Posted on 02/14/2015 11:21:12 AM PST by Publius
A state-level campaign to rein in the federal government by calling an unprecedented convention to amend the U.S. Constitution is gaining steam, picking up support from two high-profile Republicans as more states explore the idea.
Coburn, a legendary government-waste watchdog, announced this week that he has joined the effort by becoming a senior adviser for the group Convention of States Action, which wants states, not just Congress, to pass constitutional amendments.
Article V of the Constitution states amendments can be ratified either by Congress or by states if two-thirds of them petition Congress to call a convention. Then, any amendment proposed at the convention must be ratified by three-fourth, or 38, states.
So far, the Alaska, Florida and Georgia legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention, and 25 more are considering one, according to group.
“Our founders anticipated the federal government might get out of control,” Coburn said Tuesday. “And they gave us a constitutional mechanism to rein it in.”
Meanwhile, Ohio GOP Gov. John Kasich, a potential 2016 White House candidate, has recently concluded a six-state tour in which he has asked legislators to support the convention, largely to push the balanced budget idea.
“Who the heck thinks we should keep spending without any regard to the consequences?” Kasich, a fiscal hawk and former House Budget Committee chairman, asked in South Dakota. “I don’t care if you’re a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian. This is not what we should be doing as a nation. It’s irresponsible.”
Kasich, who claims credit for crafting a balanced federal budget before leaving Congress in 2000, gave a similar pitch week last month in Utah, urging state lawmakers to pass a convention resolution, which has failed there in past years.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
<>Too much in the way of political machinations for me to be messing with it.<>
I believe you.
As an Article V supporter, I recently did so.
"Hard" provisions are in force. We still have a congress, president, scotus, electoral college, even-calendar year elections. Oh, and of course the restrictions on state power in Article I Section 10 are strictly enforced.
"Soft" provisions, which is nearly everything else, are ignored.
Vast powers delegated to congress are now within the executive branch. Scotus is little more than Obgama's rubber stamp.
The American experiment in republican government is gone. Understand? There is nothing to lose via Article V. The power within Article V, just like the 9th and 10th Amendments, exist without their inclusion in the constitution.
For you to write, I’ll be working the other side marks you a despicable low-life.
“The states send delegates with specific instruction...”
I live in Oregon. Nothing, Washington, California or Oregon delegates would bring to the convention, would be of a positive nature to the Constitution.
Apparently, FR has it’s own share of LIV (that’s low information voters for those of you in Rio Linda)...
There are more than enough threads on FR for you to educate yourself as to the Article V process, procedure, benefits & pitfalls...
If you haven’t noticed, the “living” constitution that has been created by the executive & judicial branches is what is killing the country. Voting alone WILL NO LONGER solve the ails of the country. It is going to take STRUCTURAL changes to the constitution via amendments (repeal of the 17th and term limits to start) to right the ship and it will take HARD work and patience.
Regardless of any of this, Jacquerie works TIRELESS hours both on and off of FR to promote and educate for Article V. Rather than “Working the other side”, give us some of those ideas from the “other side” and let’s see your SOLUTIONS...
I know where I’m throwing my support because here are your options...
1) Article V Convention to propose amendments
2) State Nullification
3) Secession
4) CW2
The founders included Article V for the times they knew would be coming and THEY ARE HERE! Based on my readings, they would be SHOCKED that states had not already called a convention...
So what! They will be balanced by Alabama, Georgia, Wyoming and host of other states.
Well ... don’t sign on to a political campaign to talk to people about the issue ... your people skills are a bit lacking ... LOL ...
I disagree... You don’t think anyone in those states care about Gov’t spending? The national Debt? CAREER politicians? Lifetime Senators?
What is the makeup of those state houses outside the BIG cities?
I disagree... You don’t think anyone in those states care about Gov’t spending? The national Debt? CAREER politicians? Lifetime Senators?
What is the makeup of those state houses outside the BIG cities?
You can work for it ... and I’ll work against it. We’ll see who ends up persuading people on it.
So be it... How about you start your own ANTI Article V threads and show us all your great knowledge and research as to why it would be a bad idea...
I can’t wait to be enlightened by your vast knowledge and persuasion skills...
Well, the delegates would be able to “hash out” a resolution between them all ... like all good politicians do.
I’ll trade you one “Second Amendment” for your proposed new Amendment, and we have a deal.
There’s a reason why they say there are two things you don’t want to see “being made” ... and that’s SAUSAGE and LEGISLATION.
After it was all over, our Constitution would look like SAUSAGE! ... LOL ...
Are you being sarcastic? Oregon state house is like a mini Obama administration. And it just got worse. They LIKE everything you cited.
I’ll join a campaign that is already ongoing. I’m not going to duplicate efforts already done.
This shows your COMPLETE & TOTAL ignorance as to the process of what the states delegates to the convention will be charged with via their state legislatures.
Have you read what was passed by Georgia? Have you been to the Convention of States website?
WOW... just wow...
That is the wisdom of an Article V Convention. Washington has absolutely nothing to say about it.
A good two cents. Might I suggest a proof of comment CoS called for the purpose of repeal of the 17th amendment? I believe we could coalesce around that and work out the kinks in calling a convention and make our citizens more familiar and at ease with the process. As you are well aware repeal of the 17th will restore a powerful state voice to the federal government by restoring the original constitution requires in this area. I don’t see how anyone could oppose this approach.
Sorry, but there are no guarantees when you get a bunch of politicians (legislators) together. There isn’t a politician alive today, including any and all that I’ve voted for, that I would let get within a 100 miles of the Constitution.
You’re way more trusting than I am ... :-) ...
As a practical matter, 3/4 of the states can do whatever they want provided they have 2/3 of the country's population. Some things trump all lawyers.
"All power comes from the barrel of a gun." Mao tse-Tung.
"Why doth treason never prosper? Because if it prosper, NONE dare call it treason!"
"Do you really believe that 38+ States would ratify a totally bad amendment like (e.g.) repealing the Second Amendment.
No, it's far more likely that the States would fail to ratify a good amendment."
Some people are concerned about the theoretical possibility that a new constitutional convention might propose a pretty much new Constitution which would only require one 3/4 vote of the states to ratify. This is, in fact, a theoretical possibility. This is why I said that a new Constitution might include a provision naming me "Queen of the May".
Those people who worry about such theoretical possibilities should worry about losing all their money, and instead give it to me for safekeeping. Because a Carrington Event is coming.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2247254/
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.