Tom Coburn: Amend the Constitution to rein in Washington

washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 6/12/15 | Philip Klien

[cotton1706]

"The Congress, the courts, and the president ignore the Constitution we have today and our Founders knew we would eventually get to that point, and they gave us a method… to amend it to keep the federal government limited in its scope and its jurisdiction,"

The method he is referring to is Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

As conservatives have grown increasingly frustrated with the ability of judges and politicians to limit the power of Washington, the idea of convincing states to exercise this power has gained appeal. A project known as the Convention of the States has gained prominent backers, including talk show host and author Mark Levin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

"Most people don't think about this, but the states created the federal government -- the federal government didn't create the states," Coburn said. "And the supremacy, if you read the enumerated powers, written in the Constitution, it was very limited what the federal government was supposed to have, but everything else was supposed to be left to the states and to the people."

To accomplish their goal, organizers must get 34 states to pass a petition to the federal government proposing a convention to ratify essentially the same amendment. Currently, Coburn said, four states have passed such a petition, he predicted 15 to 16 would do so in the next year, and then another 10 to 12 would do so in the year after that. "Probably in two to three years we'll have the requirements met by the Constitution for an Article V convention," he said.

[Monorprise]

It seems rather obvious from article 5 that there is no need that the proposed amendment from the state legislators need be unique they are after all going to send delegates to a convention to debate, discuss, and propose amendments.

As for what they do it really wont make a difference if they don’t install some sort of State level veto on Federal domestic intrusions and abuses. Most particularly in regard tot he Federal Employees in black robes who will just as soon rewrite anything they write & we radify to whatever those federal employees personalty want.

Restoring law to a country requires having parties with an accountable and vested interest in upholding that law. Federal employees in black robes have time and time again re-demonstrated they have no more interest in the law as written and practiced for hundreds of year than they are accountable for their own radical revisions of that ‘law’ in their edicts.

If we are to be a nation of laws, they must be made accountable. The law as written cannot be allowed to change in its meaning or application until it is rewritten by the people.

A convention which wishes to restore law washington must address the corrupt abuses of the Federal ‘court’, or there will be no fruit to their labor in writing any other law.

[Texas Eagle]

And amendment limiting the terms of congress (or even better, an amendment allowing the states to do so, or to instituted recalls) could not be ignored.

Why not? There's a Representative from Florida by the name of Alcee Hastings who was impeached, convicted and removed from office as a Judge. According to our current Constitution, he's not allowed to hold public office.

Here's how it's stated in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Heritage.org/constitution

[Publius]

Article V ping.

[Monorprise]

“Not a dumb question, IMO.

I was thinking of another question: If a regime such as the one in power today does not follow the Constitution, why would adding more proscriptions to the Constitution change such a regime’s behavior?”

Its quite simple, its about the structure of that Federal republic that enforces the law.

A constitution is like a fortress with great walls of defense standing between each side. Those walls however are pointless barriers if there is no one there to defend them.

When our founders designed this fortress they designed it with the idea of competing interest manning each side of the walls to keep the other side on the other side. Thus retaining the roles and structure of the Constitutional system. But of course not every side was equally interested in defending their part of the fortress, and after the 17th Amendment and civil war the side defending the primary wall between domestic and Federal Government collapse.

Leaving the Federal Side free to cross at their pleasure, hence the fortunate as A federal government became no more, and the people as a result lost their right to vote with their feet.

Now the only real limits upon federal power are the political and practical inconveniences of invading states with armies they don’t really have.

See the Bundy Ranch insolent when BLM at the behest of the Obama Administration tried to turn itself into an army to enforce its edicts. That was at best a political inconveniences but it also illustrates the only real limit to the abuse of Federal power. A minor portion of the citizenry offering local opposition to their ill-prepared troops stomping upon their crops. A rare exception if it works and not a wall but rather a fence with a lone farmer against an army.

The point is an Amendment only works insofar as the practical reality of that amendment is to in effect empower an army to defend the other side of that fortress wall. In short Federal employees should not be the last word on the limits of their own power. And Amending the Constitution as to provide an external veto should enable us to defend that wall.

[nathanbedford]

An old reply in answer to an old argument about following a restored Constitution:

If the “old constitution” isn’t being followed, the “new constitution” won’t be followed either ... :-) ... The "old constitution" was followed for many decades and was only seriously altered 80 years later as a result of the Civil War. Thereafter the amended "old constitution" was followed well into the 20th century even after Wilson until the New Deal. So the old constitution gave us quite a long stretch of service.

We do not know whether the "new constitution" will be followed but we certainly have no historical warrant to foreclose the probability that it will in fact be followed for decades, perhaps even long enough to save the Republic.

Much of what comes out of the Article V process of course depends on the kind of amendments which might be ratified. As one FReeper has already posted on this thread, it will be difficult to fail to follow an amendment which prescribes term limits. Other amendments, carefully drafted, would be equally difficult to evade. In any event, careful drafting will modify the old constitution and bring it back to its original conception and should not therefore simply be dismissed as a "new" Constitution but should be considered the restoration of the old.

Most of the advocates of this process support "process" amendments which change the way we are governed. I for one like an amendment which says that bureaucratic regulations which are not confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress within a specified time limit are automatically repealed. We might not like the results we get in Congress when it comes time to ratify these regulations but at least the new process brings the bureaucracy under scrutiny and democratizes what has become a tyrannical combination in the executive of lawmaking, adjudication, and punishment. It would also return us to a separation of powers in this area.

My point is that process amendments make it more difficult for the establishment powers to play their games.

Finally, I simply cannot accept an argument of despair which says since it might not work we should not bother to try.

[GeronL]

I mean that the same people who are not following this Constitution are not going to start because of an amendment.

[nathanbedford]

Of course they are and for the reasons expressed in my reply.

[cotton1706]

“According to our current Constitution, he’s not allowed to hold public office.”

That’s not true. In the case of Alcee Hastings, they removed him from office but did not disqualify him from any other office. The two don’t necessarily go together, it’s up to the Senate at the time.

[Texas Eagle]

That's just the type of creative reasoning I'm talking about. Theoretically, the Senate could've found him guilty and decided to not remove him from office.

Again, here's how it's stated in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:

I read it as a minumim punishment. I guess the Senate read it as optional.

[DoodleDawg]

He reiterated that three-fourths of states would have to approve any amendment that came out of the convention.

Which means it's highly unlikely that anything coming out of an Article V convention would ever be ratified.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It wouldn’t. It’s time to enforce the Constitution that’s already there (for a change).

[Jacquerie]

You are asking senators to vote against their personal interests.

It isn’t going to happen.

The key to republican renewal is to repeal the 17A and make senators once again responsible to their state legislatures. Once the personal interests of senators coincide with their states, we can begin the restoration.

[cotton1706]

“That’s just the type of creative reasoning I’m talking about. Theoretically, the Senate could’ve found him guilty and decided to not remove him from office.”

No, I think you’re misunderstanding the purpose and history of impeachment. Impeachment is a charge TO REMOVE AN OFFICIAL FROM OFFICE. That’s whole point. So the Senate could not have found him guilty and let him keep his office. A guilty verdict MEANS removal from office.

However, in addition to removal from office, the people, through the senate can prevent an individual charged and removed from office from holding any other office of trust or profit under the United States.

The clause you refer to is delineating the extent of the power of the Senate, i.e. the most the senate can do is remove an individual from office and prevent that person from holding any other office. Removal from office is a given, but the Senate need not, if it so chooses, prevent the person from holding any other office. And in the case of Alcee Hastings, that’s what they did, for whatever reason.

According to the history of impeachments, the MINIMUM punishment is removal from office, the MAXIMUM punishment is disqualification to hold any other office.

The reason for delineating the maximum power of the senate was so that it did not move into the judicial realm, that is, charging and punishing for the crime committed. That is within the judicial power, not the legislative.

[pluvmantelo]

Coburn on Obama:
I just love him as a man. I think he’s a neat man.

[itsahoot]

The fact is that most people do not understand basic civics or history.

They understand free stuff perfectly well.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free . . . it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson