Tom Coburn calls for a national Constitutional Convention

washingtonexaminer.com ^ | AUGUST 22, 2013 AT 1:20 PM | By CHARLIE SPIERING

[GraceG]

Who is “We”, we are going to end up with proposed amendments from leftists who will probably dominate the Convention.

Then let them destroy it, because the Constitution has been ignored so damn long it has this one last gasp to be re-affirmed over the Leviathan or it will just fade...

[Red Badger]

As far as I can tell, according to the Constitution, the only ‘say so’ Congress has in the Convention process is to Log or collect the ‘applications’ from the states for a convention and deciding whether 3/4 of the states legislatures or mini conventions within those states will be required to pass the amendments. Other than that, they have no say.........

[Darren McCarty]

If you are going to do that, you better have 75% of the legislatures that you can count on.

[Publius]

Without the need to toss the entire constitution.

An Amendments Convention under Article V only has the power to propose amendments to the Constitution, not throw it out and start over.

Can it propose 60 amendments that would substantially change the document? Yes.

Can it throw it out and start over? No.

You'd have to amend the language of Article V first to permit a throw-out-and-start-over process.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” It would be quite the sight to watch a Senator refuse to vacate his office. “

Ever try to get rid of one? They have war chests, franking, and lobbyists who buy them with big money.

[Red Badger]

Amen.....

[GraceG]

There is no Constitutional “solution” to the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into (other than the 2nd Amendment), because TPTB don’t respect the Constitution. The only way we’re going to wrestle our Republic out of the jaws of those who want to see it dead and gone, is for the states to form a coalition to tell Congress, the Obammunist, and the courts how it’s going to be. The states need to tell DC which laws, which governing bodies, and which court decisions they’ll (we’ll) abide by, and reassert that “federal” means power shared between the states and the national government.

If the federal government Leviathan can pick and choose which laws to enforce then why can’t the states do the same with federal laws?

[TomGuy]

Coburn, like too many others, got tainted with Potomac Fever.

More recently, it is difficult to determine which side of an issue he will land on.

==

I am too apprehensive, still. This could be opening a can of worms. Just because some say it will be controlled does not mean it will be.

Unintended consequences. They have done a lot of unforeseen damage.

The Libs/Leftists/Progressives/GOP-Elites will have dozens of lawyers and judges on standby IN EVERY STATE to try to force their agenda. BET ON IT!

[Political Junkie Too]

There already exist a way to change the constitution. Amendments can be proposed and the states can vote on them. Without the need to toss the entire constitution.

You are arguing against yourself. The Article V convention is the existing way to change the Constitution.

They cannot "toss the entire constitution" because the process is amendment by amendment, and then ratification by ratification.

Unlike the original Constitutional Convention under the Articles of Confederation, today there exists the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it cannot be wholely swept aside unless someone proposes a sweeping amendment saying "The entire Constitution is nullified and replaced with this...," and then gets it passed, and then gets 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.

-PJ

[GraceG]

If you are going to do that, you better have 75% of the legislatures that you can count on.

Which is why Levin is stressing to get started now in local elections and local politics...

[Publius]

You're ignoring case law and how politics actually works. Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Whenever there are gray areas in a process, there will be those who attempt to turn those gray areas either black or white.

Congress has already tried to regulate an Amendments Convention, and the only thing that prevented the various Dirksen-Ervin-Hatch bills from becoming law was the lack of urgency. Get 34 states to petition Congress for a general convention, and you'll see urgency bordering on panic.

Let me reiterate my own personal feelings on the matter.

1. I like what Levin is suggesting.
2. I'd like to see 34 or more states request a general convention.
3. I'd like to see the state legislatures appoint the delegates to a convention, and I'd like the legislatures to have the authority to instruct those delegates.
4. I'd like to see the convention conducted under the principle of One State/One Vote.

But I understand that what I want is not what I may get. There is precedent to be considered, even if the precedent's relevance to an Amendments Convention consists of penumbras and emanations. We've had major points of law decided on such flimsy foundations.

[DoughtyOne]

Why not a Constitutional Convention?

We have the worst Senate ever.  We have the worst Speaker of the House ever.

We haven't ten spines in the Senate and the House combined.

What could go wrong?

First Amendment:  Officially gone!

Second Amendment: Officially gone!

Fourth Amendment: Officially gone!

Please tell me who would fight this.  I'd really like to know.  We can't even get them to fight against handing our nation to Mexico.

A Contitutional Convention in this climate would be suicide for Conservatives.

Ramirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION 08/22/2013: LINK  LINK to regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.
In this political cartoon, Ramirez touches on "the Secretary of State".

FOLKS, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE AND PENCIL IN YOUR DONATION TO HELP END THIS FREEPATHON.  THANK YOU!  We're at 84% now!.
...this is a general all purpose message, and snot be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

a

[GraceG]

We need more Constitutional amendments for the politicians and judges to ignore?

We need more amendments to prohibit them FROM ignoring the Constitution and then if they keep on ignoring we arm up the pitchforks and torches.....

[cva66snipe]

Well Senator, the congress {both parties}, POTUS, and all government agencies are taking themselves a dump and wiping their sitters with The Constitution Of The United States. So what makes you think you or anyone else in DC would honor that either?

We have a Constitution Senator which has until recently served us well. Recently three branches of government decided they were all above and immune from the Constitution and LIMITED boundaries of federal government specified in it. Yes that Constitution of which all three branches have willingly and willfully ignored the past 50 years and much more so the last 20 years.

I don't support a Constitutional Convention in the foreseeable future as I believe such an event would be corrupted by massive fraud, extortion, and blackmail, of our leaders as a means to finally finish off what's left of our nation that hasn't been taken away.

You were one of the few in congress BTW that I used to respect. You too Senator have sold out & joined the GOP-E. The support & trust you once enjoyed with Conservatives is now gone.

[Publius]

If the federal government Leviathan can pick and choose which laws to enforce then why can’t the states do the same with federal laws?

Article VI of the US Constitution. Second paragraph.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And then there's that annoying Lincoln precedent from 150 years ago.

[PghBaldy]

Given that most of the governments of various levels of this country have usurped their powers or broken the law, how can we expect them to NOT do so again?

[dynachrome]

Con-con ping

[CIB-173RDABN]

once more I need to make myself clear. You can add amendments to the constitution without a constitutional convention. "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b."

[VanDeKoik]

“This is an attempt to divide conservatives!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely NOT on 0bam-says watch.

Agree with many here saying this is INSANE.

The current Constitution should be enforced! It’s in-your-face NOT being enforce”

So using a method in the Constitution, to strengthen it, is actually a conspiracy to “divide” conservatives and is “insane”?

So what is your grand plan to “enforce” the Constitution that goes above just shaking your fist at the computer or pretending like you are going to be part of a “civil war”?

One thing I like about the Liberty amendments, it is showing us whom the lazy pretenders, and professional malcontents, are on the conservative side.

[Political Junkie Too]

Referring to the documents to which I linked in Post #15, the ALEC Document agrees with your assertion. The ABA Report does not. It's not that cut and dried.

I see the reference to Article I Section 6 in the ABA document. I think it's weak.

---

Members of Congress as Delegates

We cannot discern any federal constitutional bar against a member of Congress serving as a delegate to a national constitutional convention. We do not believe that the provision of Article I, Section 6 prohibiting congressmen from holding offices under the United States would be held applicable to service as a convention delegate. The available precedents suggest that an “office of the United States” must be created under the appointive provisions of Article II or involve duties and functions in one of the three branches of government which, if accepted by a member of Congress, would constitute an encroachment on the principle of separation of powers underlying our governmental system. It is hard to see how a state-elected delegate to a national constitutional convention is within the contemplation of this provision. It is noteworthy in this regard that several delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were members of the Continental Congress and that the Articles of Confederation contained a clause similar to Article I, Section 6.

We express no position on the policy question presented, or on the applicability and validity of any state constitutional bars against members of Congress simultaneously serving in other positions.

---

For reference, below is the text of Article I Section 6 Clause 2:

---

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

---

The quote from the ABA report is deceptive in its missing language. They refer to an "office of the United States," but the actual language is a "civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created." If it is Congress that calls for the Constitutional Convention, how can that body NOT be a civil office under the authority of both the Congress that called it, and the Article V provision that authorizes its existence?

If it is, in fact, a body under the authority of the United States, then Congressmen cannot be delegates unless they first resign their Article I seats in order to participate in an Article V convention.

-PJ