Coburn calls on Oklahomans to push for national constitutional convention

[Dori]

Coburn calls on Oklahomans to push for national constitutional convention

MUSKOGEE — U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn urged Oklahomans on Wednesday to join the movement for a national constitutional convention to cut down an oversized federal government and counter what he repeatedly referred to as a “lawless” Obama administration.
“I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions,” Coburn told about 300 people at the Muskogee Convention Center. “I have a great fear now of not having one.”

A national convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures is one of two ways the U.S. Constitution can be amended. Such a convention has never been called, largely because the Constitution itself was the product of a convention authorized only to amend the existing Articles of Confederation, but which replaced it entirely.

[DefiantSix]

The man's a retard.

Of all the possible ways to put the US back onto the straight and narrow, proverbially speaking, that one option is the one with the greatest likelihood of providing the con artists in office with the means to turn the knife back on we, the people, quickly and finally. This is because opening a constitutional convention cannot possibly be a limited thing: the whole document is laid open for revision, and it is literally no holds barred.

It would be the quickest way for the leftists who despise the founding document into a monstrosity created in their image and bearing little resemblance to the work Madison, Washington and the others left to us. Doubt me on this? How similar is the constitution we know and love to the original Articles of Confederation that the original constitutional convention was called to amend?

Even with the progressive 16th and 17th amendments hanging like cancers from it's framework, it isn't the constitution which needs changing in order to restore the republic to the United States. What is needed is a people of a mindset and training to govern themselves, let their neighbors largely govern themselves, and send representatives to government who will enshrine that ideal as the coin of the proverbial realm.

[Dori]

I think it's a great idea.

The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic

Philadelphia and the delegates to each state’s ratification convention foresaw a time when—despite their best efforts to forestall it—the Federal government might breach the Constitution’s limits and begin oppressing the people. Agencies such as the IRS and EPA and programs such as Obamacare demonstrate that the Framers’ fear was prescient. Therefore, the Framers provided two methods for amending the Constitution. The second was intended for our current circumstances—empowering the states to bypass Congress and call a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution. Levin argues that we, the people, can avoid a perilous outcome by seeking recourse, using the method called for in the Constitution itself.

[obumazombie]

I haven't read Mark Levin's new book on the subject. But I have listened to Mark over the years and I haven't disagreed with him once.

[DefiantSix]

I think it's a great idea.

The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic

Dori... Dori... Dori...

When the government is ignoring the laws already on record, MORE LAWS are not the answer.

[txradioguy]

Dori... Dori... Dori...

When the government is ignoring the laws already on record, MORE LAWS are not the answer.

What he's proposing is constitutional amendments passed by 2/3rds of the states.  And they are focused on stopping the blatant abuse of the Constitution by the Federal Government.

Congress won't have any say in it.  He's taking the Congress critters in D.C. completely out of the equation.  

It's a brilliant move.

[txradioguy]

I think it's a great idea.

Ditto.

[DefiantSix]

What he's proposing is constitutional amendments passed by 2/3rds of the states.  And they are focused on stopping the blatant abuse of the Constitution by the Federal Government.

Congress won't have any say in it.  He's taking the Congress critters in D.C. completely out of the equation. 

It's a brilliant move.

My understanding of Article V says it doesn't work that way. Changes to the constitution by the states are done through the mechanism of a constitutional convention - a dangerous course to set, because there is no way to restrict the scope of a constitutional convention: it opens the WHOLE document up for revision. Single amendments to the Constitution, according to my read of Article V, can only be initiated within the Congress.

I stand by my original assertion, though. The document is not at fault for the problems we are facing in government, particularly at the federal level. It is the officers of that federal government - elected and career bureaucrat alike - who are at the core of our problem. Changing the document will not in one stroke make those walking cluster****s in pin stripes suddenly feel compelled to toe the line.

Our test therefore - to see if the descendants are worthy of their founding ancestors - is to correct the core of the problem, and not permit the core of the problem to distract us into attempting to address the problem through easy sounding tangents.

[Eupher]

Let's look at Article V of the Constitution, shall we?

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.

This says, Defiant6, that EITHER the U.S. Congress (both Houses), whenever two-thirds of each decide; or two-thirds of the Legislatures of the States APPLY (whatever the hell THAT means), shall call a Convention....

....wait for it...

...FOR PROPOSING AMENDMENTS.

Ain't nothing in there about putting the whole Constitution up for grabs.

Did I miss something somewhere? I'm not at all sure where you get that business of an Article V Convention (which is its proper term, btw, as the only Constitutional Convention we ever had was back in the day) puts the entire Constitution on the proverbial chopping block.

Furthermore, Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798) and the Supreme Court Decision that came out of it, makes the case that the President does not have the power to veto a constitutional amendment.

[Eupher]

I do agree with you, D6, that COTUS itself isn't the problem -- it's our collective bastardization and ****ed up handling of it over the years, especially the 17th and 18th Amendments.

There are others, but these are the principle bed-wetters.

[txradioguy]

My understanding of Article V says it doesn't work that way. Changes to the constitution by the states are done through the mechanism of a constitutional convention - a dangerous course to set, because there is no way to restrict the scope of a constitutional convention: it opens the WHOLE document up for revision. Single amendments to the Constitution, according to my read of Article V, can only be initiated within the Congress.

That's the common mistake everyone makes.  It's not a Constitutional Convention...it's a convention to AMEND the Constitution.  Big difference.  And it doesn't open up the whole thing for revision.

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.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html

2/3rds of the states vote to hold an amendment convention. The motion is filed with the Archivist of the United States...he certifies that the necessary requirements have been met and then notifies Congress that the states have met the requirements.

And Congress can do nothing about it at that point.  

I stand by my original assertion, though. The document is not at fault for the problems we are facing in government, particularly at the federal level. It is the officers of that federal government - elected and career bureaucrat alike - who are at the core of our problem. Changing the document will not in one stroke make those walking cluster****s in pin stripes suddenly feel compelled to toe the line.

And what is being proposed takes the "walking cluster****s in pin stripes" completely out of the equation.  Even a big government type like Hamilton supported this.

George Mason saw the potential for what is happening now and insisted that Article V was written into teh Constitution for just such an occasion as what se are experiencing now.

Our test therefore - to see if the descendants are worthy of their founding ancestors - is to correct the core of the problem, and not permit the core of the problem to distract us into attempting to address the problem through easy sounding tangents.

No one said this would be easy and you and I might be old men before it is fully implemented...but it's better than doing nothing.  Especially when 30 of the 50 state houses are red.  It's a perfect example of States Rights and how to use them.

[txradioguy]

I do agree with you, D6, that COTUS itself isn't the problem -- it's our collective bastardization and ****ed up handling of it over the years, especially the 17th and 18th Amendments.

There are others, but these are the principle bed-wetters.

Hamilton in Federalist 85:

It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congres will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof." The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa85.htm

[Mr Mannn]

Obama and the rats ignore the constitution now. Why would they honor new amendments?

[txradioguy]

Obama and the rats ignore the constitution now. Why would they honor new amendments?

Obama's not going to be there forever.

[obumazombie]

Obama's not going to be there forever.

If Hitlery or Biden get in, we might be wishing to have owebuma back.

[Dori]

If Hitlery or Biden get in, we might be wishing to have owebuma back.

Everyone is sick to death of career politicians.

[obumazombie]

Everyone is sick to death of career politicians.

Jesse the body and Arnold didn't work out so great either.