Skip to comments.Tom Coburn's New Book Explains How an Article V Convention Can Bypass a Corrupt Congress
Posted on 05/23/2017 4:06:30 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Saying that Washington, D.C., is irrevocably broken and is structurally incapable of fixing itself, former Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has long advocated for an Article V Convention of States to propose new amendments to the Constitution. Now, Senator Coburn has written a book about it. In Smashing the DC Monopoly: Using Article V to Restore Freedom and Stop Runaway Government, Coburn explains how an Amendments Convention would bypass a corrupt Congress to return the federal government to the control of We The People as it was intended.
According to Coburn, there are lots of symptoms, but the disease is a power-hungry, out of control central government that is no longer responsive to the consent of the governed. He said the cure for the disease is right in the Constitution, in Article V. It would take two-thirds of the states (34 states) to pass a resolution through the state legislaturesapplying for a Convention of Statesto propose a specific amendment. If something emerges from the Convention, it would take 38 states to ratifyjust like an amendment proposed by Congress.
Self-interested politicians, more concerned about their grip on power than doing what's right for the nation, have created a federal government that is systematically destroying personal liberty and prosperity, Coburn says. Regulations written by unelected bureaucrats, out of control spending that shows no sign of abating, and incumbent career politicians who effectively face no opposition in their reelection efforts: Millennials stand to be the generation hardest hit. That's the argument advanced by former Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), and it's why he now advocates for an Amendments Convention to be convened as described in Article V of the United States Constitution.
Oops, I forgot to click “excerpt.”
Article V ping!
Article V or die.
It’s obvious Republicans are just as corrupt as Democrats in support of the socialist redistributionest state model NWO.
THERE’S ALSO THE AMMO BOX
I post this reply now, hopefully in advance of any objections so that the reader can determine for himself whether there is any realistic arithmetic or practical possibility of an untoward amendment
There are 99 houses in 50 state legislatures. Any leftist amendment would require only 13 of these legislative bodies from 99 to defeat ratification. In other words, three quarters of the state legislatures must ratify or 38 states. If 13 legislatures fail to ratify the amendment is defeated. Since ratification by legislatures requires both houses to consent, only 13/99 are required. That is very close to 13%.
After the last election Republicans control 69 houses of the 99 state legislative houses. Republicans control 31 of the 50 state legislatures. To stop any unwise or imprudent amendment would require only 13 of these 69 Statehouses (from different states) or about 19%, fewer than one in five.
The problem will not be to stop left-wing amendments but to pass prudent conservative amendments which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution.
If the Congress of the United States elects to have the ratification procedures conducted by conventions rather than legislatures, the method of selecting the delegates to those conventions would be chosen by the legislatures. If only 13 legislative bodies out of 99 object to the method chosen by the other body because it is considered to favor a leftist amendment, there is no ratification forthcoming from that state.
By either procedure the odds of a liberal amendment getting past so many conservative legislative bodies in so many states is both arithmetically and practically remote.
Finally, this is only the last line of defense, there are innumerable steps along the way which make a "runaway convention" virtually impossible and render the need for the states to fail to ratify very likely superfluous.
Coburn, I trust. He was a corruption hawk for years, posting regularly about corrupt spending and fraud.
Thank you for the simple, clear explaination.
It would give blacks another opportunity to get into their mau-mau act.
If Nathan were leading this Article V Convention charge it would happen as he would intimidate any leftist in his way.
“pass prudent conservative amendments which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution. “
I have my doubts about the efficacy of the outcome of an Art V convention. What is going to prevent our corrupt congress from simply ignoring the new amendments - like their doing with the “old” amendments?
The process is so cumbersome, I doubt the ratification of any amendments this first time around. Yet, I’ll still regard it a success, because it will prove the American demos can meet and deliberate in an orderly fashion without “running away.”
The only sensible amendments are structural, like repeal of the 17th Amendment. Almost all of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments are structural, strengthen federalism, and are worth considering.
Nevertheless, as you point out, it is well to have the ground prepared.
Not sure what that means.
So addressing slavery & the election of senators is YOUR motivation for the convention?
I think you understand my point. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
Wait a minute, you were the one who asserted that Congress has ignored amendments. I simply responded with two amendments that have clearly not been ignored. Your argument was met fairly. But consider this, process amendments are very difficult for Congress to get around. For example, if an amendment were passed that declared all federal regulations null and void if not affirmatively passed by majorities in both houses of Congress, the process would no doubt be observed. Of course that is no guarantee that we might get the outcome we want on every vote but we will have gone a long way toward reforming the system.
Similarly by way of illustration, term limits would certainly be observed and it would be almost impossible for Congress to simply ignore their sell-by dates and run again for another term.
Even those amendments which we both might agree have been observed lately more in the breach have usually stood up for decades until accretions conjured up by the Supreme Court have provided workarounds. But even if it takes 80 years for an amendment to be undermined, that is approximately the length of time between the original Constitution and the Civil War. Why not take the 80 years?