Coburn:The only way to fix Washington is to have a Convention of the States and limit their power

Right Scoop ^ | January 15, 2014

[KGeorge]

In Washington, but what about the states? (I am asking because I don’t have hard facts)

IF it is true that a majority of states have republican administrations, & IF those administrations are conservative enough to be relied upon- wouldn’t it be better to act while that is the case than waiting, hence the situation could change?

[GeronL]

I want Ted Cruz to run.

He is about the only Republican considered likely to run that I would vote for right now

[dirtboy]

So we pass new amendments to supplement the amendments that the fedgov already ignores. Guess what? They will ignore those as well.

The problem is not the Constitution, it is with most of the men and women in Congress, the White House and Congress.

[Baynative]

"The leftists will have a lot of power at a convention of states or a Con-Con"

Election maps of red and blue counties indicate that in a convention of states and subsequent debates for ratifying proposed amendments conservatives probably have an adavantage.

Comparing the 1984 and 2012 maps also shows that liberal influence is growing and the time to act is at hand.

The media and public schools have been a big influence in distorting people's understanding of what they are voting on and the longer we dally the more we jeopardize our freedom.

[GeronL]

Evidence the huge Senate majority we have.

BTW, “Republican” is not conservative.

[sickoflibs]

Thats what I thought.

[Vaquero]

the absolute last think I want is a constitutional convention. what with the Communist party as the current regime, they will have no compunction against cheating (their hallmark) for the purpose of castrating the constitution.

leave it alone, and make your fight against those who would destroy it. it aint broke....don’t fix it...

[stanne]

I knew I should not try to speak logically with you.

The first thing Levin points out is that it’s not a constitutional convention.

If you don’t believe him take it up with him

I am so done with this conversation

[sickoflibs]

How about Jeb Bush with Christie as attack dog VP, and Karl Rove running the campaign ?

The deadly three.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-—The only, ONLY way to limit government is to limit the careers of big-government politicians in both parties-—

And the only way to do that is with an amendment to the Constitution limiting congressional terms. Of course, Congress would never pass this, which is why we need a convention of the states for proposing amendments to the Constitution.

Levin and Coburn are right.

[GeronL]

I have a touch of flu, you gave me a coughing fit I was laughing so hard

[sickoflibs]

Say what you want about the Bush’s, they know their way around the WH. Probably could skip the orientation and tour.

[Howie66]

Okay, good point. You had me worried for a minute.

[Jacquerie]

I think it is helpful to view, in the aggregate, our politicians in DC as members of a single party, the uniparty. Once we realize, that for practical purposes the GOPE is the tag along junior partner of the uniparty, it all makes sense.

Separated from the uniparty by distinct interests are the states.

Most state legislators serve on a part time basis. Many are businessmen. They all see the accelerating coercion of the states and the people by the DC uniparty.

States will send delegates, not representatives to an amendment convention. The delegates will have commissions, legal instructions that set limits to what they can vote for. I cannot imagine a plurality of states will not look out for their interests, which means putting the genie of tyranny back in its bottle.

There is little time to save what remains of our republic.

[Baynative]

You’re not listening to the purpose of the convention.

[bestintxas]

Did I not say exactly the same thing??

It takes 38 states to control this country, every bit of it.

Why take issue when we are saying the same thing?

Don’t understand.

[Political Junkie Too]

Duh, lets see. The way Dems imposed tyranny and removed freedom was to, ??? I remember: win elections and get power. But How did they do that?

One way was for Pelosi to sit for a year on emails from Mark Foley to former House pages, and then begin a scorched Earth campaign using the Foley emails to convince the country that Republicans were preying on your children from a "culture of corruption.'

Denny Hastert, standing up for disgraced House Member Democrat William Jefferson against the FBI that raided his House office looking for bribe cash in his freezer, didn't help either.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

My concern is simply this: given how cavalierly they discard the clear directions within the Constitution as it stands, what would it take to force them to conform with it as it might be modified? Changing the rules only affects those who play by them. I don't actually have a position on that, just the question.

To answer a question like that, I think a simple example would suffice. Let's use the hypothetical case that a repeal of the 17th amendment is passed.

If you were a sitting Senator from a state that has chosen to send someone else in your place, what do you do? Do you refuse to vacate your office because you are used to ignoring the Constitution when it suits you?

Can you seriously envision a case where a sitting member of government refuses to abide by the results of newly passed Constitutional amendments?

-PJ

[Billthedrill]

Sure I can. His party sues in the Supreme Court and he’s seated until the resulting Constitutional issues are resolved. That might take awhile if it is intended to take awhile.

[Publius]

I think it’s the way you phrased it.