Tom Coburn is up for a constitutional convention

posted at 8:21 pm on September 3, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Here’s an idea you hear almost every day. But you don’t always hear it from somebody like Tom Coburn. Maybe it’s time to bypass the dysfunctional Congress and just have a good old fashioned, Article V Constitutional convention.

Sen. Tom Coburn is pushing for a national convention to amend the Constitution.

The Oklahoma Republican, who has grown disenchanted with gridlock in Washington, will officially launch his effort after he retires from the Senate in a few months.

Support for a convention of the states to overhaul the nation’s charter document has increased among conservatives, who are frustrated by Congress’s failure to reform entitlement programs.

“I think [George] Mason was prophetic that we would devolve to where the federal government became too powerful, too big and too unwieldy. That’s why he put Article V in,” Coburn told The Hill in an interview.

As that article from The Hill notes, Coburn is making an important distinction between an Article V convention and a brand new Constitutional convention. The latter – assuming we can figure out exactly how that would be legally triggered and constructed – would offer the option of essentially scrapping the existing constitution, getting a clean sheet of paper and writing a new one from scratch. The Article V version would follow the rules as currently set forth.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The other facet of an Article V convention which I’ve seen a little confusion about on Twitter today is the apparent fear that the convention could essentially do whatever it wanted (assuming the votes were available) and march out to tell everyone how things were going to be. Not so in this case. The convention could propose as many amendments as they like, but each would still require ratification by 3/4 of the states. I would also note that the chances of this happening still strike me as low, since whichever ideological group is on the shorter end of having three quarters of the state legislatures is going to fight this tooth and nail.

But what I’m more curious about – if this actually were to come to pass – is the type of amendments which could garner the needed votes at the convention to make it out the door. And that would depend on the current makeup of the various state legislatures. The big, Democrat states wouldn’t have any sort of outsized voice in the process, since they would get the same vote as Wyoming on each proposal. The Democrats would obviously like to ram through some campaign finance restrictions to undue Citizens United, and perhaps some to cement entitlement programs in untouchable status. Conservatives will look at things to curb Executive branch power, force a more balanced budget, and perhaps restructure the tax code into a flatter shape. Maybe knock that pesky first phrase off the Second Amendment about militias just to eliminate confusion? I’m really not sure. What do you suppose will be put on the table if this were to actually happen, and what would have a chance of making it through?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I’d like one: No member of Congress or the President, Vice President, or cabinet member shall receive any income from any source until the United States can pay its bills without borrowing money. Any violation of this shall be punished by immediate execution on the floor of the Congress.

2) The President and Congress shall be immediately removed from office upon agreement of 3/4ths of the states, and elections shall be held immediately.

3) The 17th Amendment is repealed.

Vanceone on September 3, 2014 at 8:27 PM

The Democrats would obviously like to ram through some campaign finance restrictions to undue Citizens United, and perhaps some to cement entitlement programs in untouchable status.

dude you really need to up your game on this subject. demonrats and rethuglican wish list ain’t on the agenda. stuff like term limits for the dc clowns and balanced budgets that get 80% polling is.

newrouter on September 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM

ITS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!

It’s a convention of the states to purpose Amendments, damnit.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 8:29 PM

A member of congress suggests a big fckn waste of time. What novelty.

rik on September 3, 2014 at 8:32 PM

scrap? no
amend? yes

ted c on September 3, 2014 at 8:32 PM

dude you really need to up your game on this subject. demonrats and rethuglican wish list ain’t on the agenda. stuff like term limits for the dc clowns and balanced budgets that get 80% polling is.
newrouter on September 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM

I love this excuse. As if there wouldn’t be 13 red state legislators to stop the crazy anti-American Amendments purposed by our anti-American leftist troglodytes “citizens”.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Expose and remove the outright Communists from our political system, educational system and news media first. Then the Constitutional convention.

As is, nothing good will come of this. Democrats will vote in lockstep to block anything that even slightly limits their power. It will however give a microphone to a lot of militant feminist harpies screeching about the Equal Rights Amendment. Because we sure need that.

Gingotts on September 3, 2014 at 8:33 PM

I am Canadian, so might be wrong, but I thought this Art. 5 Convention was of the States…the federal mirror image to the Congressional amendment process. I didn’t think it was an actual constitutional convention, as stated in the headline, which could lead to a whole new constitution. If I gummed this up, forgive the Canuck.

Blaise on September 3, 2014 at 8:34 PM

It would be good to see a term limits amendment for Congress.

rob verdi on September 3, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Jazz…please read Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments. You may find your answer there as to what kind of amendments might be proposed.

theotherone on September 3, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Repeal the 16th Amendment, explicitly state that Congress has no power to levy a tax on income. Institute a national sales on goods and services excluding food, clothing, primary residential real estate and medical care. A poor person with a smartphone needs to have some skin in the game.

Set it at 5% with each Congress allowed to raise it, but only for that Congress. New Congress is back at 5%.

rbj on September 3, 2014 at 8:36 PM

What will happen if they decide to get rid of the 1st and 2nd amendments.

RickB on September 3, 2014 at 8:38 PM

It should only take a few decades huh..?

NeoKong on September 3, 2014 at 8:38 PM

The only Constitutional Amendment that will ever get any traction in this Congress is one that gives Congress the sole power to make amendments, most likely by voice vote.

BobMbx on September 3, 2014 at 8:39 PM

I am Canadian, so might be wrong, but I thought this Art. 5 Convention was of the States…the federal mirror image to the Congressional amendment process. I didn’t think it was an actual constitutional convention, as stated in the headline, which could lead to a whole new constitution. If I gummed this up, forgive the Canuck.
Blaise on September 3, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Correctomundo! Jazz doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 8:39 PM

What will happen if they decide to get rid of the 1st and 2nd amendments.
RickB on September 3, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Ridding the constitution of those amendments wouldn’t be on the agenda. And even if they were you don’t think there are at least 13 states to block such nonsense?

These Amendments still have to be ratified by 38 states.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Not gonna happen. Just ask Dirty Harry.

Steve Z on September 3, 2014 at 8:43 PM

What are these “rules” that you speak of?

MT on September 3, 2014 at 8:44 PM

There’s a reason he’s retiring…because he’s lost his marbles. As disfunctional as our government is now, I put my trust in our forefathers and not this bunch of clowns. This group couldn’t get a color by numbers picture right, much less the document that guarantees our liberty.

TulsAmerican on September 3, 2014 at 8:45 PM

ITS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!

It’s a convention of the states to purpose Amendments, damnit.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 8:29 PM

This…..

Electrongod on September 3, 2014 at 8:47 PM

There’s a reason he’s retiring…because he’s lost his marbles. As disfunctional as our government is now, I put my trust in our forefathers and not this bunch of clowns. This group couldn’t get a color by numbers picture right, much less the document that guarantees our liberty.
TulsAmerican on September 3, 2014 at 8:45 PM

I don’t understand this post. So you trust the solutions given to us by our forefathers but Coburn is nuts for suggesting we trust the solutions provided to us by our forefathers?

Huh?

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Not gonna happen. Just ask Dirty Harry.

Steve Z on September 3, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Dirty Harry is an ass…

And has no control over a State Convention.

Electrongod on September 3, 2014 at 8:48 PM

If 2/3 of the State Legislatures are needed to call such a convention, with so many states where the state House is controlled by one party and the state Senate by the other party, how could 34 states agree to call a Constitutional convention even to propose an amendment?

Steve Z on September 3, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Dirty Harry is an ass…
And has no control over a State Convention.
Electrongod on September 3, 2014 at 8:48 PM

This….our overlords in DC don’t get a say. They’re cut out of the process entirely.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM

If 2/3 of the State Legislatures are needed to call such a convention, with so many states where the state House is controlled by one party and the state Senate by the other party, how could 34 states agree to call a Constitutional convention even to propose an amendment?
Steve Z on September 3, 2014 at 8:49 PM

The wheels are already in motion. Last I checked we controlled at least 27 states houses. Get ready.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Read Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments”. He’s been at the forefront of the “convention of States”, rather than a constitutional convention, for well over a year.

grumpy_old_soldier on September 3, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Keep in mind that the current Constitution is honored more in the breach than in the observance.

Subotai Bahadur on September 3, 2014 at 8:52 PM

If 2/3 of the State Legislatures are needed to call such a convention, with so many states where the state House is controlled by one party and the state Senate by the other party, how could 34 states agree to call a Constitutional convention even to propose an amendment?

Steve Z on September 3, 2014 at 8:49 PM

You assume that the 34 states still kiss Obama’s ass..

But the two chambers of Congress have no control over a convention of the States….

It’s up to the states to reign in this out-of-control government…

Electrongod on September 3, 2014 at 8:53 PM

would have a chance of making it through

Given the current climate and characters involved?

NOTHING!

Sooner or later the whole financial mess is going to come crashing down.

Then and only then will people find out how little government they really need.

As for the leeches. They’ll die off quickly.

GarandFan on September 3, 2014 at 8:56 PM

No way No how on Article V convention. Why? Just who do you think will represent the people at such a convention? I don’t trust this path at all or what would come out of such a convention. Not now, not while leftist are pretty much running the show. There is only one way to save the republic and soon the that door will be closed also.

bgibbs1000 on September 3, 2014 at 8:59 PM

It annoys and depresses me that even to discuss the possibility of making amendments the discussion automatically turns to cutting a deal across the aisle and deciding what to give the Democrats in order to get them to vote for amendments that would benefit the entire nation.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM

here’s an amendment:

Congress shall pass no law, nor shall the President issue any Executive Order, which does not apply fully to every citizen of these United States. Neither Congress, nor the President, may exempt any citizen, for whatever reason, from inclusion under the full strength of such laws or executive orders.”

And:

All federal salaries and benefits for federal workers, members of Congress, the President and all of their staffs, aides, and other employees, shall be directly linked to the pay scales of the United States Military.

In other words, no member of Congress, nor the President make make any law which does not fully apply to them as well, and no government employee may ever be paid more than the highest pay grade of the US Military.

TKindred on September 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM

No way No how on Article V convention. Why? Just who do you think will represent the people at such a convention? I don’t trust this path at all or what would come out of such a convention. Not now, not while leftist are pretty much running the show. There is only one way to save the republic and soon the that door will be closed also.
bgibbs1000 on September 3, 2014 at 8:59 PM

The leftist a control the federal level. The state level, not so much.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 9:03 PM

How would such a convention be governed? If history is any guide, I suspect Congress would (in the unlikely event that this ever happened in the first place) attempt to first set operating rules which would be used to control the procedure and the processing all of the proposed amendments. This would be done in such a way to offset the interests of the state legislatures themselves and they would claim that they, being Congress, are legally empowered to do so.

On the other hand, I would think that once this type of convention were called, it would be legal and official whether Congress recognized it or not, and the legislatures can work out amendments and ratification of those amendments among themselves. This would be much the same way sovereign nations work out treaties between themselves. The role of Congress in this case would be nullified, and rightly so.

Another important thing to consider is when is this type of convention closed? What does it take and who would take the action to say that no further amendments would be taken under consideration? I would say that it doesn’t have to close, and that this would give the states (by 3/4 majorities) the power to circumvent Congress completely and forever after, once it is initially convened.

Just saying.

Jay Bee on September 3, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Any congressman that reaches 80 years of age gets rolled out of the Capitol building in a wheel barrel and dumped on the curb.

I’m tired of these senile old fogies running things.

MichaelGabriel on September 3, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Any congressman that reaches 80 years of age gets rolled out of the Capitol building in a wheel barrel and dumped on the curb.
I’m tired of these senile old fogies running things.
MichaelGabriel on September 3, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Term limits. No more than 12 years in either chamber or a combo of both. Term limits on justices too.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 9:06 PM

What do you suppose will be put on the table if this were to actually happen, and what would have a chance of making it through?

Term limits for Congress.

Bring sanity to the Interstate Commerce Clause and toss Wickard v. Filburn. Anything produced and consumed locally is not the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Get the federal government out of regulating education. If they want to help failing schools with cash they are welcome to. They can’t use that as a wedge to regulate all education.

Rocks on September 3, 2014 at 9:08 PM

You assume that the 34 states still kiss Obama’s ass..

But the two chambers of Congress have no control over a convention of the States….

It’s up to the states to reign in this out-of-control government…

Electrongod on September 3, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Those 34 don’t and they’re fine, but it’s the other 23 that love Barky and will block anything useful from coming out of this.

Gingotts on September 3, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Clueless author. I expect more from HotAir.

MaxBC on September 3, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Absolutely not. Not until obama is OUT of office, conservatives dominate the house and at least republicans (prefer conservatives) run the senate. Only then if an amendment can be added to somehow bar any socialist, liberal, progressive, communist, etc. policies from being passed into law and any members of these SICK organizations be barred from holding national office because their very ideals and philosophies counter the ideals and philosophies of why America was formed; meaning INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Introducing a bill or candidate for office that is counter to this amendment should be punishable by a range of a minimum mandatory 20 years in prison with no media or organizational contact on up to death if the actions against the constitution were found to be treasonous. No appeals, just death.

Pretty stringent standard here, granted, but if liberals were allowed to play with the constitution it’s not guaranteed the freaking RINOs wouldn’t go along with it and butt screw us out of a country completely. Not like that isn’t a likely scenario…you have to admit.

Diluculo on September 3, 2014 at 9:14 PM

ITS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!

It’s a convention of the states to purpose Amendments, damnit.

jawkneemusic on September 3, 2014 at 8:29 PM

I second that emotion!

Buckshots on September 3, 2014 at 9:25 PM

We need an amendment that sets penalties for Congress if they fail to follow the Constitution (some recent offenses like failing to produce a budget or keep a strong border defense come to mind). Right now, they seem to have an attitude of “what are you gonna do, throw us all in jail?” All these new amendments are fine and dandy, but they won’t be worth jack if Congress just disregards them and goes on their merry spendaholic ways.

“But we can vote them out”, you say. Yeah, how’s that working out for ya? It’s tragic yet laughable that a Congress that has an approval rating close to single digits still manages to consistently re-elect 80-90% of its incumbents. The traditional method isn’t working, thanks to political machines, apathetic adults and a small group of voters that’ll happily do and vote as their party bosses tell them to.

We need drastic punishments ranging from the Supreme Court taking control of the budget, to automatic budget percentage cuts, to the military branch enforcing those activities, to maybe even a “death penalty term limit”, in which every Congressman and Senator is ineligible for re-election at the end of their term.

TMOverbeck on September 3, 2014 at 9:27 PM

,et’s see, they don’t follow it now.

But if we change it they might.

They are leftist.

After the shooting stops, maybe.

wolly4321 on September 3, 2014 at 9:31 PM

For everyone commenting on how it’s not a constitutional convention, you might want to read the article and not just the headline. From the post above:

As that article from The Hill notes, Coburn is making an important distinction between an Article V convention and a brand new Constitutional convention. The latter – assuming we can figure out exactly how that would be legally triggered and constructed – would offer the option of essentially scrapping the existing constitution, getting a clean sheet of paper and writing a new one from scratch. The Article V version would follow the rules as currently set forth.

Jazz Shaw on September 3, 2014 at 9:32 PM

I’d like one: No member of Congress or the President, Vice President, or cabinet member shall receive any income from any source until the United States can pay its bills without borrowing money. Any violation of this shall be punished by immediate execution on the floor of the Congress.

2) The President and Congress shall be immediately removed from office upon agreement of 3/4ths of the states, and elections shall be held immediately.

3 1) The 17th Amendment is repealed.

Vanceone on September 3, 2014 at 8:27 PM

.
That’s more like what will really pass… definitely get rid of the 17th and the 16th.

ExpressoBold on September 3, 2014 at 9:32 PM

The Democrats would obviously like to ram through some campaign finance restrictions to undue Citizens United – Jazz Shaw

.
The Noah Rothman Skool of Spellin… sorry, couldn’t resist!

ExpressoBold on September 3, 2014 at 9:35 PM

What will happen if they decide to get rid of the 1st and 2nd amendments.

RickB

I’ve got news for you…if there are enough people/states willing to do that at one of these conventions, it’s going happen whether there’s a convention or not. Not having a convention isn’t going to stop it.

xblade on September 3, 2014 at 9:36 PM

term limits and a balanced budget amendment are a good start that will have broad support

commodore on September 3, 2014 at 9:50 PM

In other words, no member of Congress, nor the President make make any law which does not fully apply to them as well, and no government employee may ever be paid more than the highest pay grade of the US Military.

TKindred on September 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM

I would reconsider that. General officer can make > 200k/year. Senators/congresscritters are belowthat for the most part.

If you mean the highest enlisted then you’re closer to ‘fair’.

Mark Boabaca on September 3, 2014 at 9:54 PM

I’d like to repeal women’s suffrage. I don’t think women should be exposed to suffraging whilst making sammiches and fetching beer.

Oldnuke on September 3, 2014 at 10:06 PM

As was said before read The Liberty Ammendment by Mark Levin. Also visit conventionofstates.com. they have the latest news on the effort. I do not belong to the group but u had heard one of the state house speakers mention it as the site to go to.

Basically Congress has no role in this and the States set the rules for how it goes down. Also each individual states can choose delegates and empower them to only address certain proposals via approved state laws. The folks setting this up are doing everything they can to keep this in focus of returning power back to the individuals and states where it was originally meant to be. These rules also prevent the feared runaway convention.

And yes words mean things here, it is a convention of the states as specified in article 5.

mgron on September 3, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Sep 03, 2014 at 8:51 pm grumpy_old_soldier
Read Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments”. He’s been at the forefront of the “convention of States”, rather than a constitutional convention, for well over a year.

GOOGLE-DITTO!!
Levin has been a deeply informed and elegant voice in Constitutional law. And he reads better than Richard Epstein (although Epstein is in a class by himself).

Mike from NC on September 3, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Also the militia phrase isn’t pesky just misunderstood and horribly explained if at all. It exists as the purpose for why we have the second part of the amendment. It essentially means that we have the right to bear arms to form militias as necessary to defend the state. Its better to have an armed citizenry ready to join a militia than having to count on arming it when called. I may be off on that but reading federalist 46 really brings those two concepts together.

mgron on September 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Jazz Shaw on September 3, 2014 at 9:32 PM

I’m looking for the part that says Coburn is up for a ConCon. Seems to me he is veering towards an Article V States Amendment Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution versus a ConCon which would be much more than that. I see where it states he is making a distinction between the two but not a preference or a nod for a ConCon.

For everyone commenting on how it’s not a constitutional convention, you might want to read the article and not just the headline. From the post above

By the way if I’m stupid for not seeing it, then fine I’m stupid. So be it. However, I have enough sense not to be rude. Please don’t condescend by accusing us of not reading the post.

Buckshots on September 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM

It is a big disappointment when those on our side get so very much wrong when writing on this topic, as Jazz does above and as the otherwise tremendously admirable Phylis Schafly http://tinyurl.com/ngxland

I wish somebody had the ability to point these otherwise fine people to understand that the State authorizes delegates to an Article V convention. In granting agency to these delegates, they may stipulate any number of premises upon which that agency depends. Please read the Indiana Article V delegate authorization, and it should serve to improve understanding of how a State has the ability to restrict Schafly’s feared “con-con”. http://tinyurl.com/nxx42cy

Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version: In order for a delegate to be recognized by a State, that delegate must adhere to the ground rules established by that State. Any deviation means the action taken by the delegate is void (and further: is punishable as a crime).

It is tiresome to repeat this over and over and over and over and over but for crap sake it must be repeated, since evidently some (even now) are unaware of this.

I weep for this nation.

roscopico on September 3, 2014 at 11:39 PM

In simpler terms: Let’s say I hired somebody (and “Agent”) to sell my house, and stipulated (in writing) that the lowest amount I would accept was $100,000.00.
When they came back the next day to tell me they had sold it for $1.00, would that sale conform to the ground-rules?

No.

The “Agent” violated the terms of their authorization to serve, since they violated the conditions of their “agency”.

This is all elementary.

roscopico on September 3, 2014 at 11:48 PM

In simpler terms: Let’s say I hired somebody (an “Agent”) to sell my house, and stipulated (in writing) that the lowest amount I would accept was $100,000.00.
When they came back the next day to tell me they had sold it for $1.00, would that sale conform to the ground-rules?

No.

The “Agent” violated the terms of their authorization to serve, since they violated the conditions of their “agency”.

This is all elementary.

roscopico on September 3, 2014 at 11:49 PM

For everyone commenting on how it’s not a constitutional convention, you might want to read the article and not just the headline. From the post above:

As that article from The Hill notes, Coburn is making an important distinction between an Article V convention and a brand new Constitutional convention. The latter – assuming we can figure out exactly how that would be legally triggered and constructed – would offer the option of essentially scrapping the existing constitution, getting a clean sheet of paper and writing a new one from scratch. The Article V version would follow the rules as currently set forth.

Jazz Shaw on September 3, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Well then maybe you should change the title of *your* article since right now, *your* headline says Tom Coburn is up for a constitutional convention. An Article V Convention is completely different from a Constitutional Convention. You are being deliberately misleading since you obviously seem to know the difference.

NWConservative on September 3, 2014 at 11:58 PM

Those 34 don’t and they’re fine, but it’s the other 23 that love Barky and will block anything useful from coming out of this.

Gingotts on September 3, 2014 at 9:10 PM

I see what you did there! LOL!

NWConservative on September 4, 2014 at 12:01 AM

Article V MUST be invoked to save our Republic. Let the states figure out which Amendments to propose. No way should ANY Federally elected official have ANYTHING to do with a Consitutional Convention.

Many have already stated, READ Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments. While you are at it read his Liberty & Tyranny, Ameritopia & Men in Black. He is a fantastic writer!

Shame on HotAir for NEVER acknowledging or reviewing Levin’s books. He has his finger on the pulse on the Constitution and how to save this Republic.

Conservative4Ever on September 4, 2014 at 12:18 AM

I think Obama would be pleased.
After ramming through every unconstitutional Executive Action he can imagine to piss us off, the GOP will shoot themselves in the foot cementing those actions.
Isn’t this an Alinsky tactic?

nationspatriotcom on September 4, 2014 at 12:46 AM

I know many of these have already been answered, but some of these statements are just wrong.

A member of congress suggests a big fckn waste of time. What novelty.

rik on September 3, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Because relying on national Republicans to do something has been so productive? LOL.

Expose and remove the outright Communists from our political system, educational system and news media first. Then the Constitutional convention.

As is, nothing good will come of this. Democrats will vote in lockstep to block anything that even slightly limits their power. It will however give a microphone to a lot of militant feminist harpies screeching about the Equal Rights Amendment. Because we sure need that.

Gingotts on September 3, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Not going to happen. Ever.

Plus, I’m tired of waiting for national republicans to get their collective rears in order. We have been waiting now for what? 50 years or more for them to reduce government spending or power. They have not done anything of the sort. Every Republican president has only slowed the advance of government at best.

Time to let the states decide.

What will happen if they decide to get rid of the 1st and 2nd amendments.

RickB on September 3, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Right, because that is plausible nowadays right? With all the me, me, me liberal-tarians running around and the NRA keeping all but the most hardened democrat/communists in line?

I doubt either of those two eliminating amendments would even pass a single state legislature.

It should only take a few decades huh..?

NeoKong on September 3, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Since waiting on the national republicans has been so fruitful. We’ve been waiting for them to eliminate ANY federal bloat for how long now?

Not gonna happen. Just ask Dirty Harry.

Steve Z on September 3, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Dirty Harry gets no input as it is a convention of the states not a convention of the federal government.

There’s a reason he’s retiring…because he’s lost his marbles. As disfunctional as our government is now, I put my trust in our forefathers and not this bunch of clowns. This group couldn’t get a color by numbers picture right, much less the document that guarantees our liberty.

TulsAmerican on September 3, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Seriously, you should really look at this statement and jawkneemusic’s reply. Have you read the document our forefather’s wrote? I love the section they have under Article V!

No way No how on Article V convention. Why? Just who do you think will represent the people at such a convention? I don’t trust this path at all or what would come out of such a convention. Not now, not while leftist are pretty much running the show. There is only one way to save the republic and soon the that door will be closed also.

bgibbs1000 on September 3, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Because placing our trust with the Boehner’s and McConnell’s of the party has been so fruitful! And considering we also have the likes of Sheila Jackson Lee (dumber than dumb and racist), Slaughter (deem and pass tyrant), Weiner(serial sexter), Menendez(underage prostitutes), Cochran(senile old fool), and Hank Johnson(Has Guam tipped over yet?) representing us in the national Congress, I think a state appointed delegate would be just fine thank you very much.

Plus, do you know how many state legislatures are controlled by the republican party? Let me give you the answer: 27 legislatures+Nebraska(which I consider republican controlled). PLUS 5 more that have half of the legislature in republican control.

And finally, there are two ways to save the republic. The article V represents a permanent shift in reigning in the power of government. The ballot box is the other. And everyone has seen the results of that, a slow drift to the soft tyranny we are in now. And the results from the second method can be undone just as quickly as they come in. See permanent republican majority statement in 2004 and 40 year democrat majority statements in 2008.

Absolutely not. Not until obama is OUT of office, conservatives dominate the house and at least republicans (prefer conservatives) run the senate. Only then if an amendment can be added to somehow bar any socialist, liberal, progressive, communist, etc. policies from being passed into law and any members of these SICK organizations be barred from holding national office because their very ideals and philosophies counter the ideals and philosophies of why America was formed; meaning INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Introducing a bill or candidate for office that is counter to this amendment should be punishable by a range of a minimum mandatory 20 years in prison with no media or organizational contact on up to death if the actions against the constitution were found to be treasonous. No appeals, just death.

Pretty stringent standard here, granted, but if liberals were allowed to play with the constitution it’s not guaranteed the freaking RINOs wouldn’t go along with it and butt screw us out of a country completely. Not like that isn’t a likely scenario…you have to admit.

Diluculo on September 3, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Read the Constitution. There is this little section called Article V which establishes two ways of amending the constitution. You are talking about federal amendments. Everyone else is trying to get the other way started by STATE LEGISLATURES.

You cannot outlaw ideology. You cannot legislate it away. Lawbooks don’t battle leftists, you have to. You have to fight against their ideas, disprove them, and communicate why YOURS is better! The muslim brotherhood still exists in Egypt even though it is a crime to be a member, it is officially disbanded by the government, yet it still has a large minority of support. Christianity was outlawed in the Roman Empire, they were persecuted and sentenced to death in the arenas. Yet they persevered and became the official religion of Rome. Fight against these ideas or they will win in a vacuum.

Secondly, any amendments from an Article V convention would still need to be passed by THIRTY EIGHT state legislatures. You only need THIRTEEN state legislatures to block any amendment. Your amendments would never pass that roadblock. Just like removing the second amendment surely would not either.

term limits and a balanced budget amendment are a good start that will have broad support

commodore on September 3, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Term limits would definitely pass. I don’t support a balanced budget amendment by itself, as it needs to be paired with a total GDP spending limit, otherwise you will just give Democrats an excuse to run up spending and then force Republicans to choose to support tax increases or be in violation of the constitution because the budget “has to be balanced.”

NWConservative on September 4, 2014 at 12:57 AM

The Oklahoma Republican, who has grown disenchanted with gridlock in Washington…

While I would love to have a tightly controlled state driven constitutional convention, we must be very careful. Tom Coburn has too often been a guy too happy to ‘Go along & Get along’ with his Democrat buddies.

RJL on September 4, 2014 at 4:33 AM

Coburn is a gullible moron, as usual

Don’t touch the constitution, obey it.

TexasJew on September 4, 2014 at 5:01 AM

Jazz you are thinking small potatoes in terms of what amendments could get through. Term limits, repeal of income tax, repeal of popular vote for the Senate, and an assertion of the right of state legislatures to override a federal court decision would be my top priorities that I think are doable. The one that would be tougher but ideal is the ability of the state legislatures to override any federal law and/or congressional reauthorization of departments and agencies.

demotheses on September 4, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Another amendment I would suggest is to alter the impeachment process a little, so that the president’s fate is either decided by a) an impartial jury of delegates selected by the state legislatures, b) votes by the supreme courts from each state, or c) the Supreme Court itself, minus any justices appointed by the impeached President. The Senate would then just join the House in voting yay or nay on impeachment.

Right now, giving the Senate the power to impose the verdict just guarantees that the outcome will be less impartial than partisan (especially with the 17th Amendment in effect). There’s plenty of Democratic Senators that would vote to acquit Obama even if he was standing in their chamber with Ted Cruz’s head in one hand and a bloody sword in the other.

TMOverbeck on September 4, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Or make that Harry Reid’s head. Anyway, you get the gist.

TMOverbeck on September 4, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Wow. As sharp as some of you commenters here are it is really demoralizing to hear you argue against an Article V Amendment without knowing all of the relevant facts. Why not educate yourselves? It is already in progress:

Convention of States

There are grassroots organizations already in place in all 50 states, and FL, GA, and AL have already passed the applications through both houses. Many more state legislatures are in progress.

If you’re going to argue about what an Article V convention is, at least do your homework.

Ms. Anthrope on September 4, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Two things would need to come out of this
#1 TERM LIMITS: Can anyone explain why someone need forty years in the senate or the house?? We need to go back to citizen legislators. Go to Washington DC make your changes and then go back to your life. Right now congress is welfare for people who do nothing more than talk a lot.
#2 Balanced budget amendment: This would require the budget to be balanced within five years or else all terms would be forfeit and all members of congress would have to stand for reelection and tell the people why they can’t get the budget balanced. Also congress must have a budget once every two years or the same thing will happen.
Changes these two things and a lot of what is wrong in Washington will change.

falcaner on September 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM

mgron on September 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following examples of usage for the term “well regulated”:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us . . . well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time . . . is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

However, the most important part of the Second Amendment is that it doesn’t grant the people a right, but recognizes a pre-existing right of the people.

Tyrants pretend not to understand this. Morons do not.

Akzed on September 4, 2014 at 9:52 AM

NWConservative on September 4, 2014 at 12:57 AM

Ms. Anthrope on September 4, 2014 at 9:40 AM

This. Thank you for your inputs.

Folks there are three ways left to decisively reign in the federal government:

1. Article V Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments.

2. State nullification under the framework of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.

3. Armed conflict.

That’s it. Let me repeat, that is it. Once you accept that the federal government is currently holding a drawn out Constitutional Convention every single day it functions, then you will realize that the small mitigated risks associated with an Article V COS are trivial.

State nullification is a good short term tactic and not mutually exclusive from an Article V COS movement. Article V COS is a long term strategy to structurally reassert the original Constitution.

I was and am an active member of the COS movement in Florida. Your state reps and senators are easy to contact and converse with. The process by which we pushed and ultimitely passed the Article V COS here in Florida was relatively easy. It just takes an engaged citizenry.

Read Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments and join conventionofstates.com

Meat Fighter on September 4, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Lots of people here who don’t understand the difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention to Propose New Amendments.

The fear that Democrats in Congress could ram thru anything is based on ignorance. The moment this gets picked up by the state-run media is the moment it gets branded as a racist, right-wing, Tea Party action. Democrats at that point wouldn’t get involved claiming it’s extremist.

The fear that the Constitution could be dismantled is based on ignorance. An Article V Convention is a last ditch Constitutional remedy to reign in an out of control government before the Constitution is dismantled.

UnstChem on September 4, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Coburn is a gullible moron, as usual

Don’t touch the constitution, obey it.

TexasJew on September 4, 2014 at 5:01 AM

Um, no. In this instance, he is completely right.

NWConservative on September 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM

I would be nervous as we have a history in which actual, substantive Constitutional Amendments at the Federal and State level have been ignored by the courts, who give more weight to pre-amendment precedent than the actual words and intent of the Amendment. The court, in essence, ignored the 14th Amendment for decades and I seem to recall a California court invalidating a ratified Constitutional Amendment to the state document based on little more than their dislike of the change.

If we were to revise the Constitution, I would rescind the 17th Amendment, add a balanced budget amendment, and preclude the feds and the states from in any way infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

I would specifically forbid all forms of government mandated political correctness. I would also write an amendment that allows individual citizens the power to directly sue politicians and regulators personally for actions that are contrary to the law.

I would make violations of individual 4th amendment rights criminal and allow class actions suits against agencies believed to guilty of abuse.

I would tie all federal salaries to the average of salaries paid to normal citizens. I would make an explicit difference between an earned federal benefit and simple welfare.

JIMV on September 4, 2014 at 2:06 PM

I would be nervous as we have a history in which actual, substantive Constitutional Amendments at the Federal and State level have been ignored by the courts, who give more weight to pre-amendment precedent than the actual words and intent of the Amendment. The court, in essence, ignored the 14th Amendment for decades and I seem to recall a California court invalidating a ratified Constitutional Amendment to the state document based on little more than their dislike of the change.

If we were to revise the Constitution, I would rescind the 17th Amendment, add a balanced budget amendment, and preclude the feds and the states from in any way infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

I would specifically forbid all forms of government mandated political correctness. I would also write an amendment that allows individual citizens the power to directly sue politicians and regulators personally for actions that are contrary to the law.

I would make violations of individual 4th amendment rights criminal and allow class actions suits against agencies believed to guilty of abuse.

I would tie all federal salaries to the average of salaries paid to normal citizens. I would make an explicit difference between an earned federal benefit and simple welfare.

JIMV on September 4, 2014 at 2:06 PM

The problem is the changing English language. I would rather have the constitution written in Latin. A dead, but readable language is best for codification of the law. No interpretation needed!

In any new amendment, it needs to be written in as plain of language as possible so no wiggle room can be found.

NWConservative on September 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Clueless author. I expect more from HotAir.

MaxBC on September 3, 2014 at 9:13 PM

You shouldn’t unless you haven’t been paying attention.

earlgrey on September 4, 2014 at 3:44 PM