Posted on 02/14/2015 11:21:12 AM PST by Publius
A state-level campaign to rein in the federal government by calling an unprecedented convention to amend the U.S. Constitution is gaining steam, picking up support from two high-profile Republicans as more states explore the idea.
Coburn, a legendary government-waste watchdog, announced this week that he has joined the effort by becoming a senior adviser for the group Convention of States Action, which wants states, not just Congress, to pass constitutional amendments.
Article V of the Constitution states amendments can be ratified either by Congress or by states if two-thirds of them petition Congress to call a convention. Then, any amendment proposed at the convention must be ratified by three-fourth, or 38, states.
So far, the Alaska, Florida and Georgia legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention, and 25 more are considering one, according to group.
“Our founders anticipated the federal government might get out of control,” Coburn said Tuesday. “And they gave us a constitutional mechanism to rein it in.”
Meanwhile, Ohio GOP Gov. John Kasich, a potential 2016 White House candidate, has recently concluded a six-state tour in which he has asked legislators to support the convention, largely to push the balanced budget idea.
“Who the heck thinks we should keep spending without any regard to the consequences?” Kasich, a fiscal hawk and former House Budget Committee chairman, asked in South Dakota. “I don’t care if you’re a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian. This is not what we should be doing as a nation. It’s irresponsible.”
Kasich, who claims credit for crafting a balanced federal budget before leaving Congress in 2000, gave a similar pitch week last month in Utah, urging state lawmakers to pass a convention resolution, which has failed there in past years.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
" I could see 4 or 5 proposed amendments being reported to Congress by the convention. Congress would then decide which method the states would use to ratify for each individual amendment."
I respectfully disagree. Rather than suicide it will be a rebirth of freedom. Government of the people. And by the people. The ratification requirements alone would prevent any CoS from causing serious mischief should marxists try and take over.
Orders of magnitude make a difference.
If 3/4 of the states, with 2/3 of the country's population, somehow ratify a pretty much new Constitution, the remainder of the states would have effectively no way to oppose. The chance of that happening is pretty much nil.
"The only way a new Constitution would come about would be after tossing the entire government and starting over from scratch. That would have to be done by force."
It is good then that the CoS is not a General Constitutional Convention. Rather under Article V it is simply another way to propose amendments to the constitution and then have those amendments forwarded to the stTes for ratification.
You can BET they will add an amendment to do with climate change, and the pubs will go along with it.
From the Constitution, this is all it says, and notice that the CURRENT CONGRESS at the time of the convention controls the process throughout:
Article. V.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.
Indeed; you know that, and I know that, but these Oh Noes! The Constitution will be completely open!
doomsayers obviously don't.
the 17th Amendment [08 April 1913] fundamentally changed the Union; before senators were representatives of the States — afterwards they became a sort of super-Representative
.
I think our present U.S. Constitution is just fine, actually.
I think there are things that really do need addressed:
(1) Taxation — namely it should be uniform with no deductions, credits, write-offs, or exemptions; also, withholdings should be utterly barred.
(2) The ability to accumulate debt (and impose on the States non-funded obligations) should be restricted.
I have amendments addressing these issues, and a few others, here.
THAT is my fear, trading our Rights for their agenda.
Nope. You need to understand the difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention of the states. Big difference.
Publius links are a good place to start. Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty Amendments” is another. I confess I did not understand the difference either and at first had the same fears as you. Once I educated myself about Article V I realized how wrong I was and that indeed our founders left us an option to restore the Republic.
You are doing yourself a disservice if you don’t do some research first before reaching a conclusion about it.
The morons that came up with this stupid idea were our founders. What you are talking about is a Constitutional Convention which is NOT a Convention of the States.
The Congress will have nothing to do with this. The states would be appointing delegates.
The morons in the Congress already have the means to amend our Constitution. Article V allows for the states to also amend the Constitution and they cannot do so without a large majority in agreement.
Have you read any of Publius’ posts? They would have nothing to do with it. The delegates are appointed by the states and the Convention is run by the STATES.
ST this is a specious argument. The old constitution is for a moral and just people. The objective of an amended constitution is to provide legal means to combat a corrupt and I dare say criminal political class. Presently we have a criminal federal court system, a criminal executive, and a congress with enough criminals in it to protect and defend the other two criminal branches. All aided by a propaganda media that deceives and manipulates the public. And your argument appears to be that the present constitution is OK as. The activites of the federal government refutes your argument in in its entirety. You are worried about the imposition of tyranny, sorry, it is already here. We need to use every means available to restore a moral and just government and responsibly exercise every peaceful means to do so. Article V is that means and it is the only chance this republic has. In the end it will be used.
I stand by my opinion that I do not want them messing with the Constitution at this time. Re; democrat convention, denounced God. Further, most of our present politicians were elected by Grubers’s people.
Post #66, please. You are hinting that Americans are no longer capable of self-government.
The Constitution has already “been messed” with. It is essentially null and void right now. We have nothing left to lose.
How do you propose this problem is to be fixed?
Who is the president?
Who is the governor of Oregon?
If you are saying that Americans are no longer capable of self-government, what is your solution? I listed the three I could think of. What are yours?
If the three branches of government are not following the Constitution, should the same mindset change the Constitution?
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.