Mark Levin interview: Are we any closer to a Constitutional convention?

April 02, 2015

WRITER

Mark Levin has championed the idea of holding a modern day Constitutional convention but few took the possibility of it actually happening seriously. Now, after government abuses continue to pile up, momentum is gaining. Will it actually happen? Glenn talks that and news of the day on radio.

Get more on this story from Mark's book The Liberty Amendments.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Mark Levin. Glad to have you.

MARK: Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: I'm great. I'm a little upset. I just talked to Kevin O'Connor, the owner of Memories Pizza in Indiana. Sweet, sweet guy. They're afraid of opening up their shop because a -- try this on for size. You ready? A local TV station just happened to Google, and they were just looking for a few of the local persons in the small town on the Freedom of Religion Act. And they just wanted to find some local -- and they just happened to find this place that was decorated for Easter and had a sign about how we pray, you know, as a family. So they went in and they asked the daughter if you were asked to cater a gay wedding, you know, as a pizza place, would you do it? And they said, no, but we don't refuse service to anybody here. You know, and we have gay customers and whatever. But now they're being hammered. And a teacher in Indiana tweeted, who will join me tonight at Memories Pizza to burn the place down to the ground?

MARK: You know what, tell me how many gay people who run pizzerias are prepared to conduct ceremonies at evangelical weddings? You know, we could turn this all around. The fact of the matter is, what's going on here is so un-American, and the media are so pathetic. So totalitarian.

GLENN: No, no, Mark, hang on just a second. I'm going the other way. I think this is getting great. Maybe we should have a night where we go out and we break down their doors or -- hey, I know, we break all of the glass and we do it at night and we call it maybe the night of broken glass -- that doesn't sound -- hey, that's classy sounding. Let's do that.

MARK: It is just amazing to me. People understand this law, all it does is provide people of faith who can demonstrate that providing service at -- let's say, this is just one example. At a same-sex wedding, substantially burdens their religious practices and beliefs. Then you get to go to court, then you have this high burden, it's a substantially high burden where you have to prove that it's substantially burdens your religious beliefs and practices. And if the court says no, you have to service that wedding.

GLENN: Here's the amazing thing, nobody would go -- nobody would do this to the Amish. It's just because Christians -- so many Christians appear to be hypocrites. Because, quite honestly, a lot of Christians are hypocrites. And they don't live their --

MARK: They don't care about the Christians who are hypocrites.

GLENN: I know that. I know that. So there are a lot of Christians who are like, I don't really care. It doesn't matter to me. I'll serve anybody. Sure. I'll go serve a -- you know, a devil worship, you know, ceremony. Whatever. I'll go do that.

MARK: I want to read you something. It's very short. I want to read you something because I know you'll move on eventually. I want to hit this.

James Madison, the first Congress. He was chairman of the House Conference Committee on the Bill of Rights. His first draft of religious liberty related to the first amendment, which became the first amendment, read as follows, quote: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any matter or on any pretext infringed. Unquote.

Now, getting it through the committee, the House, then to the Senate, then to the states, it changed to Congress shall make no law respecting the establishing of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But this was the mentality. This is the background. In other words, even our pre-colonial times, people came to this country for religious liberty. Now, if the country doesn't stand for religious liberty, what the hell does it stand for?

GLENN: It doesn't stand for anything right now.

Let me ask you this, Mark, that says conscience. I would go a step further. If there is somebody who is, you know, really big in the Planned Parenthood movement and was leading the charge for everybody has got to have birth control at birth you need to be able to get birth control. And somebody -- and they run a print shop. And somebody comes in and they're evangelical Christians and they're doing this magazine and flier and everything else that says, you know, no to abortion and everything else, that would violate their -- it would be hard for them to do. I believe they have a right to say, I'm not going to take your business.

MARK: Well, ultimately at least from our founding principles, you're correct.

But you see, the religious liberty now should be the new civil rights movement.

GLENN: Yes, it should.

MARK: Because it's under brutal assault. And, of course, it's under assault because we have damn few institutions left to stand up to big iron-fisted centralized government, and this is one of them.

But I'll tell you something else, Glenn, if they think they're going to find people of faith, whatever their faith is, who are just going to buckle under and say, all right, fine, I'll just throw my faith out the window and do what I'm told. And, you know, three years ago, this wasn't even a big issue, now it's a big issue. It ain't going to happen. People of faith, big faith. I don't mean sort of secularists who show up on Saturdays and Sundays depending on their faith. I mean people who are actually believers, they won't buckle under to this stuff.

GLENN: Does this bother you that we're talking about this while Christians, Muslims, atheists, and homosexuals are being thrown off a building by ISIS?

MARK: Well, you're right. It's amazing. And not just ISIS, by the IslamoNazi regime in Iran which we're negotiating with.

GLENN: Yeah, I find this incredible.

MARK: Are they doing that in Indiana, by the way?

GLENN: We're bashing a pizza parlor in Indiana, yet we're sitting down trying to find common ground with people who are currently killing, crucifying homosexuals.

MARK: Because it's easy. It's easy for some doofus who graduated with a D-minus from journalism school to go into a pizza parlor and harass a little girl. It's quite different if they actually flew over to Tehran and demonstrated that they are real journalists, they have really guts, but they're not. They're pathetic.

GLENN: Well, how about the journalist from Iran that is now no longer welcome because he spilled the beans and said it's like the United States is negotiating on behalf of Iran. And now he can't go back to Iran or he'll be killed and arrested.

MARK: Of course. That's quite right.

GLENN: There's real journalism for you. Let me switch subjects here. First of all, let me ask you about Iran. We had a conversation yesterday.

MARK: You asked it.

GLENN: I know that. We had a conversation yesterday. We can't let that stand. The Congress cannot let that stand. Do you think Congress will do anything if he comes back with a deal with Iran?

MARK: No. You know, they seem to think going on Fox and beating their chest is doing something. It's doing nothing. Here's what happened, Glenn. As soon as Mitch McConnell was elected, the next morning, he went in front of the Mitch McConnell Memorial, something or other, in Kentucky, and announced that we will not shut down the government.

Now, first of all, to preemptively blame yourself for shutting down the government seems fundamentally stupid to me, but there you go. That's number one.

Number two, what he really means by that is we're surrendering the power of the purse. If Congress surrenders the power of the purse, above all else, impeachment and the rest, it has no power. That's what congresses do. They spend money. They tax. They borrow. What the hell else do they do? So if every prior Congress uses the power of the purse to try and effect change in departments and agencies, in presidential directives, and so forth and so on, when you surrender that, you have no power left. So what are they going to do exactly? That's number one.

Number two, in the Senate, they should abolish the filibuster while this guy is president of the United States because that's a rule. That's not in the Constitution. In order to fight this imperial president. But he won't do it.

Now, you and I can talk until we're blue in the face. The answer is, they won't do anything to stop this president. He knows it. And this is why he pushes harder and harder and is more and more

despotic.

GLENN: I will tell you, Mark, I'm getting a lot of mail from people that say that you and I are among the only ones that are taking on Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, and the G.O.P. But I don't think that's true. I think there are millions of Americans who feel exactly the same way. These guys got to be stopped. They just have to be stopped.

MARK: Well, these guys have been hanging around forever. Let's look at Karl Rove. The architect, pretty funny, huh? Let's look at his record. Number one, in 2006, you know, when George Bush came in, he didn't win the popular quote. He did win legitimately the electoral college, so he was a legitimate president. But who was the architect of that? Rove. Then in 2006, we lose both the House and the Senate. They had a Republican House and Senate when they came in, we lost them both, under who? The architect. Karl Rove. We lose with McCain. We lose with Romney. Now they tell us conservatives can't win. This guy is a Svengali. You're right to take him on. I despise him. And I despise what he's doing to my party. It's still my party, barely. And I despise what he's doing to my country.

As for Grover Norquist, that is one seedy character, no question about it.

GLENN: Okay. Let me change this subject --

MARK: And, by the way, thank you for slamming away. And I've done everything I can on my social sites to support you.

GLENN: Well, thank you. I know that. And I know that I'm not alone because you were leading this with Karl Rove. You've been there before I was.

Let's talk a little about North Dakota. It became the 27th state to call for a constitutional convention. When I saw that there had been 27 states. This is your idea. It came from -- well, it was the founder's idea, but you're the one that brought it up in your book, and it caught fire. And when I saw that we were, what, six states away --

PAT: We're almost there.

MARK: Thirty-four we need.

PAT: Seven states. We need seven more. Now, so the legislatures of these 27 states, Mark, have already voted on this?

MARK: All right. Let me slow this down a little. Let me unravel this a little.

First of all, the language is important. Because the John Birchers who despise me -- and the feeling is mutual -- tell you that this is a constitutional convention. It is not. Article five says convention of the states.

GLENN: Okay.

MARK: There's a reason why that's important. They're not free to just go to this convention and throw out the Constitution. They actually have to go to a convention of the states. Look at it as a meeting of the states. The state sends delegates to meet, and they meet to discuss possible amendments to the Constitution, just as Congress meets all the time and they can propose amendments. Well, now a certain number of states can meet and propose amendments. Now, first of all, let's start right there.

Do we believe in federalism, or do we not? Do we believe the problem is this overbearing centralized federal leviathan, or do we not? So as conservatives, immediately this should be attractive to us. We have an ongoing constitutional convention, it's called the Supreme Court. We have an ongoing constitutional convention, it's called the president and Congress. They're changing, undermining, usurping the Constitution daily. This is the only recourse we have to fight back. That's number one.

Number two, I don't believe we should only be focused on a balanced budget amendment. Our problem is systemic. Our problem is structural. We are no longer a constitutional republic. Or federal republic. Or representative republic. I don't know what the hell we are. But we're not that. To say I just want a balance budget amendment. You'll be balancing the federal budget, but the Congress will still be out of control and Obama and the Supreme Court. That's why there are other things that need to be done. Term limits for members of Congress. Term limits on the Supreme Court and so forth.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: I will tell you, when I saw that it was only budget, I thought, well, that's a good start, but term limits should be in there as well. And everybody agrees on term limits, except those in power. And the only way it will happen is through a convention of states.

MARK: That's correct. The only way you'll bust up this entrenched professional class is to bust them up. Begging them to bust themselves up or beg them to restrain themselves, they're not going to do it.

GLENN: Here's the problem with this that I've not been able to solve. You've probably thought it all through. The problem is, not necessarily with the politicians, I mean, it is with the politicians. But it doesn't stop there. The State Department needs to be just fumigated. So how do you get -- you get new guys coming in all the time, you're going to have all the Karl Roves, all the professionals that are there, who are like, no, no, you don't know how the game is played. We've been setting this up for a long time. You just do this. How do you get the State Department to react to politicians? They think these guys will come and go. We'll be here forever.

MARK: Here's a couple things. Number one, this is why among my proposed reform amendments, three-fifths of the state legislatures. You know, the state legislatures, Glenn, acting together are more powerful than the federal government, period. This is what people don't get. The framers said, okay, here, we'll give you a fire alarm. And if the house is on fire, pull the damn thing. So my proposal is that the state legislatures, if three-fifths of the legislatures want to override a federal statute or a federal regulation -- if they can do it within two years, they do it. And there are other proposals in there. You're talking about the permanent bureaucracy.

GLENN: Yes.

MARK: Well, we have to elect people, or in my view, appoint senators through the state legislature process, who are going to do that.

GLENN: Amen.

MARK: We can only go so far. You've made the point that the real war here is a culture war. Okay, if Americans don't want to be free, they're not going to be free. You're the latest to say this. Franklin said it. Lincoln said it. Reagan said it. You've said it. It's true. If we don't want to be led by virtuous people, we won't be led by virtuous people. If we want to live under the iron fist of invisible shadowy consultants and operatives, then we will. But there are certain things we can do to address this like term limits, like giving the state legislatures the power to appoint senators again and giving state legislatures the power to override these outrageous federal regulations and federal statutes. We wouldn't have Obamacare today if the state legislatures would step up. We wouldn't have an out-of-control EPA today if the state legislatures would step up. So when I talk to these state senators and representatives, I say, pal, you have an obligation under the federal Constitution to step up. Now step up and do something.

GLENN: Mark Levin, it is great to talk to you. Great to have you on the air.

MARK: You're a good man, my brother.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.