Georgia, Tom Coburn Call for Constitutional Convention

Slate ^ | 2/6/14 | Dave Weigel

[taildragger]

Two months ago, Emma Roller and I wrote about the possibly historic Assembly of the States in Mount Vernon. Momentum had been building oh-so-slowly on the right for a new, state-led constitutional convention, which could pass amendments far quicker than the Congress could. (And no one sees a scenario, any time soon, where there'll be 67 conservative votes in the Senate to pass amendments.) The reaction: Largely just a lot of doubt that this would come to anything.

[familyop]

If the commies running the state and local governments give up the enormous federal funding first, we might begin to trust them more.

[JRandomFreeper]

2/3rds of the states don't have liberal legislatures.

This has been in the works for a long time. Your objections show you to be 'low-information' on the subject.

Do some research.

/johnny

[circlecity]

"Yes, certainly it is an option which the very same progressives, socilaiists, marxists, etc. will try and coopt. First they will try and have it absolutely ignored. But should it appear to be gaining traction, they will then try to demonize anyone associaed with it, and failing that, they will try desperately to get their own people in there to use it as a means to continue to advance their agenda."

And that is a very real risk that could end up backfiring on conservatives and give the progressive socialists everything they want. BUT, as I noted above, have we reached a point where it is a risk worth taking? Have we reached the point where ultimately the socialists will get what they want anyway if we don't take action now? I think we may very well have. But let's not be deluded as to the ultimate stakes we are playing for here.

[familyop]

There are nearly no conservatives in state and local governments.

[circlecity]

"2/3rds of the states don't have liberal legislatures. This has been in the works for a long time."

You have much more confidence in that than I have. And I don't know what "has been in the works for a long time" adds to the argument. Various people have been talking about constitutional convention for various reasons for two hundred years but that doesn't make it a less risky proposition. In fact, the most common objection to this idea over the years has been the great risk involved of limiting the result once you let the genie out of the bottle.

[OKSooner]

" ...such an event would be very, very risky and we could lose big time. BUT, have we reached the point where taking such a risk has become absolutely necessary? - I think we very well may have. I'm not saying don't do it, just make sure your eyes are open to the stakes at risk before you do.. "

Something like that must have been what my dad said in 1942 when he hopped on that bus and made the short, fateful ride from Durant, OK, over to Fort Sill.

I think you're right on the money. One last chance to save the country by acceptable means...

"Let it begin here."

[JRandomFreeper]

Really? I beg to differ. Texas certainly doesn't have a liberal legislature. How many States refused to set up Obamacare exchanges?

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

It is not a constitutional convention. It is an article V convention of the states. The two are completely different animals.

Do some research.

/johnny

[Hostage]

Morning Joe? Who listens to Morning Joe? Up until then you had some good stuff going.

[Triple]

A convention either fixes the problems or it brings them to a head. Either way, I think it is our best chance to avoid a 40 slump into socialism/tyranny.

[circlecity]

"It is not a constitutional convention. It is an article V convention of the states. The two are completely different animals. Do some research. /johnny"

I don't see a difference. An article 5 convention a convention convened by 2/3 of the states for the purpose of offering constitutional amendments. There are no established rules for conducting or limiting such a convention once it has been convened. Thus, I don't know how you couldn't call it a constitutional convention.

[Hostage]

LIVs do not vote on amendments. States do.

And more than 30 of the states are conservative.

It will be Game-Set-Match of conservatives over liberals.

[Hostage]

> “I don’t know why that’s so “unlikely” in a country that elected Obama twice.”

Again because the voters do not vote for amendments, states do.

[gopno1]

There are nearly no conservatives in state and local governments

There are plenty. It's an entirely different deal at the state level. For instance, here in Missouri, we get subjected to Senators like McCaskill and governors like Nixon because the cities produce enough popular votes to elect them. However, the legislature in Missouri is a Republican supermajority in both chambers, and a conservative one at that. State legislatures have a tendency to offset the voting power of the urban areas because they encompass every area of a state--even the conservative ones. In some places, like California, yeah it's a lost cause because it's been lost to liberals. However, in some states with huge liberal urban areas and more conservative areas elsewhere, the state legislatures don't reflect how places vote in statewide elections.

[SoConPubbie]

The Constitution isn't broke, so let's not "fix" it by amending it.

I beg to differ.

There are two issues where, though it might not be broken, it needs amendment:

1. Human Rights Amendment - Life begins at Conception
2. Anti-gay Marriage Amendment - Marriage is between one man and one woman.

[Political Junkie Too]

Momentum had been building oh-so-slowly on the right for a new, state-led constitutional convention, which could pass propose amendments far quicker than the Congress could. (And no one sees a scenario, any time soon, where there'll be 67 conservative votes in the Senate to pass propose amendments.)

Sloppy writing or intentionally misleading?

-PJ

[Hostage]

Did you see the conservative Tea Party tsunami at the state level in the 2010 election?

It was the biggest massacre of liberals at the state level in American history.

The country is still conservative at the grassroots.

[JRandomFreeper]

Intentionally misleading. The liberals need to keep low-information conservatives confused about the difference to keep it from happening.

/johnny

[taildragger]

I don't believe anyone is calling for a Constitutional Convention. But a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution But this is Slate; that explains the misinfomation.

Uri’el-2012, I could have changed the title, however I wanted to report it as they did. It is a shame Slate flubbed the title that bad and that it got some here riled up as well...

[circlecity]

"Did you see the conservative Tea Party tsunami at the state level in the 2010 election?"

And what did it get us? The most liberal and anti-conservative Republican Speaker and House leadership ever. Again, be careful what you wish for.