FED up with creeping socialism, conservatives in BIG push for constitutional convention

(National SentinelIt’s Time: There hasn’t been one since the earliest days of our founding, but conservatives — increasingly alarmed by creeping socialism, Left-wing courts, and Democratic efforts to overturn the 2016 election are now turning their attention more avidly towards a “constitutional convention.”

In the days of the Tea Party movement, a book called “The Liberty Amendments” by constitutional scholar, author, talk host and former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin sparked a modern-day convention movement that would operate much as the first “con-con” which took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia.

“I think we’re three or four years away,” former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn told The Guardian on Friday at the annual convention for American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The paper noted further:

Coburn, a veteran Republican lawmaker, now works as a senior adviser for the advocacy group Convention of States, which seeks to use a little known clause in article V of the US constitution to call a constitutional convention for new amendments to dramatically restrict the power of the federal government.

Coburn, who retired from the Senate in 2010, said that the American republic is “failing”, and that such a convention is the “only answer” to the problems the country faces today.

“We’re in a battle for the future of our country,” Coburn told the assembly of mostly conservative state lawmakers meeting in New Orleans. “We’re either going to become a socialist, Marxist country like western Europe, or we’re going to be free. As far as me and my family and my guns, I’m going to be free.”

Critics of a con-con claim that it could become a “runaway” affair, with states proposing all kinds of new amendments that would repeal current amendments like parts of the First Amendment, the entire Second Amendment, and provisions having to do with privacy rights.

Levin and other experts have explained in the past that’s impossible because, as in the first con-con, rules for the convention would be established beforehand that would protect the Bill of Rights. What’s more, they note, any new amendment proposed out of the convention would still have to be ratified the very high threshold of three-quarters of the states.

What’s being pushed so? The Guardian notes:

On the agenda for Convention of States: an amendment to require a balanced budget, term limits for congress, repealing the federal income tax and giving states the power to veto any federal law, supreme court decision or executive order with a three-fifths vote from the states

“All it takes is 13 judiciary chairmen, in 13 states, to stop anything stupid that might come out of that,” Coburn said. “Nothing’s going to happen, I’ll stake my life on that.”

Convention of the States has been operating in the background for years lobbying state legislatures to pass a resolution calling for a constitutional convention. Once enough states — two-thirds, or 34 — pass such resolutions, Congress has no choice but to convene one under Article V.

So why hasn’t that happened yet? According to Newsmax, Michigan became the 34th state to pass a resolution in 2014.

At the time, then-House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was said to be ‘looking into’ the matter.

Which sounds an awful lot like, “I’m going to sit on this for as long as possible to avoid doing the right thing.

A number of states long ago rescinded their resolutions, but here’s the thing: There’s nothing in the Constitution that allows for them to do that. The language of Article V contains nothing about recission of initial resolution.

The only chance we have to restore this country, that is peaceful, is this convention,” Jim Moyer, a Convention of States supporter and attendee at the ALEC annual meeting, told The Guardian.

Never miss a story! Subscribe to our daily newsletter and get our new report “The Spygate Files” for free!

* indicates required

Email Format


9 Comments on "FED up with creeping socialism, conservatives in BIG push for constitutional convention"

  1. A new version Constitution might or might not be better than the one we have. Thing is, neither one is any good if it’s routinely ignored by legislatures and courts, as is the case now. In my opinion it’s less important to create a new Constitution than it is to undo the laws and court decisions that have so badly undermined the one we have.

    • I agree. Fumigate the house of pests first before you rebuild it.

      • A couple of points:

        (1) The Convention of States is NOT about “creating a “New” Constitution, because, in the first place, it is borne directly out of, and operating at all times under and within, the “Original” Constitution itself ( Article V of such );

        (2) Some ( and possibly, most ) of what will be done during the Convention of States is precisely the remedy you’ve mentioned ( “to undo the laws and court decisions that have so badly undermined the one we have” ) e.g., REPEAL of the Federal Income Tax; 3/5 of the States being given the power to veto horrendous orders, decisions and/or laws instituted by the Executive Branch, the Federal Courts ( including the Supreme Court ) and/or Congress.

        The Founding Fathers actually believed that this would become necessary ( the utilization of the Article-V “safety-net” ) MUCH sooner than at the point in history we are at now ( in fact, Thomas Jefferson firmly believed that it would take a “violent revolution every 100 years” or so, to periodically restore the “original” formulation — apparently, he believed that the situation would stray SO far from the original, that not even the employment of Article V would be sufficient ( or even partially effective ? ) to fully ( or sufficiently or satisfactorally ) correct the damage and distortion that, by that time, would have been manifest and so deeply-ingrained.

  2. Deport the enemy !! Country #110 !!

  3. Deport all leftists, Muslims, and illegals!!

  4. To all please read Article V of the U.S. Constitution. It only allows amendments to the constitution.

    • Article V describes the amendment process. It puts no bounds on the scope of amendments. An amendment might be a small change, as most have been, or it might be in the extreme replacing the whole shebang. Article V doesn’t care.

  5. The modern push for an Article V Convention to propose any multitude of changes to our Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) began with a campaign by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) back in the 1970s, long before Mark Levin favored a convention under the fifth article of the Convention. This is a long battle that has raged for decades though most American voters were completely unaware of it. Supreme Court Justices such a Scalia have voiced their view that it is a dangerous convention to trigger. Constitutional experts such as Scott N. Bradley, PhD (Phd in Constitutional Law) have warned for decades that opening up the Constitution to a convention under Article V could bring unexpected consequences and that the progressives, socialists, communists, globalists will be well represented with delegates attending, so the notion that this will be a “conservative convention” is ridiculous.

    • Yes: the final clause of your last sentence is what, personally, terrifies me the most. On the other hand, I’m fairly certain that the the 60% ( “3/5” ) threshold of States required to veto atrocious Orders, Decisions, Laws, Regulations, etc., also applies to the final passage of all of the Amendments which will be adopted at the Convention. Which means that, IF we move quickly enough to get this done, that 60% requirement might still be sufficient to reliably asphyxiate any Progressive atrocities that do make it out of the Convention.

Leave a Reply to Amy Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: