Posted on 09/03/2014 3:52:11 AM PDT by 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.
Running beyond its' mandate to do what? The convention has no power to change the Constitution, only to propose amendments.
"I think history is on my side with this."
No, history is on the other side. There is an extensive record of colonial-era conventions and none of them did any of the things you fear.
If you trust no one, the only option is the status-quo.
"There is no constitutional limit on the time for an additional 16 states to ratify."
Not quite right. Most modern amendment proposals have had time limits built into the text of the amendment itself.
Just add an amendment that sez: “Congress Shall Make No Law.” and make it retroactively effective to 1800.
P.S.
Don't be taken in by this propaganda from the progressive left. The delegates all either had permission in advance or requested and received permission from their state legislatures to produce a new constitution. Mark Levin documents this in his book.
So you think we have statesmen of the quality of Adams, Franklin, Mason and the rest? Who are they?
If you trust no one, the only option is the status-quo.
Actually not. I'm waiting for the zombie apocalypse. Frankly, at my age, I'm looking forward to it.
An Article V Convention is not a Constitutional Convention. It is a convention with the purpose of proposing amendments to the states for ratification. And that is it. Period. To suggest otherwise is to misrepresent the facts.
Well you are correct about one thing, the flaw is not in our Constitution. The flaw is in the corruption of our people. That corruption is reflected in our elected officials. Our present Constitution cannot deal with the situation precisely because it was not written to deal with an immoral and unjust people. Consequently it must be strengthened to do so. There are three paths available as I see it. A convention of states (CoS) reduces the power of the federal government while increasing the power of the states thereby restoring freedom and balance to the country. Or we can continue to let what are essentially criminals lead us down the path to slavery. Or we will resolve the situation through armed conflict with each other. I choose the convention of states as the best present path. One that poses no risk as all the CoS can do is propose amendments which the states must ratify. Just like an amendment proposed by congress. Thus I believe there is little risk of a run away convention. And arguments that so state are simply incorrect. With due respect.
It is too bad that the people are the problem. They elect the corrupt criminal class that put us in this mess. And they will continue to elect people just like that. Where are all those people of character of you speak of? Voted down, betrayed, or cheated out of office for the most part. We will send pretty much the same cast of characters to D.C. this cycle as last cycle. The CoS is our next to last chance to protect ourselves from our illegitimate government. And we do that by reducing federal power and increasing state power.
Well said FReeper! Well Said.
Regardless of what you call it, very little good will come out of such a confab in todays society. You people's faith in 'our' system is touching.
If we were dealing with decent people, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, we are facing Communists, Socialists, and liberals. They will not put a deadline on the ratification process. They will choose weasel words and ambiguous phrases that normal people will misread at first glance but that can be read differently at their convenience, once ratified. I don't believe a CoS will solve the problem. It's down to two options that I can see, and I am hoping we will discover an acceptable option that limits the power of government over us but avoids a second civil war.
Well it is not faith it is math. Too many states are required to ratify a proposed amendment for any serious ill to come of a CoS. The real problem is that no amendment would likely be ratified. However I really do understand your concern. Have a good day.
I don’t believe we have any other recourse. And I believe a CoS is a long shot. But it is the best peaceful shot we have. Have a good day FReeper.
We'll have to disagree on this. I just really do not believe any good can come of such a thing. I think the Constitution as written would work just fine if it were followed. Have a great one
The “people of character” I referenced are among the 100,000,000 Americans who could have voted in 2012 and did not vote.
They voluntarily deserted the field of battle because “their” candidate did not win the primary. By doing so, they ensured the LIEberal win.
If the same number of people who voted for John and Sarah had voted for Mitt and Paul, Mitt would be President, and we would all be having a much different conversation.
With ya on that. Our passionate kids (regardless of age), need to internalize that something is better than nothing. Turning this country over to Dims is not an option.
It is time for us to just say “NO!” to the LIEberals!
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.