll save. with one touch, fun in the sun. i like fun. well, that went exactly i as planned.. really?

welcome become to this special audience edition of "hannity." we continue with our guest of brilliant studio audience members. all of you. let's go through the remaining amendments and then questions. proposal eight, an amendment to grant the states authority to directly amend the constitution. number nine, an amendment to grant the states authority to check congress. number ten, an amendment to protect the vote. here's the thing. i think the states should have the ability to amend the constitution by two thirds vote. i figure if the supreme court could do it by 5-4 the states ought to have the ability by two thirds vote. and that's a tough super majority to get. so if people think that's just -- it's easy to change the -- it's not but it needs to be less than what it is today. also, i suggest that the states

by three fifths vote be able to override a federal statute or a federal regulation that has a value of $100 million or more. >> let's go to the audience. jenny beth martin, hi. >> mark, i love your book. and the thing that i rally like the most about it is that having seen the way that the irs is targeted tea party groups and other conservative groups, we have talked about this a lot. i think we have to get to the root of the problem and the root in that situation really is not another taxpayer bill of rights. we have had three of those. it is not solving the 73,000 pages of tax code and i applaud you and we look forward to making it a reality. >> thank you. it's wonderful. >> congratulations, mark. >> who are you again? huh? >> take note of this name. >> okay. david what? >> i became a reluctant convert just reading the first chapter alone. i was a skeptic.

i wrote a column opposing what i thought this was. it's not what i thought it was. but my question is, we all know that the people who would become the framers of constitution met to amend the articles of confederation and rewrote the entire document and made a new constitution. playing devil's advocate, i think i know the answer to this question. what would you say to those who are skeptics of the process saying this could be hijacked? if you open it up to the statists, it could end up they accelerate us faster in to statism and marxism. it is not really a good question. >> it is an excellent question. two points. first of all, the statists already have the system opened up to them. this is what woodrow wilson preached in a speech in 1906 where the courts would have more power than the other branches of government, where the president of the united states would exercise his power as fullsomely as he could.

where congress legislate where congress thinks it ought to legislate and the states are basically smothered. the statists have what they want and they'll continue to push that agenda. as for this -- if we open up the convention process, can want they take over the country and so forth, it takes three fourths of the state to ratify this. if they decide today they want to overturn the constitution of the country, they can do it. so, it's not like i'm opening pandora's box. pandora's box can be opened almost any time. >> i love the book. i read in it one sitting. >> thank you. >> cover to cover. not just the back cover. the whole thing. and my children thank you. their future children thank you for opening up this incredibly important and necessary discussion. here's my one concern and i -- you know, whether you agree or disagree with the particular amendments, this discussion and even the possibility of a

constitution convention presupposes a civic culture that embraces the things that we all hold in common, an appreciation of founding principles, industriousness. a rejection of the kind of secular extremism that got us in to this mess in the first place. how are we going to move forward? we all agree that we need to move forward by looking back at how we got here. but you've had generations of americans who have been brainwashed in the very progressivism that we're trying to fight to save the country. what do you do? >> that's a good point but here's -- here's my take on this. it took one third of the population to fight the revolutionary war. it takes the activists organizing to make the changes. you're never going to get a whole -- a broad swath of the american people, 70%, 80% to get

involved in this. a large percentage of the american people simply are not going to be involved as they haven't been in the revolutionary war. what's going on in washington now, you know, you read the polls about 20% of the american people say they're liberals. the 20% pretty much are running things and the rest of them, the republicans are status quo. so, we need to be that 20%, 30% or 40% to start pressing our case. look. here's the other thing. quh you start talking about these things, you don't know where they lead or do you start acting in ways that promote this kind of an agenda? we don't know where they're going to lead but if we don't do anything, i know where that leads. >> we have to take a break and continue with more. continue with more.

test test what makes your family smile? backflips and cartwheels. love, warmth. here, try this. backflips and camm, ok!s. ching! i like the fact that there's

lots of different tastes going on. mmmm! breakfast i'm very impressed. this is a great cereal! honey bunches of oats. i hear you crunching.

welcome back to the special audience edition of "hannity." we continue with mark levin. back to the distinguished groups of scholars. >> congratulations, mark. >> thank you. >> someone mentioned statists, monica mentioned the left. i'm tired of the elites claiming they want to help those who need help the most. look at what the epa is doing, for example, and how they're locking up the energy. we have the most abundant energy

resources in our country. is there anything in your book that addresses that issue and to do about it with the regulatio regulations? >> one of the to posed amendments would enable three fifths of the state to overturn any federal regulation with a $100 million value or more. >> we talk about the left and monica did earlier. my problem is what do the republicans do? if we're going to fix this issue, starting at the state level, we've gt to get rid of the elitists republicans and how the system itself wins. mitch mcconnell's a 30-year senator. rand paul talks the talk but endorses mitch mcconnell for six more years. the system is strong. what do we do about the republicans? >> well, first of all, we don't focus at that level. we focus at the delegate -- >> that's the example. >> i focus at the delegate and state senate level where you have a better opportunity for citizens to challenge these --

this sort of inbred political system. you're exactly right. the biggest problem initially is the french republicans because that's what they are. they give up. they're status quo. and so, we have to defeat them. >> surrender caucus. >> we have to go over their heads. we have to go around them. >> a new farm team? build new people. >> whatever we can do and done from the bottom up. >> mark, you and i spoke about this during our discussion on breitbart but i think people hearing about new constitutional amendments think about the social conservative amendment that is we hear about every four years in the republican primaries, same-sex marriage or abortion and you don't go in to those kind of issues in your book and i think it's very interesting to hear your explanation as to why. >> the amendments are aimed at the systemic problems. not any specific issue, pro /con in and that. who should be making the decisions, how we break up this

centralized concentration of power. and those decisions should be made where those decisions should be made. first and foremost, where possible at home. secondly, at the state level. but the federal government, really, the court, the supreme court and so forth. addressing have these big societial issues, how should they be addressed? i'm talking about federalism and unraveling the central government. whatever the issue is. unless it's in the constitution. >> hey, mark. how much of this problem do you think has to do with gop messaging? young people are drawn to libertarianism. they care about the civil liberties and the private property. they don't want to be told they have to purchase health insurance. is it having to do with the republican party not packaging what you're doing here as well as you are? >> i don't think the republican party establishment agrees with a damn thing i've said here today to be honest with you. i think they're happy with most

of this. they want to run things and they're timid and really, i think the focus has to be from the grass roots up, not the top down because that's where the statists are the most effective. and breaking up the system and i do think and argument about liberty and property rights and these sort of things will be attractive to young people and all people if we explain it properly but the republican establishment, i mean, mealy mouth. >> mark, i just want to say god bless you for what you're doing for our country. i wanted to touch on something michelle malkin mentioned and this is an idea of assimilation. we have folks on the board we are a package of food stamps and a democratic registration card across the border. how do we fix that? how do we tell the newcomers in to the country about the greatness of our nation? >> well, we can't rely on the federal government to do that, can we?

the fog's propaganda is welcome and this is the food stamps and the program and hire navigators and show you how to do that. i don't know how to answer that question. >> last but certainly not least -- >> i'll do my best. thank you for coming and spending your whole night with us. i can't -- i don't think we can leave here without addressing the next generation and we live in an entitlement society and the president of the united states calling 26-year-olds kids. how do you get young people who are going to pay what's going on now and pay for the $90 trillion in liabilities to be interested in things like the constitution and how it makes their lives better? >> you know, i think it wouldn't hurt to tell them the truth because they're feeding them a pile of you know what. we tell them the truth. you can't find the job because the centralized government type economy don't work. we tell them the truth about free speech. you know, all the speech codes on the college campus, that comes from the left.

it was up to us, you could speak freely. we go in to these issues because you're right. you're right. you're right. our agenda as conservatives should be the agenda that young people and the next generation support. but i'm going to tell you. they're going to come to us because this thing's going to collapse. this cannot keep up, whether it's the economy or any of the rest of it and we have to be prepared when that catastrophe occurs to lead. and hopefully, a part of the argument will be the argument in this book. >> all right. great one, mark levin. [ applause ] and thanks all of you for coming, as well. that is all the time we have left this evening. left this evening. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> alisyn: good morning, everyone. today is saturday, august 17th. i'm alisyn camerota. thanks for joining us bright and early. another nsa spying bombshell. not only did they break thousands of laws while watching americans, but they claim they did it all by mistake. this is the scandal that keeps getting worse. we'll explain it. >> muslim groups planning a million muslim march set to take place on, get, this 9/11. why? because they say they are the real victims of that attack. >> clayton: take a look at this. a woman not doing any favor to her genders. repeated attempted to exit the