Sen. Coburn: Let’s change Constitution

The Hill ^ | 9/3/2014 | Alexander Bolton

[markomalley]

Sen. Tom Coburn is pushing for a national convention to amend the Constitution.

The Oklahoma Republican, who has grown disenchanted with gridlock in Washington, will officially launch his effort after he retires from the Senate in a few months.

Support for a convention of the states to overhaul the nation’s charter document has increased among conservatives, who are frustrated by Congress’s failure to reform entitlement programs. “I think [George] Mason was prophetic that we would devolve to where the federal government became too powerful, too big and too unwieldy. That’s why he put Article V in,” Coburn told The Hill in an interview.

Article V of the Constitution stipulates that two-thirds of the states may call a convention to propose amendments to the nation’s founding document. It has never been successfully invoked.

All 17 times the nation has amended the Constitution since the adopting of the Bill of Rights in 1791, it has done so by proposing changes that won two-thirds support in the Senate and House and were then ratified by three-fourths of the states.

But with Congress these days hard-pressed to cobble together the consensus necessary to perform even the most basic functions of government — such as keeping it funded — a convention of the states is looking more attractive to Coburn.

“That’s one of the things I’m going to be working on,” Coburn said of his post-congressional plans.

“I think we ought to have a balanced budget amendment, I think we ought to have term limits. I think we ought to put a chokehold on regulation and re-establish the powers of the Congress,” he said.

Coburn, a physician who is battling cancer, believes a constitutional convention would allow the legislative branch to seize back powers that have drifted to the presidency over the years.

President Obama’s use of executive action to pursue an array of policy goals related to climate change, immigration and healthcare reform has precipitated what many conservatives are calling a constitutional crisis.

Coburn and Obama are friends who formed a bond soon after they came to the Senate in 2005. But that hasn’t prevented Coburn from criticizing the president and his policies.

Some liberal activists and scholars say they could support an Article V convention, but only if it were set up to be “cross-partisan.” That way, it could be used to rein in political spending by special-interest groups, which has exploded since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

“If the convention is set up in a partisan way, you can be certain that whatever the convention does will fail because it takes 38 states to ratify any amendment,” said Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School and a self-described Democrat who supports holding a convention to reform the Constitution.

“The legitimate constitutional questions that are being put on the table are questions about the balanced budget, the size of government … as well as the integrity of the electoral process, that’s the stuff the people on the left are talking about,” he said.

Unlike a constitutional convention, which would attempt to rewrite the Constitution entirely, an Article V convention would be more limited in scope and would focus on amending the document.

Coburn said he was not sure how many Democrats could be persuaded to support a convention to reform the Constitution.

So far, most of the support has been on the right side of the political spectrum.

Coburn has been in contact with Michael Farris, the chancellor of Patrick Henry College, and Mark Meckler, the president of Citizens for Self-Governance, who are leading a push for a convention of the states.

“We’re talking to him about that,” said Farris.

Legislatures in Florida, Georgia and Alaska have already passed a proposal that Farris and Meckler have discussed with Coburn calling for a constitutional convention to address the need for balanced budgets and term limits.

Farris said his goal is for 20 more state legislatures to adopt the proposal in 2015 and the remaining dozen or so to endorse it in 2016. He wants to hold the convention in 2016 before the presidential election.

While states cannot dictate the precise language of the amendments at the convention, Farris said they can set the scope of the debate.

“By 2020, 89 percent of the federal budget will be consumed by interest on the national debt, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That’s unsustainable,” Farris added. “Getting fiscal restraints on the federal government in the areas of taxing, spending and debt; it’s essential for the survival of the country.”

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh recently embraced the idea as an alternative to impeaching Obama.

“So there is impeachment to deal with a lawless president, a lawless executive. But there is another way, and it is right in the Constitution. It’s right there in Article V of the Constitution,” Limbaugh said on his show last month. “Article V allows for the states to establish a constitutional convention for the purposes of dealing with circumstances such as we are experiencing today. If the Congress will not impeach, it’s right in Article V: The states have the power, if they want to do it.”

Conservative radio host Mark Levin has also endorsed a convention of the states.

Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), are trying use the traditional path to pass a constitutional amendment that would grant Congress the authority to regulate campaign fundraising, which would essentially overturn Citizens United.

But Lessig said this initiative has virtually no chance of passing and is primarily designed to motivate Democratic donors.

[PapaNew]

This effort is already underway with a well-conceived approach.

https://selfgovern.com/

Under Convention of States.

[Taxman]

Thanks for posting this article. Been a lot of chatter about it, but, IMHO, we don’t need no steenkin’ Article V convention!

We need an electorate with the smarts and the gumption to elect Congressmen, Senators and Presidents who have the character, courage and intestinal fortitude to respect the Constitution and the Oath they take!

We can start down that path in November by sending all of the LIEberals home! Let us retire those evildoers!

We the People MUST elect men and women of character, courage and fortitude to go to WDC and start sorting things out!

If we do that in November, November, 2016 will be a piece of cake!

[Jane Long]

.

[nathanbedford]

Nathan Bedford's first Maxim of the American Constitution:

The Constitution has become so distorted in interpretation and application that it has become at best ineffective in protecting liberty and at worst an instrument inflicting tyranny.

Nathan Bedford's second Maxim of the American Constitution:

The American Constitution is being amended everyday without the consent of the governed.

In order to believe that a Convention of the States presents a greater threat to liberty than our current state of politics one must believe:

1. The Constitution is not being amended by three women in black robes +1 liberal in black robes +1 swing vote on a case by case basis.

2. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president by executive order.

3. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president when he chooses which laws he will "faithfully" execute.

4. The Constitution is not being amended daily by regulation done by an unaccountable bureaucracy.

5. The Constitution is not being amended by simply being ignored.

6. The Constitution is not being amended by international treaty.

7. The Constitution is not being amended by Executive Order creating treaty powers depriving citizens of liberty as codified in the Bill of Rights.

8. The Constitution is not being amended by international bureaucracies such as, UN, GATT, World Bank, etc.

9. The Constitution is not being amended by the Federal Reserve Bank without reference to the will of the people.

10. The federal government under our current "constitutional" regime has suddenly become capable of reforming itself, balancing the budget and containing the debt.

11. The national debt of the United States is sustainable and will not cause the American constitutional system and our economy to crash and with them our representative democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution, such as it is, itself.

12. The Republican Party, presuming it gains a majority in the House and the Senate and gains the White House, will now do what is failed to do even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and balance the budget, reduce the debt, stop regulating, reform the tax system, end crony capitalism, appoint judges who will not betray us and, finally, listen to the people.

13. That a runaway Convention of the States will occur, that it will persuade the delegates from conservative states, that it will be ratified by three quarters of the states' legislatures among whom conservatives control a majority, and the end result will somehow be worse than what we have now.

14. If we do nothing everything will be fine; if we keep doing what we have been doing everything will be fine; we have all the time in the world.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"what on Earth makes anyone think they’d pay attention to a revised version?"

How will they ignore term limits? How would they ignore a repeal of the 17th Amendment? How would they ignore a state veto over their actions?

"the operators need to be replaced"

And how, exactly, would you propose we do that? Let's hear your plan! I don't know about you, but I've been trying to do just that for at least the last 40 years.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"no matter how they amend the constitution, the courts are going to make up whatever they want it to say anyway"

So your solution is to do nothing?

[Da Bilge Troll]

"the Frankenstein monster(s) they come up with"

And those monsters will never be ratified. What's the risk?

[Da Bilge Troll]

"The leftists will take over the process"

How? Seriously - let us be prepared for it! How would they do that?

There’s nothing wrong with the Constitution."

I disagree. How can you look at America today and say that? Reality bites!

"This very process will foster further disregard for it."

How? Again, I hear these scary phrases repeated again and again, but I never hear an explanation. How will this "foster further disregard for it"?

[Da Bilge Troll]

"Anyone who thinks an Article V convention wouldn’t be absolutely and completely hijacked by progressives in both parties is living in a dream world."

How would they "hijack" it? And if they did, how would the product ever be ratified by 3/4ths of the states? And based on the world we live in today, what's the downside?

[Da Bilge Troll]

"It opens up a Pandora's Box."

How does it do that? I hear these Chicken-little phrases all the time but none of you ever explain how? So, how?

[Da Bilge Troll]

"You mean like the fellows who sent delegates to tweak the Articles of Confederation?"

So let me get this straight: The original Constitutional Convention overstepped their authority and, even though the result was ratified unanimously by the states, it was illegal. So our current Constitution is invalid.

Do I have that about right?

[Da Bilge Troll]

"a convention poses the danger of producing a bogus and illegitimate 'Constitution'"

Everything this convention produces has to be ratified by 38 states, so how exactly can this convention pose such a danger? Is the sky falling as well?

[Da Bilge Troll]

"If we can't stop the left in their continual degradation of the meaning of the current constitution, any new constitution will also fail. "

So your solution is to do nothing?

"This is a risky roll of the dice."

In what way? The convention has no power! It can only propose! What's so risky about that?

[Da Bilge Troll]

"We the People MUST elect men and women of character"

Good luck with your plan. What do you estimate it's chances are?

[katana]

You’re far more optimistic than me about the what would come out of a constitutional convention populated by the types of “statesmen” and women we are cursed with today. Their perfidy toward the constitution we have now is one point, but I honestly dread what might emerge from a gaggle of today’s politicians, almost all of whom are likely to be lawyers (as opposed to the mix of classically educated propertied men - no women - newly emerged from the Revolution who spawned what we have) and other categories of thieves. And to answer your question about to go about changing the “operators” the ballot box is the only way short of resorting to another kind which I’m not inclined to mention.

[zeugma]

So let me get this straight: The original Constitutional Convention overstepped their authority and, even though the result was ratified unanimously by the states, it was illegal. So our current Constitution is invalid.

Do I have that about right?

I said nothing about it being illegal. What I was pointing out is that once you have a ConCon in session, there is no way it won't run far beyond any mandate it might have.

The original convention of the states was empaneled with the charge to make recommendations to change the Articles of Confederation to improve the way the government worked. Rather than do that, it rewrote it from scratch. IMO, what they came up with was a vast improvement over what had previously existed anywhere. Furthermore, as a confederation of States, they had the right and ability to alter or abolish the Fedgov charter and form a new compact between the States, which is what the Constitution is.

I would shudder to think what a modern day con-con would come up with. The list of the "Bill of Rights", will be a mile long and will include everything to the right to abortion on demand at taxpayer expense, to guaranteed housing.

You may disagree, but I think history is on my side with this.

[Pollster1]

Everything this convention produces has to be ratified by 38 states, so how exactly can this convention pose such a danger? Is the sky falling as well?

I wish that the far left's conduct justified your trust. Imagine that we had a convention, produced something stupid, and then 22 states ratified. There is no constitutional limit on the time for an additional 16 states to ratify. I can imagine the gun grabbers using the next mass shooting to push for ratification of anti-gun sections or of the entire thing in nearby states, the professional racists using the next Trayvon/Ferguson incident to push for ratification, and so on, so that short-term events would lead to an increasing number of ratifications based on emotion or on guilt. My trust in today's political system is not at a high level.

[TBP]

Start by repealing the 16th and 17th, then adopting Levin’s Liberty Amendments, then a few other things.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"the ballot box is the only way"

Good luck with that plan. What would you estimate are the chances of its' success?

[Taxman]

We (the USA) are on a binge — we are the alcoholic who, at the very last minute, and at the nadir of his/her life, rock bottom, decides to change his/her ways, and come back to lead a productive life.

We are almost there, and are soon to enter a national 12-step program.

Take that to the bank!