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 ...
Thanks!
In before the con-con-cons.....
The only way that fix this is to repeal #16 and 17. Put the states back in charge. They must have veto power over the Feds.
Coburn and other Republicans are latching on to this movement to destroy it.
I’m not confident that a constitutional convention (CC) would bode us well given the rampant ignorance of our current electorate.
For me this falls under: beware the law of unintended consequences, and be careful what you ask for.
And if I might might be forgiven for mixing metaphors, I don’t trust our current crop of rinos to NOT sell the farm - for a bowl of porridge.
Truthfully, there has not yet been enough real pain to knock some sense into our citizens. After that? maybe a CC would be in order.
My two cents...
Totally agree. But that will never happen. Once people like those currently in Washington get power, they will never, ever allow anything to take it away from them.
Basically this is a medical issue -- an autoimmune disease of the body politic.
The "doctors" had better get cracking.. Abe warns us from "the other side."
You initiated a policy to tolerate the Marxist-Alinsky radicals and let them rant; not only has it not ceased but was constantly augmented by decades of infiltration and indoctrination. You now have two Americas. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half statist and half free; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.
Just my $.02.
What jackwad wrote the headline ?
Back to the Declaration of Independence.
I’m not confident that a constitutional convention (CC) would bode us well given the rampant ignorance of our current electorate.
A reporter for the Associated Press. They’re not known for either good writing or accuracy.
Good Advice Against a Con Con
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2010/apr10/10-04-09.html
Speaking to us from across the years, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, wrote this warning on November 2, 1788, against calling another general constitutional convention.
“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.
“Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.”
It's amazing that you've missed the dozens of other threads here where your objections have already been answered!
" the rampant ignorance of our current electorate"
The electorate does not get a vote on this.
"current crop of rinos"
The current crop of rinos does not get a vote on this, either. That's the whole point. This bypasses the current crop of rinos.
"a CC "
This is not a "CC" (or con-con or a constitutional convention). This will be an Article V Convention of the States to propose amendments.
Either "All federal judicial offices are elective on such terms and conditions as Congress may allow. The President may fill vacancies by appointment." or "
Twenty year term limits for Congress.
"No vote in Congress may require more than a majority save when specified by the Constitution." No more filibusters.
I hate the arrogant Senate and would totally slam its ability to harm the country. No bills may originate in Senate, or be amended in the Senate. Transfer its power to approve treaties and presidential appointments to the House. All the Senate can do is vote yes or no on legislation proposed by the House. Really major term limits (like two years) for the next forty years to break its institutional memory.
***
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
I agree. Once they open to a constitutional convention, they can change anything in the Constitution they want.
How about they just hold all accountable to the Constitution.
What is being proposed is not a “general constitutional convention”. It’s merely a Convention of the States to propose amendments to the Constitution. Nothing more.
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.