ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Published February 14, 2015


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.

The latest figures to endorse the effort are retired Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

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. A primary goal is to get an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget, in which spending does not exceed revenue.

Article V of the Constitution says 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 the 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.”

Beyond getting Congress to pass a balanced budget, supporters of the largely Republican-backed effort are also focused on such issues as campaign finance reform and making sure the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t over regulate.

Kasich, a potential 2016 White House candidate, has recently concluded a six-state tour in which he 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 last month in Utah, urging state lawmakers to pass a convention resolution, which has failed there in past years.

However, he faced some surprising crosswind in the largely conservative state, skepticism about the idea from GOP Sen. Mike Lee.

The Tea Party-backed Lee has sponsored a balanced-budget amendment every year since getting elected to the Senate in 2010. But he reportedly is concerned about a convention creating the potential for a barrage of bad amendments.

Wisconsin GOP state Rep. Chris Kapenga has helped drive the effort through the group the Assembly of State Legislatures, which is focused on crafting a clear set of convention rules to allay such concerns and counter arguments like Lee’s.

“Where taking away the fear of the unknown,” he told FoxNews.com earlier this week.

Kapenga also said his state legislature is working on a balanced budget proposal that he’s “fairly certain” will pass and serve as Wisconsin’s notice to Congress.

Still, he acknowledges supporters of the effort won’t get past the 34-state threshold until they convince some Democratic-leaning legislatures to join.

“Red and blue states still have some differences that need to be ironed out,” Kapenga said.

The effort is also being pushed by Citizens for Self-Government, which is trying to get the minimum number of states or more to pass the resolution.

The effort also has support from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, 2008 vice p**********l candidate and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Arkansas Gov. and potential 2016 White House candidate Mike Huckabee -- all Republicans.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

I don't know why people are so interested in getting that damn convention going. It will cause nothing but harm. We also do NOT need a balanced budget Amendment. If you have read that thing that is going around, I think you would be against it too.

If you truly want a balanced budget, then make Congress stick to the Constitution and you would have a balanced budget with a huge surplus and we wouldn't have to worry about all this crap that is going on now. If you read Livin's BB, you would see that it is nothing but a s**m. It makes legal what is now illegal and puts us in a worst situation then we are in now.

Read this and then come back and tell me why you think we need a BB Amendment.
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/balanced-budget-amendment/

You have to be very careful with the Amendments that get passed and look at the big picture. Just look at the harm the 17th has done to our country and maybe you will see that a lot of these calls for new Amendments are as phoney as a three dollar bill.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Mr Ed: I'm concerned...give me a couple of days to research it.....Thanks "Because we have flown, we need envy no man".

MrEd Loc: Georgia

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/mark-levin/
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/

You may want to read these too while you are at it and there are a few hyper links that you can follow to get more information from people that know what they are talking about.

I think if you do some reading you will find that in the end you are as dead set against any of this fool hearty garbage as I am. While we may find a couple of true Amendments that we could pass and that would be good for the country, I think in the end you will see that the best thing we could do is simply follow what we already have and forget about all this other stuff. We would be better off getting rid of the ones we don't need, like the 17th and we would be doing this country a favor and wind up better in the end then adding new ones.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

There's much more to this than simply a balanced budget amendment. Washington will never fix itself, it is far too corrupt now.

A year or so back, Mark Levin published his book, The Liberty Amendments If you haven't read it (obviously you haven't), I highly recommend it. It is a scholarly work that delivers remarkable insights into Article V and a Convention of the States, along with an education on the Constitution itself. In the book, Levin has proposed 12 possible amendments, including repeal of the 17th Amendment and term limits for congress (senators and reps) and for federal judge (at all levels, SCOTUS included.) This book has inspired the movement. The president of the Indiana senate was the first to grab the ball and run with it.

Bottom line is we have to do something or we are flat out screwed, and an Article V convention is essentially our last shot at using our Constitution to start us back on the right track.

Sicilianthing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Someone here on OPP told me some time ago that there are Dark Forces behind this process to disguise the Trickery and Deceit unfolding....

This may not be the solution the Constitution talks about as it may be Hijacked...

I wish they would chime in on it again to explain...

I am trying to dig it out of archives and find it... I saved it because it was fascinatingly revealing.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

What the hell do you mean "dark forces behind this process" or that it"may be hijacked"? Maybe because you are so obsessed with pulling triggers and blowing s**t up, that you cannot even consider any other option.

Instead of looking for the Boogy man in every dark alley, why don't you do some serious investigating into the only Constitutional procedure left to us? Hold off for a bit on that violent revolution you keep yelling about?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Be careful what you wish for; Amendments can not only be enacted, they can be repealed, or changed. A repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments is desirable. Term Limits are desireable, and would likely be one result of a repeal of the 17th, since professional politicians were the exception rather than the rule before it's enactment.
Be very careful. The first ten would also be on the chopping block. I don't know if you can have a limited Convention, which would expressely leave the Bill of Rights inviolate.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Mr. Ed: Loki's assessment seems to sum up my thinking on the subject " Be careful what you wish for; Amendments can not only be enacted, they can be repealed, or changed. A repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments is desirable. Term Limits are desirable, and would likely be one result of a repeal of the 17th, since professional politicians were the exception rather than the rule before it's enactment.
Be very careful. The first ten would also be on the chopping block. I don't know if you can have a limited Convention, which would expressly leave the Bill of Rights inviolate."

I'm up as well on the Convention of States...Nullification process seems to be another option in controlling this cancerous snake in Washington!

Sicilianthing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Blade, you took this wrong... I've read it and it is there as a reboot sorta protection... I agree with you...

But Im trying to find what she wrote about it being hijacked and it really threw up Red f**gs...

You'll understand once I find it and send it to you.

Remember, I want to preserve infrastructure not blow it up...
It's the Bunkers you have to Cook or collapse in not blow up.

Sicilianthing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now we're getting warm, thanks Loki... I'm trying to find it... I'm digging standby people... get everyone to chime in....

Someone has it...

gokart32

there's two kinds of conventional one is to change and rewrite the constitution and the other is conventional the state's that amends only the a artc. that is injust to the ppl.and to add artc that the state's fill that protect the ppl. and stops the big runaway gov.it to repeal and rewrite injustice arc.like the 17 and yes we need to ligament gov.spending. the ppl, has a cap on us so they need one.yes liment terms on congress yes we need it .stop executive order this is what we need because if the lifers like mccain and a few others that been bought by the donors and the party

Jeffersonian

A Convention of the States is perhaps the only way around an entrenched and recalcitrant Congress that will not reign in an out of control executive as Obama seems to be. The Constitution provides impeachment as the method of controlling an out of control executive, but there seems to be no will or consensus to use that avenue. Additionally, impeachment is also available to remove Supreme Court justices (a radical move but available).

There is much that needs addressing. The problem, and I understand the concerns, is that a Convention of the States needs to be called for specific action not broad all powerful action. There is no guarantee that such a convention would remain limited in scope.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Sorry, Sci, that I misunderstood you. It's just that so many people seem to oppose an Article V convention with no understanding of how it works.

There is no possibility of a "hijacking", or a "runaway convention". and it is NOT a Constitutional Convention. Neither are the state legislatures and their delegations going to repeal, rewrite, or in any way threaten the Bill of Rights.

Read Article V carefully. There are TWO procedures for amending the constitution. Briefly, by federal congress proposal, and through a convention of the state LEGISLATURES.

In congress, 2/3 of BOTH houses propose an amendment/s.
or 2/3 of state legislatures call a convention. (that's 33 states)

In either case, when an amendment/s is finally agreed upon and is officially proposed, it must then be submitted to all 50 state legislatures for ratification. The amendment becomes a part of the constitution if and when 3/4ths of the state legislatures v**e for ratification. (38 states)

As we speak, I believe at last count, there are 4 state legislatures who have passed resolutions for a convention and 27 state legislatures discussing and debating. And even more are becoming interested.

Two things must be understood about the Convention of the states for proposing amendment/s. One, Congress can neither hijack the convention, nor can it deny the states permission to proceed, or in any way block it. Second, in 2014, Republicans made historic gains in the nation’s state legislatures. The GOP now controls 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers -- the highest number in the history of the party. Republicans currently hold the governorship and both houses of the legislature in 23 states, while Democrats have that level of control in only 7.

(Note: Nebraska, with a unicameral legislature, is the missing state in this count. Note also that neither the POTUS nor the governors have any say whatsoever in this procedure.)

I reckon the fundamental question for all of us is: If we agree that our nation is in peril, and if we agree that the majority of those we elected to the federal government have betrayed us, then what recourse is left to us?

As you will learn if you read The Liberty Amendments, the Founders suffered intense debates over what might be a recourse for the states if the federal congress went rogue and the government as a whole became tyrannical. The inclusion in Article V for a convention of the states for proposing amendments was their solution. As things now stand, short of a miracle at the polls, e******ns will not change the direction we are headed. At best, a favorable e******n might slow us down, but a complete reversal is a pipe dream. This convention, should it go forward to conclusion, is the last peaceful Constitutional recourse we have. Failing this, the outlook is grim indeed. We either succumb to a dictatorship, or we "go rogue". As a bumper sticker I saw recently put it:

"If our Founders were here today, they'd be shooting by now."

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Rather than search for something to discredit such a convention or otherwise attack the idea, why not first research the procedure to gain a better understanding of what so many who don't understand it are attacking. And the idea that such a convention would have no limits is clear evidence of a lack of understanding.

As for a threat to the Bill of Rights, that just ain't going to happen. Even if a repeal of any of the first ten amendments was actually proposed, there is no way that 3/4ths of the state legislatures would ratify it.