John Karp's Reviews > Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

Liberty and Tyranny by Mark R. Levin
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
3966549
's review
Jul 14, 10

Read from July 06 to 14, 2010

Interesting read, so far. Author appears to be well versed in the Constitution. Certainly has an agenda in terms of this book and that's to bash Obama. I'm neither an Obama lover nor hater but I have a hard time calling everything black or white. I'm a little suspicious of anyone that takes an extreme point of view. His take on the Constitution is spot on - there are a lot of powers that should be leveraged by the states however over the last 200 years they've allowed the government to take over those powers, mostly (in my opinion) because states have been notorious for looking for handouts (i.e. Federal aid) for nearly everything. The one thing I'll take acception with is that one man, in just the last couple of years, is the major cause for the ills of our country. But still an intriguing read. I'd recommend this book to anyone.

Just a follow up observation... I can't help but think if you replaced the word "Statist" with "Jew" you could actually be reading Mein Kampf. Levin's writing style, at least in this book, is pretty inflamatory.
likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Liberty and Tyranny.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-1 of 1) (1 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Kirk (last edited Sep 18, 2010 12:08PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Kirk Sinclair While I would not say his take of the Constitution is in error, his take of the Statist court is such as to reveal a misunderstanding (perhaps willful) of what happened in the beginning of our history that undermines much of his argument. We started out with two main groups: those favoring centralized government to enable strong commerce were much the smaller but had greater influence than the states rights agrarian.

In 1800 the outgoing and soon to be extinct Federalists packed the Supreme Court, in 1805 the court made itself the final arbiter of the Constitution. Over the course of the nineteenth century it continually made decisions usurping the power of the states in favor of a centralized government that was more favorable to a corporate economy, ultimately at the expense of proprietors. It was during this time they brilliantly defined the corporation as an individual. That is why they came to be known as the laissez faire court.

You are correct in the sense that the ultimate power of law lies with the states, through the Amendment process of the Constitution. So why haven't they exerted this power? Amendments are an extremely less efficient process than Supreme Court decisions.

From 1935-1975 the "Statist" Supreme Court served one agenda. Before and after those years they still were Statist by Levin's definition, but for a different agenda, more corporate in nature. Ironically, one cause for the new "packing" in 1935 was a result of long jurisprudence usurping states rights through substantive due process.


back to top