As SCOTUS decision on Obamacare sinks in, momentum grows for Convention of States

conventionofstates.com ^ | 6/26/15

[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.

[Political Junkie Too]

Of course I know. I was responding to your equating repealing with rewriting. You don't repeal whole Articles, you rewrite sections.

Prior to the 21st amendment, all amendments rewrote sections of Articles in the Constitution, or they granted new rights. The 13th and 18th banned behavior (slavery and manufacture/sale of liquor). The 21st is the only repeal, of the 18th.

To the point of contention with an Article V convention, the question is proposing an amendment that is strong enough to withstand (and hopefully discourage) challenge or outright ignoring. I said that a repeal amendment that restores prior structural state processes is hard to avoid; where a writing of new rights is much easier to ignore. A CoS that focuses on structural power of the states is more likely to be successful.

-PJ

[Da Bilge Troll]

"It is too late to get organized and have a convention of the states. "

Wrong. It doesn't matter who we elect - their effect will be temporary. We still need the convention to make structural changes that will be permanent.

[bfh333]

I wish you well...

The adults in the room will continue to “fight” despite your name calling and hyperbole...

Saul Alinsky would be proud of you...

[Armando Guerra]

You do not define what a man or a woman is.

It's a sad world that we live in that you are absolutely correct that the terms man and woman would have to be defined.

[MarMema]

When????

[MarMema]

Don’t we need two more states?

[dware]

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, so there is nothing proposed to twist

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, yet here we are with a SCOTUS opinion on marriage, something they have no right or standing to provide an opinion on.

[thorvaldr]

us, every day

[Ted Grant]

The liberals would take over a new constitutional convention and what you will get is far worse than what we have now.

[thorvaldr]

The constitution isn’t a very big document. How about you look up how this convention ifs supposed to work.

[Political Junkie Too]

The closest thing to marriage that I have seen in the Constitution (and it is a Supreme-worthy stretch) is in the Preamble; that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure the Blessing of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity. Certainly, we do not need marriage to produce Posterity, but we do need a coupling between a man and a woman. A gay marriage will not produce Posterity.

-PJ