Posted on 06/26/2015 2:15:23 PM PDT by cotton1706
What would U.S. law be like without the Bill of Rights? Had a convention of the states not taken place in 1789, the Bill of rights would not exist. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s latest controversial decision on the Affordable Care Act, such a convention is one goal small-government supporters hope to meet.
Radio host and author Mark Levin has repeatedly advocated for a convention of the states. Now Levin has an ally in former U.S. senator Dr. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., well known in the Senate and blogosphere as the author of an annual report on wasted federal tax dollars.
The call made its way into the grassroots, with activists on social media advocating for a convention. More than 40,000 people follow the Convention of States feed on Twitter. On Facebook, the COS page has 348,000 supporters. States may also be keen on the idea, with 36 state legislatures introducing resolutions to hold a convention.
Coburn penned an opinion column in the May issue of the Ripon Forum magazine (print) to explain why he believes every presidential candidate should be asked a question during the campaigns: Do you support the Convention of the States?
If enough states act, a convention would be one means for reformers to rein in the reach of the federal government. Because the U.S. Constitution provides a means to hold one, doing so could help return the country to its roots of limited federal powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...
ping
I’m curious - what will we do when SCOTUS twists the new amendments to mean whatever they want them to mean?
This decision on gay marriage may actually help us get the states we need for this...
...not that I support what they did... just looking for the silver lining.
I wonder if the convention of states could also fire specific justices for cause???
So the solution to Marxists not reading the constitution is to let the Marxists write a new constitution?
We will break up just like the Soviet Union.
The Bill of Rights has profoundly screwed up Americans' understanding of their Constitution. Because of it, people think rights are granted by the government. Even though it specifically says otherwise, the very existence of the BoR is a stab at the fundamental idea that the Constitution binds the government - it does NOT grant ANY rights to the People.
Thank you for trying to be positive.
2016 is all we have right now.
2016 Make or Break
I still remember 16 years ago, when 2000 was the most important election of our time, and if we just got Dubya elected, along with an R House & Senate (which we did), all would be better. Lol.
That would be a good thing. Large countries always serve their citizens poorly.
Thanks for posting this.
On the same subjected I posted this yesterday:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3304160/posts
Please be aware that a ‘marriage amendment’ won’t be enough. Our Article V amendment must be broad and specific to cover all the abuses of the federal government.
Ideally one or at most two amendments should cover the whole problem. It takes only one amendment to get across the finish line and then others can follow but I don’t think much more will be needed. See the link above for more detail and information.
> “So the solution to Marxists not reading the constitution is to let the Marxists write a new constitution?”
Can you explain with some detail and intelligence how they would do that? Or are you just heckling.
I know that the Constitution cannot be rewritten by the hard core left ....
but I just want to see what you have to say. I predict you will spew a lot of bullsh*t but let’s see what you got.
“I know that the Constitution cannot be rewritten by the hard core left ....”
Why do you know that? Our current political parties are the problem. What is the process that keeps our current political parties from participating in the convention?
The convention will just make things worse.
It is too late to get organized and have a convention of the states. We must concentrate on the Presidency, keep the Senate and kick the anti Republicans out of the House. Bonehead must go.
It would be foolish to try to formulate one amendment to cover all of the issues that need to be addressed. Not only would it be too complicated and difficult for most people to understand, it would increase the likelihood than nothing would be passed, or if it were to be passed and ratified, could easily be misinterpreted by the Supremes.
It would be much better to have a group of amendments, each covering a single discrete topic. An amendment limiting application of the Commerce clause to actual commerce between the states, and not just applying it to any activity that could possibly tangentially affect such commerce, would be a good one. Repealing the 17 amendment would be another good one. And one prohibiting SCOTUS from recognizing or creating any new "right" not specifically mentioned in the Constitution would be a good one as well.
I asked you first! You’re the one that implied the ‘Marxists’ would rewrite the Constitution using Article V.
And just like I predicted YOU GOT NOTHING to back it up and no explanation for how it could ever happen.
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.