Tom Coburn Pushes Con Con to Alter Constitution

Written by:

Published on: September 4, 2014

Looking at the shenanigans going on in Washington, DC, it is quite obvious that our government has become bloated, corrupt, out of control and unresponsive to the citizens who empower it. More and more it appears the government is openly trying to destroy the US and her citizens. No longer does our creature, the federal government, function as a government “by the people, for the people and of the people.” Instead, a collection of self-absorbed elite political hacks following some hidden agenda who believe they know better than the people themselves what is good for them. Many Americans are enraged at this “political machine” that puts itself ahead of the welfare of the citizenry. And, there are some members of both the Senate and House of Representatives that share the feelings of enragement. But, what to do about the runaway government?

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) thinks it is high time that “states exercise their Article V powers to hold a convention and change the Constitution; and, he is committing full-time to this cause once he retires in a few months. Coburn joins “conservative” talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, as well as Michael Farris and Nick Dranias, in backing the “Convention of the States,” a “Constitutional Convention,” or an “Article V Convention.”

According to Coburn, “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 that Washington has become gridlocked, with little of value being accomplished for the voters. He believes a “convention of the states” could nudge action along in Washington.

Sounds good, doesn’t it; or does it?

Article V of the Constitution of the united States of America states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

In looking at Article V, it states that Congress proposes amendments when two thirds of both Houses deem it necessary and Congress calls for a convention for proposing amendments upon the application of two thirds of the states’ legislatures. The state legislatures must make application to the Congress for a convention to propose amendments; then, the Congress calls the Convention.

So, states apply to Congress for a Convention and Congress calls the Convention. According to Article V, who chooses delegates to attend this Convention? Article V is silent on this.

What is the process delegates of the Convention follow in order to propose amendments and have those approved before sending the finalized version to Congress for a vote? Article V is silent on this as well.

What if several states who petition Congress for a “convention” later decide not to endorse the convention and rescind their request? How is this addressed in Article V? It isn’t.

Even if the states “petition” for a Con-Con under Article V, would Congress “deem it necessary?” Who or what defines what “necessary” is?

There are a lot of issues and questions that Article V does not address when it comes to the “convention.”

The Constitution of the united States of America has 27 amendments. What process was followed for those amendments? Publius Huldah indicates that for all 27 amendments, including the Bill of Rights, the Congress proposed the amendments then sent those amendments to the states for ratification. James Madison, himself, introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress.

But, many would say this convention is needed to “reign” in the federal government. It is true that the federal government needs to be curtailed, but is this really the way to do it?

The last convention called was in 1787 in order to “amend” the Articles of Confederation. That convention gave us our current Constitution. The precedent has been set. Instead of amending the Article of Confederation, the delegation created a new constitution. In other words, a total re-writing of the document that initially governed our country occurred. If honorable men, such as those who attended the 1787 delegation, chose to re-write instead of amend an existing document, can we truly say that men, and women, of today would not do the same?

Coburn told The Hill, “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 choke hold on regulation and re-establish the power of the Congress.”

But, is proposing more amendments the way to go about this?

The Constitution has 27 amendments currently. And, as Publius Huldah indicates, “Of the 15 amendments ratified since the 12th in 1804; 10 increased the powers of the feds (13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th); and, 4 were ‘housekeeping’ amendments (20th, 22nd, 25th, 27th) ….” The majority of amendments that have been passed and added to our Constitution actually increased the power of the federal government, not limited it. And, the atmosphere was a bit better in Washington and America in the past than it is now.

Ask yourself this question; “Would anyone vote to ‘limit’ themselves in the ability to retain and wield power once it is attained?” Let’s be honest here. No one would vote to basically relieve themselves of a “job” which is what term limits for Congress would be asking these “power hungry” individuals such as Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein and others to do. The amendments cited by Coburn as being needed actually have been proposed by the “Con-Con” activists and all increase the power of the federal government.

Here is a good analogy by Publius Huldah;

If your spouse violates the marriage vows, amend the vows and your marriage will be saved!

If motorists violate the speed limit, amend the speed limit and safety will be restored!

When people violate the Ten Commandments, amend the Ten Commandments!

When politicians violate the Constitution, amend the Constitution, and all will obey it!

The Washington gang threw out the Constitution some time back, following their illustrious emperor, king, despot and tyrant. Are we really to believe that these lawless criminals would follow others? Of course, they would – if it increased their power, not limited it. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land limiting the power of the federal government. The only way the government can attain more power is to usurp it or amend the Constitution to delegate power to the government. Americans have allowed the federal government to usurp power. It would stand to reason that the government would take more.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the fungus occupying the Oval Office has violated the Constitution. These judges support what many have been saying. However, the fungus has ignored the ruling and continued on with business as usual. So has Congress. What has been done according to the law to remedy this? Who is following the law and the Supreme Court ruling? What have the state legislatures done to protect the people from the over-reach of the federal government? What have state legislatures done in response to the Supreme Court ruling?

As it stands now, the majority of amendments gave more power to the federal government and now, the government is taking the power it wants – with little resistance by the states. Our creature has adopted the stance that the people are to serve the government, not the other way around. A red flag should pop up when a member of Congress supports an Article V convention no matter their affiliated party, even when they are about to retire.

While many advocates of this “convention” boldly state, with confidence, how the process works, there is nowhere in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that outlines the process or establishes rules governing the convention. These individuals, along with some state legislators, are “making them up” as they go in order to gain support for a process that could be detrimental to the very foundation of this country. It doesn’t take a Constitutional scholar to see this – just basic reading comprehension and an inquisitive mind.

Past history shows that amendments to the Constitution result in more power being given to our creature, the federal government. Many know that “history tends to repeat itself,” which is why people should learn history. Americans, in learning the Constitution, will see the danger in allowing additional amendments to be added from an Article V convention, regardless of who is proposing the amendments and advocating for a convention. It is a ruse to grant additional power to the government and decrease the God-given unalienable rights of the people, despite what “famous” or “infamous” talk show host pundits, Con-Con advocates, or Coburn claim.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.
Check out Sons of Liberty Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome
Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus

Send this to friend