Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Sen. Tom Coburn and other conservatives are 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. "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 said. 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.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Some liberal activists and scholars say they could support an Article V convention, but only if it were set up to be "cross-partisan." They'd like to use it 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 Democrat who supports holding a convention.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

A very bad and a very dangerous idea.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2014-09-03 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 soon you'll learn they don't care what you or anyone else thinks. They gonna do what they do.

#2 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-09-03 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I already know that Deadspin but I still voice an opinion just for the hell of it.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-09-03 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It has never been successfully invoked."

And never will be.

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-09-03 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a radical goal for such a conservative Senator.

#5 | Posted by anton at 2014-09-03 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Some liberal activists and scholars say they could support an Article V convention, but only if it were set up to be "cross-partisan." They'd like to use it 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 Democrat who supports holding a convention.

I'm pretty sure Coburn isn't interested in anything that doesn't forward the ideology of the plutocracy.

#6 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-09-03 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

And this to I suppose has nothing to do with the President's race?

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2014-09-03 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bad Idea? Radical? Race? Loons is the only word I can think to describe those making such comments. You really think those words should apply to following a procedure spelled out in the constitution? (Naïve to think it will actually work maybe, but not Bad, Radical, or Race related by any means)

Is it a Bad Idea or Radical to allow the legislative branch to seize back powers that have drifted to the presidency? Who does not believe that the Executive branch is overstepping it's bounds with all the spying and patriot act?

Is it Race related when Coburn and Obama are friends who formed a bond soon after they came to the Senate in 2005?

Really, the hate him because his is conservative is just over the top, and shows how shallow many of you are.

#8 | Posted by freechoice at 2014-09-03 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This is how conservatives plan to subvert democracy and keep control with their dwindling numbers: gridlock the senate with low-population, rural-state senators, control the House with jerry-mandered districts and a Constitutional amendment to hobble the presidency (an office they have no chance of reclaiming).

#9 | Posted by DRJIMMIES at 2014-09-03 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Yes it is about time. We need to revoke the 16th and 17th amendments.

We also need a provision to allow states to recall a president.

#10 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-09-03 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Nothing sadder than having to listen to a "strict constitutionalist" whine on about the need to alter the constitution.

#11 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-09-03 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

"Yes it is about time. We need to revoke the 16th and 17th amendments."

"We also need a provision to allow states to recall a president."

If you want those things they can be done by the normal amendment process.

Fortunately, that too, is a difficult process so the liklihood of you succeeding is small.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2014-09-03 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think it's a good idea.
Wonder who gets invited though.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-03 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is it a Bad Idea or Radical to allow the legislative branch to seize back powers that have drifted to the presidency? Who does not believe that the Executive branch is overstepping it's bounds with all the spying and patriot act?

#8 | POSTED BY FREECHOICE AT 2014-09-03 02:26 PM | REPLY

If these are powers that the legislative branch currently has under the constitution (but have "drifted" away to the presidency), why is a convention necessary?

And, yes, I do believe that the Executive Branch has overstepped its bounds. But, its "bounds" are set by the existing constitution. We need better Supreme Court Justices more than we need a constitutional convention.

#14 | Posted by anton at 2014-09-03 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is it a Bad Idea or Radical to allow the legislative branch to seize back powers that have drifted to the presidency? Who does not believe that the Executive branch is overstepping it's bounds with all the spying and patriot act?

Spying and patriot act? These are powers that the legislative branch have granted the president. If they don't want the POTUS to have them, then the legislature should revoke them.

The problem is that congress is dysfunctional. This dysfunction leaves a hole which the POTUS fills. If you don't like the powers of the POTUS, vote in legislators that can work with each other (i.e. willing to compromise); not those who can't.

#15 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-09-04 02:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Spying and patriot act? These are powers that the legislative branch have granted the president. If they don't want the POTUS to have them, then the legislature should revoke them.
#15 | Posted by FedUpWithPols

No.
Those powers shouldn't be able to be given.
Like an illegal term in your lease that can't be enforced.
Congress has the power to declare war.
They do not have the power to authorize the President to use military force.
I mean, maybe they do, but it completely contravenes the entire point of having Congress declare war when they can delegate that power.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-04 03:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing sadder than having to listen to a "strict constitutionalist" whine on about the need to alter the constitution.

#11 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

Your ignorance is showing. A strict constitutionalist does not disagree with amending the Constitution properly, they disagree with lawmakers doing an end-around on the Constitution, blatantly ignoring the Constitution or "interpreting" the Constitution.

#17 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-09-04 08:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your ignorance is showing. A strict constitutionalist does not disagree with amending the Constitution properly, they disagree with lawmakers doing an end-around on the Constitution, blatantly ignoring the Constitution or "interpreting" the Constitution.

#17 | POSTED BY MUSTANG GT

I saw that yesterday and thought about making the point you just made. I just decided that responding to the mentally unstable wasn't worth the effort.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-09-04 08:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"A strict constitutionalist"

A strict constitutionalist would never pretend that the founders intended for there to be something as ridiculous as corporate personhood, further they would never have the audacity to pretend that such corporate person actually has religious values. Scalia is not a strict constitutionalist, he is an activist fascist with a political agenda and he is dispicable.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2014-09-04 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"...seeks convention to amend Constitution to HIS skewed thinking."
FTFY

#20 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-09-04 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It is extremely interesting to me that the Left & the Right in the Left/Right Paradigm pans out about 50/50 or 51/49 in all the political contests. The U.S. seems to have been in gridlock for decades, but it's really psy-ops: the country cleverly manipulated to fall that way on every issue / in almost every election. {Obama did defeat Romney handily when everybody here (O supporters) expected Romney to win (FOX News & the GOP certainly did).}

The fabricated gridlock has worked to keep any opposition to government over-reach by either side from being effective.

#21 | Posted by kenx at 2014-09-04 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

"{Obama did defeat Romney handily when everybody here (O supporters) expected Romney to win (FOX News & the GOP certainly did).}"

Baloney, polls showed Obama leading and expected to win. Karl Rove thought Romney would win because he believed he had the puters in Ohia fixed to throw the election for Romney.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2014-09-04 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

17: Bingo! Pretty much exactly what I was gonna say--but I think you said it better than I would have. There is nothing inherently contradictory in a "strict constitutionalist" saying, "Hey, let's use a tool that exists in the Constitution to change the Constitution."

#23 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-09-04 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Gotta agree with 23. This is how it is done.

#24 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-04 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

#22 | Posted by danni
Your tin foil hat is showing

#25 | Posted by homerj at 2014-09-04 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

#19 I think you need to get a better understanding of fascism.

en.wikipedia.org

#26 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-09-04 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#25 ~ #22's tin-foil hat showing

you mean #21's don't you? i love the ef outta my alum-foil hat so the aliuns can't inject my dreams...

ok ~~ Saddam HUSSEIN (Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti) ~~ OSAMA bin Laden ~~ Barrack HUSSEIN OBAMA

coincidence? or psy-ops to subliminally screw with Amerikans' sense of security?
oh, coincidence, of course. Vicious beheading of journalists by "radical British-Muslims?" well, hell, we HAVE to bomb Iraq & send in troops NOW (to the tune of $175 million per month). We, the CANADIA-MEXICA-unUNITED STATES of AMERIKA

#24 ~ "Gotta agree with 23. This is how it is done."

Rather: This is how it could be, but never will be done.

(screwed-up World Trade Center bombing #1) ~~ Waco Branch-Davidian (children incinerated) ~~ OK City bombing (children incinerated) ~~ successful World Trade Center / Pentagon attacks (people incinerated) ~~ WTC Bldg #2 & The Pentagon, both hit exactly where massive financial crimes being investigated: the former the 1st Wall Street boondoggle & the latter almost $2 hundred trillion Rumsfeld had announced mysteriously missing in military expenditures, both investigations conveniently, coincidentally eradicated.

#27 | Posted by kenx at 2014-09-04 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

uh

#28 | Posted by kenx at 2014-09-04 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

After the next attack, probably a nuclear explosion in a major Amerikan city (possibly coinciding with others, perhaps in Rome & Jerusalem) total lockdown & surveillance will be implemented, the NWO will not give a fig that everybody knows it was them; it will be a capital offense to blog or discuss any understanding but the official line. It's all over, folks.

#29 | Posted by kenx at 2014-09-04 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Coburn is a gradiose idiot.

#30 | Posted by ichiro at 2014-09-05 05:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

n

#31 | Posted by ichiro at 2014-09-05 05:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

A great idea long overdue. Congress will never vote term limits on themselves. Congress will continue to keep themselves exempt from the laws they pass.

Also the states have been run over by the federal government for years and it is time to put them back into their place.

#32 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-09-05 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Congress will never vote term limits on themselves

This won't change that as it takes Congress' vote to get an amendment started.

#33 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-05 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort