Posted on 08/22/2013 1:05:12 PM PDT by Red Badger
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., explained to a town hall of his constituents that he wanted to call a national Constitutional Convention after reading Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments.
“I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions,” Coburn said according to the Tulsa World. “I have a great fear now of not having one.”
As the Tulsa World notes, a national convention is called by two-thirds of the state legislatures and is one of two ways the U.S. Constitution can be amended.
Coburn made his remarks in Muskogee, Okla.
“I probably came across as more confrontive to you than i intended. Sorry ‘bout that.”
Not to worry. This isn’t some smarmy website where we have to pretend that we agree with each other.
Getting back to your point, I listen to Levin from time to time and occasionally he does have a good idea. This isn’t one of them. Truth be told, I really like the content of the Amendments he proposes. And if I had a magic wand, I’d include them.
I don’t have a magic wand. None of us do. Given that any amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify, there is no way that the math works. Show me a way that you get a state like MA or VT or IL or CA or HI to buy off on this and I’ll be all ears. The problem is, there really *isn’t* a way and rather than acknowledge that reality and move on, people attack the messenger. Oh well. I’m used to it.
As for Levin, he is an attorney who is unusually well versed in the Constitution. He must realize that the achilles heel for his plan is the virtual impossibility of obtaining ratification. So why does he continue to tout something that he must realize is doomed to failure? Is he stupid? I don’t believe that to be so. Did he not read the ratification requirement in the Constitution? I don’t believe that to be so, either. Is he trying to earn a buck off the conservative rubes? Is he complicit? I don’t know. But the picture it paints is not very flattering.
We have a legislative body that would respond to the people if the people would educate themselves on the issues and the candidates platforms.
We have a legislative body that would respond to the people if the people would educate themselves on the issues and the candidates platforms.
Well, we KNOW that ain't gonna happen..........
Thanks Red Badger.
Republicans, as of 2013, control fully or split the legislatures in 32 states, including New York.
Read the book. It’s $11 and change on Kindle
I fear that a CC would open the door to a multitude of Leftist amendments as well, a few of which might pass considering the RINO make-up of Congress.
all this punditry and internet chatter is chaff in the wind, good entertainment though, I love Levin
We must try every option before the final option... and no one wants that but obama and the communists.
LLS
That i cannot answer. I just know he's the only public person who is actually taking SOME kind of action to stop the marxists, and he's one of the few who calls out Boehner for what he is. Every day I wonder what it's going to take for people to wake up and get off the couch.
“I just know he’s the only public person who is actually taking SOME kind of action to stop the marxists, and he’s one of the few who calls out Boehner for what he is.”
I agree that conservatives are largely bereft of leadership right now. Maybe Ted Cruz. Maybe Rand Paul. Maybe Jim DeMint. But none have the bully pulpit that people like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have. It’s a shame that competent leadership and a cogent plan can’t coalesce and find a bully pulpit.
Changing the Constitution at this point just isn’t a cogent plan. Even if we could successfully do so, it’s a very long term process. It would take many years. There is a reason why it’s so tough to change the Constitution: the founding father’s wanted to make sure that when it was changed it was because there was essentially a consensus that believed it was necessary. No such consensus exists for the changes that Mr. Levin wishes to implement. And I don’t believe that the consensus will exist in the foreseeable future.
Want a cogent plan that might work? Check out post #8 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058436/posts?page=8#8
This woman clearly gets it. Now I’m not so sure about the specifics, but the line of reasoning is sound. Those in power rely more or less on unquestioning obedience to retain their power.
The “woman who clearly gets it” is talking about a “Con Con,” which is not what is under discussion. Also, he/she is an anonymous ‘09 signup, not exactly someone I’m willing to use while forming my own opinions. Has this person, or any of the naysayers on here, actually read the book?!
Maybe we should all read the book so we can all get on the same page with our discussions, because freepers are not discussing the same constitutional process. As i understand it, statists cannot run a process which is designed to where those who initiate the process — in this case, nonstatists — are the ones who retain control of the process.
Like i said, we should read the book before having a discussion on the definitions and mechanics, which, of course, brings us back to your original point about ppl who push books. ;-)
<< I’ll defer to you to explain how it will be prevented. >>
Of course you will.
BTW, you didn’t answer my question ... have you read the book?
Once the cork is out of the bottle, it is hard to get it put back in.
Even proposing an amendment will backfire. You will see all sorts of amendments from the other side.
The other thing is that sadly, the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore. Only the Judges do. And we are at least three or four generations away from anything changing there, if we could influence a few law schools today.
LOL! When I get the chance I’ll pick up the book. I give it a month or 2 before its on sale. My qualms aren’t with the amendment proposing process, which I think think will be difficult enough, but with the ratification which I think is almost impossible.
There is a real tendency amongst the politically enthusiastic to think that others agree with them or if they don’t agree, that at least the opposition can be swayed by inspired arguments. I’m here to tell you that there is a large subset of people in the US who are just fine with how things are and will resist any changes. Mitt romney was essentially correct in his 47% comments. And when you consider that in a sizable minority of the states that 47% is the majority, there is just no way to implement changes that those folks don’t see as being to their benefit.
I generally applaud people who are trying some last ditched efforts to fix the problems. But unfortunately the time is late. As a nation we’re headed for divorce, not reconciliation. I don’t pretend to like it and sincerely hope that someone has a secret sauce that can allow for a continuation, but I haven’t seen that to date.
Ha, and many of them are probably residing in the Lone Star State. We do tend to be surrounded by like-minded independent people and a little on the arrogant side when it comes to state pride and how that affects federal interventionist politics. :-)
I'm ready for the divorce, myself. Cut off the oil supply, send the liberal Austin transplants back home, and tell D.C. to stop harassing us and to go straight to hell. I wish it were that simple.
BTW, I’ve seen an increase down here in the Davy Crockett T-shirt lately. There are several variations of the content on the front, but on the back they all have the “Y’all can go to hell. I’m going to Texas” quote.
Just tickles me pink.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.