The American Spectator : Is It Time for a Convention?

Text Size

Is It Time for a Convention?

By Philip Klein from the October 2010 issue

Article V of the Constitution is a not-so-secret weapon for opponents of ObamaCare and other federal outrages.

(Page 3 of 4)

Of all the amendments he proposed — which included, among other things, limiting congressional power under the Commerce Clause to its original intent and granting the president line-item veto power — the one that has gained the most traction was what he calls the “repeal amendment.” The very simple idea would be to amend the Constitution to allow two-thirds of the states to rescind any federal law or regulation.

The advantage this has over other proposals is that it would not only be a vehicle to address current matters such as ObamaCare, but it would also be available to combat any future abuses by Congress in decades to come. It would also restore a check on federal power that was lost when the nation moved from state legislatures appointing U.S. senators to having direct elections by the people.

“It allows states to provide an extra veto on abuse of federal power,” Barnett said of his proposal.

Barnett emphasized that the amendment would be structural rather than tailored to a specific issue. “That means it actually creates a check and balance like the rest of our structural constitution that’s still in effect,” he said. It could be used, for instance, to overturn ObamaCare, or to block the Environmental Protection Agency from capping carbon emissions through the regulatory process.

He added, “It’s self-executing, meaning the courts don’t have to be relied on to enforce it.”

The idea caught the attention of Richmond Tea Party leader Jamie Radtke, who said that the concept has piqued the interest of state legislators, grassroots activists, and business owners who are seeking ways to rein in the federal government.

“It’s nonpartisan, because it’s not a policy amendment,” Radtke said. “So it should appeal to both parties, because it allows state legislatures to check a Republican or Democratic Congress.”

BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN an Article V convention before, there is considerable speculation about the scope of Congress’s role in the process. Does it merely set the convention, and then submit any amendments to the states for ratification? Or does it have a more active role in managing the process?

“That needs to be established,” Virginia legislator LeMunyon said of choosing delegates. “Because we’ve never done it, there’s no precedent.”

In the 1980s, Sen. Orrin Hatch and several colleagues introduced a bill trying to set the parameters for a convention. It proposed replicating the structure of the U.S. Congress, allowing states to send one delegate for each congressional district, and then two additional delegates for each state, regardless of population.

Natelson said that each state would determine how to select their delegates, but that ultimately states would get only one vote each.

The other question is, what happens if 34 states petition Congress to call a convention, but Congress never acts — even though it is constitutionally required to do so — perhaps because things get gummed up in the Senate?

“That’s certainly possible,” Barnett said. “But then what you have is a constitutional crisis.” That would have to get resolved politically, and he postulated that Congress would be compelled to act, because otherwise it would face the wrath of voters. In practice, he said, “if you got to the point where there was enough public outrage to get close to an amendments convention, there wouldn’t even be one. Because you have to ask yourself, what would the political world look like at that point?”

Historically, it was Virginia and New York petitioning for a convention that led to the Bill of Rights. And Congress only acceded to amending the Constitution to allow direct election of senators once state petitions on the matter were approaching the critical mass needed to call a convention. During the 1980s, there were 32 state petitions for a convention on a balanced budget amendment, but the effort faded in the ensuing decade as concerns about deficits receded.

In the case of ObamaCare, Barnett says that any form of public backlash against the law — from the ballot measures to a push for a convention — will increase the odds that pending lawsuits challenging the law will succeed.

Page: < 1 23 4 >

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (192) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Siegfried X| 10.12.10 @ 7:16AM

We already have a constitutional convention: the United States Congress.

Bill| 10.12.10 @ 9:11AM

Unfortunately, the separation of powers and the co-equality of the three branches of the federal government on Constitutionality having been forgotten, our constitutional convention is not Congress. It's the Supreme Court.

Purple Wimple | 10.12.10 @ 11:08AM

the further we can keep Congress from the Constitution, the better. Convening an Amendments Convention to separate ricidivist politicians and the Commerce Clause is a fabulous idea.

Cannot Deny - | 10.12.10 @ 1:53PM

Enjoy!

http://cheezburger.com/View/4056916224

A. C. Santore| 10.12.10 @ 11:24AM

Sorry, Siegried X, but that's nonsense.

Thank goddess for the wisdom of the Founders!

ds80| 10.12.10 @ 12:20PM

A. C. Santore ...
God revealed himself as father, and his son was incarnate.

Don't like that? Go create your own universe.

Have fun with your political correctness at your Particular Judgement.

Bill| 10.12.10 @ 2:38PM

Was Christ a creation of God, or was He co-equal with God from the Creation?

Was Christ a dual-spirited being, with both divine and human characters, or was He wholly human or wholly divine?

ds80| 10.12.10 @ 8:45PM

Bill, to answer your two questions:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Christ is the Word. He is not a creation; he isco-eternal and co-equal with the Father.

Christ is a hypostatic union: True God and True Man. Divine, yet like man in all ways except sin.

The human creature itself is not two separate natures, but the union of spirit and matter forming a single nature.

Hope that helps.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 4:42PM

Not every Christian believes that.

Arturo| 10.14.10 @ 9:20PM

Not every Christian believes that? Or is the that he believes what he wants?

He is the Truth and the Light, whether you believe it or not, or whether you like it or not... it is.

ForgetIt| 1.7.11 @ 5:50PM

I detest religious mumbo jumbo.
The right-wing political leaders follow the rumblings of their (not "GOD's") flock. In case you all forgot, the US wasn't "discovered" by "civilized nations" until nearly 1500 years after Christ.

You all do realize that the people we call "terrorists" and "extremists" look at how U.S. citizens behave and the propaganda they are fed shows primarily the backwards-thinking members of the Republican Party. Now I would be remiss not to mention that there are, of course, a good chunk of nuts that fall within the Democratic Party and they are exaggerated in the Middle East as well.

Tim| 10.12.10 @ 10:25PM

Did he mean to type "Thank goodness"?

Robert Pinkerton| 10.12.10 @ 4:15PM

Merry Meet! I thought I was the only one who posted herem\, who keeps Faith with the Old Gods. Blessed be.

Alan Brooks| 10.12.10 @ 10:39PM

Your publisher is too squishy for his own good; this from a year ago:

"I also hope that Newt is right, and it is conservatism's hour once again. Giving the matter a second glance, I see some very competent leadership available, and there is always Mitt Romney. He did rather well the last time around until he started listening to his pollsters."

I think... er... that is, I mean... we'll see ...Mitt did [not] do rather well LAST TIME around, but give it time and when evolution starts over again a trillion years from now in another galaxy, another Reagan...

Constitution| 10.13.10 @ 4:09AM

Who are these people who think they could do a better job than George Washington and James Madison? We have a wonderful Constitution and we don't want to rewrite it or cause any discontent with the Constitution that we have.

http://www.linkdelight.com

Brian Mc| 10.13.10 @ 6:07AM

I did not realize, outside of a few speeches, that George Washington had his hand in the forming of the Federal Documents.

Alan Brooks| 10.13.10 @ 1:02PM

Perhaps he meant George Mason?

Mason served at the Virginia Convention in Williamsburg in 1776. During this time he created drafts of the first declaration of rights and state constitution in the Colonies. Both were adopted after committee alterations; the Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted June 12, 1776, and the Virginia Constitution was adopted June 29, 1776.
Mason was appointed in 1786 to represent Virginia as a delegate to a Federal Convention, to meet in Philadelphia for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. He served at the Federal Convention in Philadelphia from May to September 1787 and contributed significantly to the formation of the Constitution. "He refused to sign the Constitution, however, and returned to his native state as an outspoken opponent in the ratification contest." [11] One objection to the proposed Constitution was that it lacked a "declaration of rights". As a delegate to Virginia's ratification convention, he opposed ratification without amendment. Among the amendments he desired was a bill of rights. This opposition, both before and during the convention, may have cost Mason his long friendship with his neighbor George Washington, and is probably a leading reason why George Mason became less well-known than other U.S. founding fathers in later years. On December 15, 1791, the U.S. Bill of Rights, based primarily on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, was ratified in response to the agitation of Mason and others.

At the convention, Mason was one of the five most frequent speakers. Mason believed in the disestablishment of the church. Mason was a strong anti-federalist who wanted a weak central government, divided into three parts, with little power, leaving the several States with a preponderance of political power.

Beboper| 10.14.10 @ 10:09AM

No convention!

Every now and then this call comes from the left. These same types that ignore what the actual document says when it suits their purposes would love the opportunity to rip it to shreds with their own language insertions.

Back in the 20's, the leftist so called 'progressives' manaed to float several thoroughly constitutionally degenerative amendments (income tax, 17th, prohibition, etc.) each of which gathered more power to the federal government.

It would be nationally insane to allow the modern 'progressives' (i.e. liberals) to get their hands on the entire document at one sitting. There wouldn't be a constitution left when they got done.

Klein, you shouldn't even be writing for this site if you don't understand this.

Sandra Lee Smith| 10.15.10 @ 1:47AM

Hate to be the bearer of sad tidings, but our Constitution was already "edited for content" in 1871, when DC was incorporated and chartered under the Bank of England! IF we go back to the ORIGINAL Constitution, including the original and properly ratified 13th Amendment, and work from there, I'll agree with you, but what we're working from now is what's allowed Congress to runaway as it has, and the increasing introduction of socialist measures by past Congresses and Presidents as well!

Texas Mom 2010| 10.12.10 @ 7:32AM

I really like the idea of the repeal amendment. It would return a small amount of power back to the people. Right now it feels like we are being ruled by an increasingly encroaching fed with no checks on power. Remember Pelosi saying, we have to pas the bill so you can find out what is in it! What? Remember how incredulous she was when asked where in the constitution was Congress given the power to pass this abomination? This is definitely a runaway congress that needs to be b*tch-slapped into submission to WE THE PEOPLE before we have to have another revolution just to get the Feds out of our HOMES!!!

jhoger| 10.12.10 @ 3:16PM

"Pass the bill to find out what is in it" or whatever has been purposefully misunderstood. Pelosi simply meant that citizens will pay more attention to a law after passage. Before passage, it is bag of potential pluses and minuses. After passage, it is a guaranteed reality that must be dealt with.

Pelosi was basically wrong though, because of the effective date. People won't start to pay attention till closer to 2014. But the idea that people pay more attention to laws after they are passed is pretty obvious.

David T.| 10.12.10 @ 5:22PM

Thanks so much for the insight into the mind of Pelosi. And here I thought she was just being her usual ignorant self.

Martin Treptow| 10.13.10 @ 3:53PM

Actually, what Her Honor Mrs. Pelosi was referring to was that the Healthcare Bill was constructed and otherwise hammered out in secrecy, behind closed doors, in direct opposition to Pres. Obama's campaign promises.

The bill, she was arguing, was really quite wonderful, but since we're not going to post it online for 72 hours like we said we would or really disclose any of its' finer points in advance of the vote....

What she meant was, "you're not gonna find out what's in it until after we pass it".

Cheers!

kevinsoberg| 10.12.10 @ 7:35AM

Most definitely not...

Have we not learned the lessons of the 20th Century?

Every process Amendment passed in the last 100 years has caused an expansion of federal power. The income tax has resulted in DC control of national tax and spending systems. The popular election of senators have allowed governmental authority to flow to Washington. Prohibition led to the expansion of federal police powers.

More important than a Convention is a push to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. Success in this would do more to restore federalism than any convention could have by returning control of the Senate and the purse-strings to the States.

russel| 10.12.10 @ 8:40AM

100 % agree . The 17 th handed over state control of their senators , thus limiting the states powers greatly . The welfare queens are controling the senate now , in essence . We ended up with career pols and no way to get rid of them . Repeal , repeal .

Harry the Horrible| 10.12.10 @ 2:06PM

I agree also. I don't want to think of what sort of PC crap would be put into the Constitution if we had another convention.

trigon| 10.12.10 @ 4:01PM

Even if a convention were to sneak in some 'PC crap', it would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Highly unlikely.

It would be hard enough to get a repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments, a possible line-item veto, and some sort of clarification of the boundaries of the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses.

Think of the benefit to our country if we could do those things, though.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 2:33PM

Normally, I would agree with you, but IMO, you will never, EVER, get Americans to give up the right to elect Senators directly. Too few people understand the checks and balances the founding fathers put in; they will see repeal of the 17th as a way to control them more, not liberate them more. Heck, I have a hard time getting people I know to understand why a Republic is superior to a Democracy or why the Electoral College is a great system. I begin to fear a Constitutional Convention will become our only hope to avoid mob rule. Especially in light of the ever-more-blatant Dem voter fraud to add to that "mob" (ala Patty Murray, Al Franken, NY military ballots...) I fear the day when we have NO OTHER OPTIONS is coming. And soon.

Big D| 10.12.10 @ 4:15PM

Unfortunately, idalily, you are absolutely correct. The masses won't see repeal of 17 as enhancing their liberty, especially with how the press would cover the attempt to do so. And you're right, most people do not even understand the concept of a republic vs mob rules democracy. I HOPE for restoration of our republic, via repeals, amendments, even Art. V convention, but I FEAR in the end there will be revolution.

Michele| 10.12.10 @ 4:22PM

Totally agree with you Kevin, repealing these two misguided amendments would do wonders to fix the course we are on. A Constitutional Convention is absolutely dangerous since the rules for conducting a convention initiated by the states, rather than by congress, are not set and the current makeup of the House and Senate wishes to change the Constitution not preserve it. Can you imagine Pelosi in charge. Once a Convention is in session, behind closed doors they can do whatever they want. Yikes! That is a very dangerous proposition, Obama would love nothing more, he probably has his own version of the Constitution shovel ready...

Melvin| 10.12.10 @ 7:35AM

Unfortunately for North Carolina with Democrat Governor Beverly Perdue along with her former predecessors of Mike Easley and Jim Hunt have turned a state with a surplus in a welfare state of the Federal government.
Our A.J. Roy Cooper was pressed to join the states that are filing lawsuits against Obamacare. But since North Carolina is a ward of the White House, Roy Cooper has since declined to participate.
As long as Governors and their Legislatures feed at the teat of the Federal Government, they have lost their grounds to be a free and independent state.
Unfortunately for North Carolina citizens we know march to Obama's tune.
If memory serves me correctly, a Constitutional Convention can also be swung the opposite direction, especially with the corruptors we have sitting there now.

Nancy in NC| 10.12.10 @ 5:25PM

And that's why we get as many conservatives in Raleigh as possible before they can gerrymander us right out of existance.

I would like to see a repeal of the 16th and 17th amendment, both of which were unconstitutional to begin with.

A constitutional convention with the Marxist we have in Washington...God, that's a scary thought.

Siegfried X| 10.12.10 @ 7:41AM

Deus ex machina

John - TMF| 10.12.10 @ 8:24AM

1. Even an "Article V" convention would likely be an exercise in the "SSDD" effect. The likely candidates appointed to such an event will be the same Party people who are always sent to such events. Thus calling it would be calling pigs at a hog calling contest. A distinction without a difference.

2. The "Amendments" would more than likely be socially insane Leftist nonsense; "Marriage" (as in anything goes), "Equal Rights" (see - Jim Crow/Plessey v. Ferguson/segregation and other pet Dem social constructs..), Justifiable Homicide - (Abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide), Recreational Drugs (Institutional dependency, schizophrenia, and other social ills of a drug dependent society be damned.)

The difficult amendments like term limits for congress and the judiciary, balanced budget, wealth calculation - money supply formula, line item veto, civil service reform, non-constitutional cabinet office removal... etc will all be forgotten in the flurry of special interests and the cloud of pot smoke for the hempsters.

More than likely, a Constitutional Convention of any variety would spell the end of the Republic. Please... take Liberal projection at its word. They were warning us that IF we insisted, THEY would oblige us by destroying the OLD republic.

A ConCon is not an answer, but a means to an end.

r/The Mighty Fahvaag

1FreeMan| 10.12.10 @ 10:42AM

Thank you John. Well spoker (written)

The danger to the republic of a ConCon is extreme. Are we really willing to bet our freedom on the "promise" of a politician that they will only do "good" with a constitutional revision? Look what our trust of liberal politicians has gotten us now !!

Dixie Pixie| 10.12.10 @ 2:02PM

Greetings John
I must have missed something
What is the “SSDD Effect” and its relevance to a Constitutional Convention.
Please explain.

I do agree with your main point.
Personally, I lost all confidence in the Republicans when the Bushies started pushing that stupid “Flag Burning Amendment”. That proved to me, the Bush Republicans lacked seriousness or even awareness of the source of the conservatives rage.

John - TMF| 10.12.10 @ 2:49PM

Same er um "STUFF" Different Day...

Also known as S-squared, D-Squared.

The flag burning amendment was a nice sentiment, and a political demonstration of the reality of what Conservatives face in defending and loving this nation... it was, however, a trivialization of the amendment process, and the concept of a Constitutional Amendment in general.

Frankly burning the flag in public is a violation of more than a few local codes on public burning, and inciting riots... an amendment wasn't necessary with the appropriate charges leveled.

It is either the GOP or the Democrats. There is no other viable choice, and will not be for the foreseeable future. To the extent that some would like the Republicans to join the Whigs, the result would just be the "Republicans". They could call themselves the Fred Party, and still be the same thing.

BTW... don't hate the Bushes. Their transgressions, failings, and shortcomings are all far below the level of the current mess. Both Presidents Bush were decent men, who loved their country and did what they thought was best for the nation without apology.

To denigrate them is to bite off on the Mass Media/Democrat smear campaign that set out to destroy them and everything that they held dear.

Good men are sometimes mistaken, or fail. They own up to the failures, and accept the consequences. The Bushes have done so, greatly to their credit.

Cheers - TMF

JP| 10.12.10 @ 8:25AM

Calling a convention would be a dangerous idea. This isn't 1789, where each state was esseintially a soverign nation loosely associated within the bounds of a confederation. In order for the Constitution to be ratified, the conventioneers had to satisfy the concerns of each state. The Seperations of Powers within the Federalist framework was a brilliant solution.

However, after 220 years of weakening this framework through every means imaginable (outside of declaring a dictatorship), it is not difficult to see how the proposed convention would be hijacked. Unlike 1789 there are insitutions and individuals who have litterally billions of dollars to throw around. Unlike 1789 there are hundreds if not thousands of well funded interest groups that would do nothing but complete the dismantling of our Constitution.

No, the best way to change things is to use the existing framework our founders built. But, that requires a huge effort from conservatives and libertarians alike. It means first electing like minded men and women to both houses of congress and holding thier butts to the fire. It means doing very unpleasent things like fighting nasty turf battles with both the judiciary and executive. It means threatening federal judges with impeachment if they over-reach; it means re-writing jurisdictions and federal districts -and enforcing those new jurisdictions; it means winning the hearts and minds of the voters from San Jose to Cambridge. It also means beating the Dems at thier own game. Finally, it means getting results.

I'm not sure there is enough will left in the average American to fight this kind of battle. Using a football analogy, it means making a heroic goldline stance. But it means taking the ball and moving it across the 50 yard line -a place it hasn't been since 1928.

Clinton nee Publius | 10.12.10 @ 8:30AM

The people who oppose and dismiss it are part of the same ruling-class that like things just the way they are and have no need for anything that changes the direction of the gravy train.

In the end, we are going to get it because the Tea Parties are going to keep agitating until we do. We can take a chance that we have the wisdom of our Founding Fathers (kiss my grits Ms. Shoefly) to know when we are being screwed and if she doesn't like it, she can move to North Korea and be with the rest of her progressive brethren. We in the Tea Parties KNOW that as long as we play this game of government by the government's rules, on the government's home turf, with the government being referee and scorekeeper that there will be pussbags who take advantage of us and we know we will never end the curse of socialism and the pain and suffering of the fractional-reserve banking system debacle without a Constitutional Convention.

K+ on the article. The more people that know, the more people who will understand it is our last and greatest hope for real change.

Doctor Right| 10.12.10 @ 8:45AM

Convention?

It's almost time for secession. A convention may be moot.

William Wallace| 10.12.10 @ 9:08AM

I agree. Whatever the means, the federal government needs to be restrained and the power it has usurped has to be reasserted by the rightful givers of the power--the states or the people.

Barring that, I forsee some otherwise innocuous event being the spark that lights off outright rebellion in the street. And who knows where that leads?

Louis Jenkins| 10.12.10 @ 9:28AM

I see secession as the logical alternative, not a convention. It is terrible that things have arrived at this, but what are choices? Lock and Load? Heaven forbid if it comes to that!

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 2:44PM

Secession meant civil war last time, and the Feds have way more power now than they did then. I can't believe a ConCon would be more damaging to our republic than another Civil War. I am scared to death of what mischief the Socialists could cause at a ConCon, so I am not advocating one (not yet anyway), but if I understand the process, 3/4 of the states would have to ratify any changes afterward, so if the Socialists did make mischief, we could undo still it. We couldn't undo millions of Americans dead in the streets. A watchful, informed, educated electorate is best, but I fear we are almost beyond that. A ConCon may be our only alternative short of civil war.

RCV| 10.12.10 @ 2:58PM

Don't even think about secession. We're not giving up 1 inch of this country. As someone whose ancestor was killed at Petersburg, Virginia in the last battle of the Civil War, I can assure you that we are as quite prepared this time as last to defend the Union, and the American arsenal is a little more up-to-date.

Albert| 10.12.10 @ 3:29PM

Defend the Union from what? Revolution? Secession is not revolution. It is walking away, and it is not inherently violent. To "defend the Union" from secession is to enslave those who would secede.

RCV| 10.12.10 @ 3:46PM

Albert: This country went through this lesson in 1860. We are one nation, indivisible. If you want to amend the Constitution, there's a procedure for doing so. But you don't like this country in its present form, and don't want to bother to convince the rest of its citizens of the wisdom of your viewpoint, leave. You're no slave - you're free to go. But you're not taking an inch of the USA with you. Guaranteed.

Tim*| 10.12.10 @ 5:37PM

Let's see ya make him leave LawBoy.

RCV| 10.13.10 @ 12:04PM

No interest in making anyone leave, Timmie, even you.

SDN| 10.14.10 @ 2:02PM

Excuse me, how much of that arsenal do you think you'd really be able to use? Seeing as how we aren't locked up in a few states, but in your neighborhoods next door?

Different times mean different outcomes.

RCV| 10.15.10 @ 12:51AM

The arsenal is under effective military chain of command. I have no doubt - none - about its availability to the National Government if ever necessary, although our local police forces would be more than competent in dealing with local insurrectionists. I don't know if you've spent any time with any major municipal police forces of late, but their firepower is quite amazing.

George S| 10.12.10 @ 8:45AM

We have to change the Constitution to force the Congress to comply? You don't see where this will lead? Instead, let's all pay attention during elections and don't do stupid things like teaching Republicans "a lesson" by voting in liberals. Even the hip ones.

buckeyeman| 10.12.10 @ 8:52AM

Question: How would one re-write the Second Amendment of the current constitution to ensure that the right to KEEP and BEAR arms would not be INFRINGED?

Dark-Star| 10.12.10 @ 2:40PM

Nix the 'militia' part. That was written back when wild animals and hostile Indians roamed most of the continent.

The animals are in zoos or mounted on trophies, and the Indians are on reservations or dead. But there are plenty of domestic threats that justify private ownership of firearms, and that needs to be recognized.

Frank| 10.12.10 @ 3:40PM

Define the antiquated terms.
Well regulated: Well maintained as in a" well regulated" clock or" well regulated bowels".

Militia: In the United States, " the entire body of citizens subject to call to defend the nation".
At one time that was every able bodied male 16 through 60. Now discrimination on the basis of sex, age, or disability is not permitted so, nearly everone is a member of the militia.

The most important defination of all,
A free state: The state of being free.

JimP| 10.12.10 @ 8:53AM

Just ignore Congress and have a convention that state reps agree on. Maybe that isn't the prescribed procedure, but when you are going up against tyranny, you don't play by their rules.

Also, if a convention 'ran wild', so what? Then maybe individual states would begin to secede. What good is a union if run by an out of touch ruling class? In chaos, there is opportunity. If it takes an Article V convention to shrink government, then let the chaos begin.

Jay Hamilton| 10.12.10 @ 9:21AM

A Convention can submit the proposed amendments directly to the states,it doesn't need Congress. There is a statute that attempts to limit the actions of a convention but it is not clear that a convention would be bound by it. A convention is not without peril, It might proclaim this "AN Islamic Republic " and make Sharia the law of the land. [That does have the advantage of nancy Pelosi in a Burqua}

JayDick| 10.12.10 @ 10:59AM

Pelosi in a burqua -- now there's a unique perspective.

Dixie Pixie| 10.12.10 @ 9:37AM

When both the Federal and State governments routinely ignore the present Constitution, why do you think any governmental entity would take any Second Constitutional Convention seriously.

The Ruling Class would easily have the Federal Government outlaw the results of a Second Constitutional Convention and and announce itself the defender of traditional government against the “dangerous radicals”. Thus the Federal Government can easily crush the results of any Second Constitutional Convention.

JayDick| 10.12.10 @ 10:58AM

I don't see this as likely, but if it did happen, can you imagine the outrage? The resulting turnover in elected officials would make 2010 look like childs play.

Dixie Pixie| 10.12.10 @ 1:42PM

Greetings Jay
Apparently you did not get the memo.
So I will explain.

Any group can assemble and call itself a Constitutional Convention. The Ruling Class which has total control of both the Federal and State government is under no obligation to consider the results valid.

Please note 2/3 of the state legislatures have to consider and approve any changes to the Constitution.
Any Constitution changes not approved, are not lawful and any action to implement or utilize such changes can and will be lawfully crushed.

The Ruling Class has control of what is lawful and what is not. They are not going to abolish their power and privileges just because some new guys are voted in.

Besides the TEA Party people are God fearing, dutiful, law abiding citizens who would never consider breaking the law. Since the Ruling Class has control of the nations laws, a constitutional convention can never successfully overcome the Ruling Class interests. At least not with the TEA Party people.

Please recall what happened to Shay's Rebellion. A rerun will not turn out any better.

Dark-Star| 10.12.10 @ 2:42PM

"Please recall what happened to Shay's Rebellion. A rerun will not turn out any better."

I should say not. Then it was muskets vs. more muskets and cannons. Nowadays it would be hunting rifles and shotguns vs. machine guns, warplanes, over-the-horizon artillery, cruise missiles....

Nancy in NC| 10.12.10 @ 5:34PM

I'm with you, Dixie. The ruling class gives the present Constitution (and amendments) the back of their hand, what makes anyone think they would do differently in the future?

The progressives ARE NOT interested in restoring our Constitution to any semblance of reason, but to fundamentally change it...to say, something that the Marxist would approve?

Bill| 10.12.10 @ 9:43AM

I really don't understand the reasoning of those who oppose a convention on the grounds that we aren't better than the Founders. The convention would not be to rewrite the Constitution -- only to propose amendments, What's wrong with that?

JayDick| 10.12.10 @ 10:56AM

I agree. And, if our government had followed the Founders' instructions, there would be no need for a convention.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 2:59PM

I agree, with great trepidation, that a ConCon may be our only hope for amendments to restrain Fed power. Money is the controlling factor for all of this, let's face it. Congress spends to get elected, spends to bribe each other, judges they approve uphold their spending, then they spend to get re-elected so they can do it all again. IMO, the only way to stop this is a balanced budget amendment and a fair tax, and those will only come via ConCon. And those two things are the only things that can restrain Congressional Spending long term. The American people are too greedy for the bacon and too lazy to be vigilant. We won't have the fortitude to hold the pols accountable every election cycle.

JayDick| 10.13.10 @ 11:55AM

Balanced budget amendment would be good. Fair tax would be just as subject to abuse as the present system. I also like lifetime term limits for Senators, Congressmen, and the two offices combined.

David in MA| 10.14.10 @ 2:42PM

There is a problem in convening a con-con.

They do not have to stick to the reason for calling it, once it is called and opened ANYTHING can be on the table for discussion and passage.......

That could open a can of worms and it could backfire in the obamacare issue if the majority were demonCrats and the states were not on the ball, and of course, the people fully aware when it comes to the balloting to accept the con-con results.

Tricky little devil, this is!

Siegfried X| 10.12.10 @ 9:58AM

It is for the reason that James Madison disagreed with it during the original constitutional convention: since the rules are not spelled out, it would just be dangerous, uncontrollable chaos. No one knows who controls the con con; what the rules would be; when it would end if ever; who would elect the delegates.

The other reason is that no one can give a single reason why we should have a constitutional convention instead of forcing Congress to pass the amendments. If we can't make our elected representatives obey, then why assume that we could control a con con? Why would the people at a con con be any better than Congress? Why wouldn't they be gridlocked like Congress? Why wouldn't they be 60% Democratic like the current Congress?

Really this is all wishful thinking. It's assuming that a magic wand will make all political problems go away by creating a perfect conservative world.

JayDick| 10.12.10 @ 10:54AM

If several states passed resolutions demanding a convention, don't you think that would get Congress' attention? If nothing else, it might be a way to get them to do the right thing.

1FreeMan| 10.12.10 @ 10:55AM

Great points Siegfried,

And think of this... who, indeed, would be on the Convention? Tom Daschall, Al Gore, Dan Quayle? What other ultra political activist would be on the ConCon? The liberal has-bens are not dead and will gladly push their liberal sewage on us. You can't possibly think for one moment that a ConCon would be filled with state delegates who are honest, willing to hold to the limits of their conveining order, truely care about the Republic, or will be objective. This would be a disaster!

Nancy in NC| 10.12.10 @ 5:38PM

Exactly, and remember, the left thinks they know the way to create a perfect world...if they just had the controls to make us do it "their" way.

As conservatives we know that there is no perfection...humans are imperfect, now and forever.

I think our best best is to try to amend the constitution, and in a dream world, repeal 16th and 17th amendment.

Judy Madison| 10.12.10 @ 10:00AM

The States Created the Federal Government. . .
With Limited & Enumerated Powers. . .
The Federal Government Has Failed To Live Under That Compact. . .
Why Should Any State Care What Any Federal Employee (Congress, SCOTUS) Has To Say On The Matter. . .
It's Sort Of Like The Cheating Husband Who Has Been Caught In The Act Numerous Times By His Wife Sending His Secretary, Who The Husband Has Been Caught Having Relations With Over To Berate His Wife In Person And Inform Her In No Uncertain Terms That Her Husband Would Never Cheat On Her. . .
"Honey, I Sent The Sex Tape You Made With My Husband And Accidentally Left In The Machine Over To My Attorney."
Game Over, The States Just Declare Their Finding - The Federal Government Is In Breach Of Contract and as Such has No Legal Authority.

After All - The States WROTE THE CONTRACT (U.S. Constitution) Limiting The Federal Governments reach.

Two States Do This And Obama-Care's Gone. No Convention is needed.

Also: Sanctuary Cities have set president for ignoring Federal law. Thanks Lib's!

Walking Horse | 10.12.10 @ 10:42AM

Well said, Ms. Madison!

I have long asserted that the Constitution is a contract, the States are the signatories, and as such are the ultimate authorities upon whether the contract has been satisfied. Bluntly put, all three branches of the federal government are creatures created by that contract; therefore, neither the Supreme Court nor the other two branches are competent to hold forth on whether the contract has been breached.

Judy Madison| 10.12.10 @ 8:46PM

Exactly right, one point about a convention that is so troubling is a Constitutional Convention is only ever needed and has only ever been used to EXPAND the roll of the Federal Government!

All Other Rights Are ALREADY Reserved To The States!

So Wake-up States!!!

Declare this a Breach of Contract!

Just two States folks - that's all it will take.

David in MA| 10.14.10 @ 2:47PM

SCOTUS is charged with being the final say in conflicts between the States & the Fed's I do believe.

However, States Rights should be exercised by the States then federal over-reach would be contained.

Where is Mr. Smith when you need him?

John Lesnik| 10.12.10 @ 10:07AM

Trying to roll back Leviathan at this late date using the traditional tools or Congressional elections and trying to hold the White House will require a protracted struggle that almost certainly can't be maintained. We reached the point where about 50% of the population is dependent on the Federal government and it will be very difficult to maintain the instensity on our side to move them out of the way. We can't expect to push the progressives off the field altogether, so progress would be only through a long series of compromises. With the organs of the media, educational establishment, and general culture on the other side I can't see how we would sustain this for the many decades it would take to erase the long march that liberals have taken us down since the early 1900s.

I'd like to see Senators once again appointed by the states. This would be a big boost to federalism. Also, I'd like to see Congress enact some rules that severely limit how Congressional Districts can be drawn. Let's get rid of safe gerrymandered districts and put some competition back into elections.

Next, we should begin impeaching judges that overreach and that should include the Supreme Court. Defunding the troublesome courts and redefining the geographical boundaries might also shake up the system.

Secession is not something we should not entertain for even a moment. We've not reached the kind of extreme point that would justify civl war and bloodshed. Given the times in which we live this would surely end in dictatorship. Unlike the 1860s, we have nukes and it is not inconceivable that hot heads would be prepared to use them on our own cities given the right set of circumstances.

I like the idea of nullification of federal actions by the states which is being discussed once again. It seems to have merit from my viewpoint and it might force some major positive movement in our direction. Really, what needs to be re-opened is the central question as to whether the federal government is an agent of the states as a result of the compact between them, or whether the general government arises from the combined will of the people with the states being mere administrative units of the federal government.

Nancy in NC| 10.12.10 @ 5:45PM

Very good post, John, and excellent points.

The answer is evident is our name: the United STATES of America...not the united municipalities, but STATES. Unfortunately, the states are about as irrelevant as congress. Nullification may be the best answer...unfortunately I live in a state controlled by the Democrats, so feel pretty much screwed.

Isn't it unbelievable that we have come to the point of discussing things that only a few years ago seemed untenable?

Siegfried X| 10.12.10 @ 10:19AM

The reason why government is this size is because the people and the states want it. They also believe that everything that the federal government does is constitutional.

So a constitutional convention couldn't change that.

There is a tiny minority that wants to shrink the federal government and return to the 1700's. They are powerless and can't force the rest of the country to obey them. Their only hope is to convince other people through the democratic process and elections.

Walking Horse | 10.12.10 @ 10:44AM

By invoking the "democratic process" you have already conceded the premises of the political class. Enjoy those chains, son. I'll have none of it.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 3:08PM

I disagree. I think it is not "want" but APATHY and IGNORANCE that have brought us here. The American people don't understand how our government works, what our Constitution says or means. They must wake up and learn fast, or we are doomed, no matter what course we choose to make change and take our country back to its Constitution.

Cris Worth| 10.12.10 @ 10:37AM

Some recommendations:
No Central Bank allowed in unambiguous language/all currency in gold and silver coins.
Balanced budget mandated, no federal debt allowed to accumulate.
War Powers Act enforced. All military action on foreign soil greater than 60 days must have a declaration of war to continue and maximum force used to win the war. Otherwise military action terminated and troops out.
Federal Courts abolished/review panel setup by states to determine if laws passed by Congress constitutional or not.
Executive Branch abolished/Defense Department under control of Congress.
Senate abolished/House of Representatives chosen every two years by direct election/maximum 3 terms. Members of House choose leader who serves as President/Commander and Chief.
Federal control removed from all social programs including welfare, education and abortion.
Social Security abolished.
Strict border and immigration control with military enforcement and assistance from states.
Income tax at consistent flat rate, only allowed to rise during war time. No other federal taxes allowed.

Chuck| 10.12.10 @ 10:59AM

Also achieve energy independence with assistance from states and maximum use of natural resouces. Abolish all treaties and have foreign affairs under the control of Congress.

metamarcisf| 10.12.10 @ 10:50AM

I'm all for having a constitutioal convention. It would allow the people to redefine the second amendment and clarify the so-called "right to bear arms".

Nunya| 10.12.10 @ 11:41AM

Sorry meta, no clarification is needed thank you.

If you do a little bit of research, you will understand EXACTLY what was meant by the term "militia", and why it was worded the way it was. Anyone who claims that the "militia" means the National Guard or some other group is either ignorant of the facts, or outright lying. Read your history.

metamarcisf| 10.12.10 @ 12:27PM

Then it's agreed: The three amendments that will be up for repeal during our constitutional convention are the 16th, the 17th and, of course, the second.

Joe Oliva| 10.12.10 @ 5:12PM

You are incorrect Nunya, we do need clarification.

If you read anything written by the Founders on this topic, you will note that the main reason for bearing arms was to resist a federal govt. tyranny. Therefore, in order to do that, the people must have the same weaponry as the military, i.e. automatic machine guns for one.

Yet, the feds have banned assault weapons. By what authority? The revolutionary army had the same weapons as King George's boys, so it was a fair fight. Not so today.

Also, all should re-read the Declaration of Independence : "... - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government, ..."

It is time for a change!

metamarcisf| 10.15.10 @ 11:21AM

You're right. What's a few rocket launchers among friends?

JayDick| 10.12.10 @ 10:50AM

It is unfortunate that an Article V convention is necessary, but it is. The congress has been eagerly expanding its power for 75 years or more and the statists they have helped put on the Supreme court have gone along.

The best amendment I have heard proposed is one that would allow federal laws to be repealed by a vote of 2/3 of the state legislatures. There are many other possibilities, but this one is simple and clear. Other ones I like are:

Term limits for Senators and Congressmen. I would add a limit to service in the two bodies combined.

Eliminate or drastically narrow the commerce clause.

Eliminate the general welfare phrase in Article I, Section 8.

Mike Church | 10.12.10 @ 12:20PM

Jay,
You are proposing amendments very reflective of the Confederate Constitution-which eliminated the "general welfare statement" altogether. The Commerce clause needs a clarifier ..."To regulate DIRECT commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states and with the Indian tribes. Congress shall not have the power to regulate the means or methods of production no matter their origin or impact upon the DIRECT commerce of other states.

JayDick| 10.13.10 @ 12:03PM

Not bad.

Another alternative: "Congress will have the authority to regulate only commercial transactions in which goods are shipped across state lines or in which the buyer and seller are located in different states. Only the commercial aspects of the individual transactions may be regulated, not the production of the goods or services or other behavior of the parties."

Jeff| 10.12.10 @ 10:53AM

"Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide that ObamaCare's individual mandate is constitutional, it would mean that Congress has the power to force everybody to purchase a product that they may not want, which would have staggering implications for both personal liberty and federalism."

That's a very strange statement. Who in their right mind would not want health insurance?

Steve A| 10.12.10 @ 11:12AM

Uh, a 25 year old single male, living in an apartment with no assetts who cares not visit a Dr. & does not want to pay the premium.

Steve A| 10.12.10 @ 11:14AM

PS: I can't wait to hear the wailing & gnashing of teeth when those 25 yo's are forced to pay the fine or buy something they do not want by the savior they so willingly voted for.

Freddy| 10.12.10 @ 8:46PM

Thanks to Zero though, they'll be sponging off their parents for one more year

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 3:13PM

It's not a matter of wanting or not wanting it. It's a matter of being FORCED to buy it. That goes against everything this country stands for. I say the same about SS, Medicare, and all these other stupid entitlements that are now crippling us. Paul Ryan is right: they must be phased out.

JShizzle| 10.12.10 @ 10:57AM

....and while we're at it, let's install TERM LIMITS. End the career politician, and a lot of our ills will vanish!

Nunya| 10.12.10 @ 11:45AM

If we repeal the 17th Amendment, we could potentially solve the problem of "Senator for Life" (although the idiots in Taxachusetts might still have had Teddy for his whole life....)

Walking Horse | 10.12.10 @ 12:27PM

Don't forget about political appointees and the rest of the Federal bureaucracy - the termites in the body politic go there for refuge and need to be 'term-limited' as well. Outside the military, government cannot be allowed to continue as a lifetime career option.

Siegfried X| 10.12.10 @ 11:01AM

It's worth remember that much of the socialist big-government legislation is already voluntary. Any state can drop out anytime it wants to. The reason the states voluntarily join the programs is that they want the money.

Like seatbelt laws. The federal government doesn't force states to have them. Instead it says "we'll give you lots of highway money if you pass a seat belt law and do a bunch of other stuff".

The same thing was true for the stimulus and ObamaCare. Large parts of them are optional. Any state that doesn't want the money can drop out.

joli| 10.12.10 @ 12:21PM

Good point, BUT can the states also "drop out" of paying taxes into the system, so that they have money with which to take care of their own highway system, etc.? NO ONE wants to pay into the Federal Government to receive nothing back, which is perfectly understandable. Better if most of the money was never appropriated by the Feds to begin with.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 3:15PM

Can I drop out of Social Security, too, and have that money that I earned back in MY pocket? No? Then your point is moot.

Allison Bricker | 10.12.10 @ 11:02AM

Wow, this is great to see Mr. Phillip Klein and the American Spectator writing about George Mason's fail-safe switch via an Article V convention.

With the passage of the 17th the states utterly surrendered their sovereignty, and thus if we have any hope of a peaceful restoration of the Republic, then an Article V convention just may be necessary.

There was an all-star symposium held earlier this year with Tom Woods, Professors Gutzman and Bruce Fein, state legislators, Mike Church and more, it is an excellent discussion on the topic.

Rachelle Young| 10.12.10 @ 11:23AM

A better approach might be to have the House pass a resolution defining 'good behavior' [Art. III, Sec. 1] more strictly so that judges can be impeached for more than the commission of ordinary felonies. For example, it could be bad, impeachable conduct for a judge to use foreign law to alter the accepted interpretation of the Constitution. It could be made impeachable for a judge to wantonly ignore the law to advance an agenda. Then start impeaching a few of them.

Start taking these robed tyrant's jobs and they will become a little more cautious in their radicalism.

John Lesnik| 10.12.10 @ 11:29AM

Absolutely right. The definition would have to be quite broad to cover all the various contingencies. That would make it a bit dicey. At the end of it, isn't impeachment a political rather than a criminal process so that Congress can impeach officials for any reason they wish that has sufficient political support?

Nunya| 10.12.10 @ 11:53AM

This is an interesting subject, and has created some good discussion. Frankly I have been on the side of "no" convention, though I do see some merits, brought on by this article. Good job, Mr. Klein.

One of the things that many of the people writing here I see over and over is "impeaching" federal judges. Unfortunately, the Constitution has no provision for impeaching a Supreme Court justice, though lesser judges can be removed. One must remember however, that those who put the judges in place are not likely to remove them--and, those judges put in place will likely protect those that appointed them.

I say start by repealing the 17th Amendment, then the 16th--doing so removes one of the largest bureaucracies in existence, and forcefully limits government. Add a new amendment that allows 3/4 of the states to repeal any federal law passed, then another that limits government spending--or forces a balanced budget. Doing those things would be an excellent start, and no convention would be needed.

John Lesnik| 10.12.10 @ 12:09PM

Good point about impeaching Supreme Court judges. I should have gone back and reviewed the Constitution first. I think nearly all of us agree on repealing the 17th and 16th amendments. If I had a choice I'd go with the 17th first, then the 16th.

The new amendment would essentially be the "nullification" amendment and I think a 3/4 majority of the states is the right proportion for something this important.

I don't like a balanced budget amendment at the federal level since it leaves no contingency for actions by the general government when there is a clear danger because of an attack or an extreme disaster. In those cases the federal government must be free to act now and allow the revenues to catch up with the need later. This would be particularly true if something happened late in the fiscal year such that the obligations would have to go on the books, but revenues wouldn't appear for months. In that case we'd have to shut down whole departments to provide the money and I don't think the bulk of citizens would buy that idea. I would definitely favor very strict requirements for when, why and how the federal government could spend operate with an unbalanced budget.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 3:19PM

People, give it up. You will never get Americans to go along with repealing 17. Forget it. That genii is out of the bottle, voters will never put it back because you'll never convince them the original way is better. I agree the 17th should go, but it's a battle you can't win. Let it go. As for 16, without a ConCon, you'll never get it. Congress would never let that one go, and anybody you vote it to do it will find a way, once in Washington, to change their mind due to "unforseen circumstances."

John Lesnik| 10.12.10 @ 5:20PM

I'm sure you're right but it should be tried anyway since it is surely a critical component of a renewed federalism. It would take a President of unusual (dare I say epic) skill to convince the country to follow.

joli| 10.12.10 @ 12:26PM

You're still talking about amending the Constitution, and therefore either Congress or a convention would be required. Repealing an amendment is still amending (changing), no?

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 3:21PM

Exactly! And we've seen how Congress works. Good luck getting them to do anything right.

joli| 10.12.10 @ 12:00PM

How about an amendment that states the Constitution is to be interpreted strictly in keeping with the intentions of the authors, as illuminated by the Federalist Papers.

Joe Oliva| 10.12.10 @ 5:31PM

The congress has all the authority it needs to limit the damage done by the SCOTUS. It is Article III, Section 2 which is as follows:

"In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

That's right, congress can make exceptions as to the jurisdiction of the court. It only takes members of congress with the cojones to stand up to the robed tyrants and tell them that they have no jurisdiction in whatever the congress chooses!

RCV| 10.12.10 @ 5:47PM

Not quite. Congress can enact laws regarding the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But the prescribed judicial power of the federal courts is delineated in section 1 and the first paragraph of section 2.

Tran| 10.12.10 @ 12:32PM

A corrupt people in a constitutional convention will produce a corrupt result. See any state constitutions. The American people and the states are letting the Federal government get aways with unnumeral unconstitional and unethical laws, no constitional convention is going to fix that. Reading the writting of the Founders, every corruption and abused of power were discuss and warn against. To quote Ben Frankle when asked what the original constition conventional produce, "A republic, if you can keep it." and danger of a welfare state, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - and so it is foretold.

On last point from the republic founding years, the original constitional convention as called to "suggest" amendments and reforms to the Article of Confideration.

The second amendment is the only garantees of a constitional republic. The President, Congress and Courts sit in our Executive Mansion, our Capital building, and our court house, a mobs burning those structon down and cleanse the defilation of those who occupy these offices will do the republic a world of good.

A state and try and execute it citizen for treason, maybe we should start bring some member of congress up on charge.

Interest link on Republic vs democracy:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....n-keep-itq

Adrian| 10.12.10 @ 1:06PM

I disagree about the statement revolving around the Florida court battle. It is called Interposition. The states need to stand up together when the constitution is being ignored.

drgene| 10.12.10 @ 1:12PM

The 3 best remedies to this systematic violation of our Constitution:as a contract between the people in their states with the 3 branches of a federal government are(in this order):
1. Constitutional amendment that allows 60%
of states--by majority vote)to RESCIND
ANY act of Congress, act of a President, or
interpretation of the Constitution by the
Supremes.
2. Simplification and regular exercise, by states,
of right to RECALL any Senator or Rep.
3. Threat of a SECESSIONof states--esp those which
were autonomous Republics(Texas,CA et al)--
unless Congress repeals Amendment 16 and
rewrite Sec 1 of 14th Amendment(only child
born of 2 citizens --citizen at time of birth).

smuckers| 10.12.10 @ 1:14PM

These four amendments must be repealed at the constitutional convention: The seventeenth, the sixteenth, the tenth and the second so that militia can be clarified

JimP| 10.12.10 @ 3:02PM

Why do you want the 10th Amendment repealed?

The term 'militia' has already been clarified in the writings of the Founders, as well as current Federal law. It's you and me and we need to be prepared/trained ("well regulated") for infantry combat.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 3:25PM

Are you out of your mind? Repeal the 10th? The 2nd? Over my dead body.

Larry| 10.12.10 @ 2:33PM

The subject of a constitutional convention is quite controversial. Yes, I suppose there is a risk it can be "dangerous," as one of the posters observed. But these are dangerous times. And we face a crisis of existential magnitude - those of you who value your freedoms understand this.

It is not in the order of things to take this lightly. It is a serious responsibility, and one must be willing to take risks in order to secure your freedoms. The convention is necessary, can be limited, and must be called by two-thirds of the States. I think there is enough institutional wisdom still extant in the United States that this process will not become a runaway process. I personally think it should be limited to three things: (1) the repeal amendment; (2) an amendment limiting the time Congress can be in session to the months of January through June each year; (3) a responsible and well-written balanced budget amendment.

The growth of the Federal government is the real "runaway" we need to be worried about. If we are so worried about a process that the wisdom of the Founders considered quite appropriate, then we are lost as a nation.

By the way, Phillip, if you want to see an amendment I have written (I'm a lawyer, remember) related to limiting Congress's term, just look up the e-mail address I gave and send me a note. I'll be glad to share it with you.

John Lesnik| 10.12.10 @ 3:03PM

I think we're being too abrupt here. I don't think we've exhausted available remedies within the present system. If the mass of the electorate agrees with the changes we've been discussing, then we can elect a Congress that would pass those and send them on to the States for ratification. If the bulk of the people are indifferent or oppose us, then we get nowhere with a convention and expose the system to great dangers. At that point we have some very difficult choices to confront and they will be very unpleasant for everyone if we are serious. We should try the less risky route first and then move to more extreme steps if that fails. Thing is, we've never really tried to roll things back in any serious way using the tools available to us. Maybe the public mood will finally allow some progress. We should try.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 3:36PM

I agree with you about our options to change course being very limited. A ConCon may be the only way. My ConCon suggestions:
1. Narrowly and specifically define the Commerce Cause
2. Repeal the 16th Amendment and replace with a Fair Tax (a 5% sales tax at point of final sale only is my preference, and any increase would only be for times of dire national emergency which would have to be strictly defined)
3. Balanced Budget with an on-line Balance Sheet and Income Statement to the people annually so we can see what they spent and on what
5. Congress is bound by the same fiscal laws as the rest of us. We get SS, so do they.
6. Presidential line-item veto
7. No piggybacking on legislation
8. A VERY tough but possible removal process for appointed judges at all levels

jeffw in SC | 10.12.10 @ 2:39PM

Like other opinions expressed here, I am fearful of a Constitutional Convention but willing to listen. My suggested approach would be to start small and focus solely on the repeal of the 17th Amendment (election of Senators). If a proposed verbiage along the form of Section 1, 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition) began to circulate and be approved by the State Legislatures. Eventually we may get a critical mass that could either force the Senate to comply or get a limited convention under Article V. No path is without danger.
Alternatively, the state Legislatures and Governers could begin publically advising their Senators on various pieces of legislation. Then, much more fun, call them for a public tonguelashing when they don't listen. Bottom line is there is a lot we can do to influence the situation that is short of the dangers of a constitutional convention.

Smeg| 10.12.10 @ 2:46PM

As insanely power-hungry as the overlords in DC have become, I personally support dissolving the nation and letting 50 independent nation-states emerge with a common defense federation only. I am so sick of the insane power grabbing by DC that I barely differentiate between the 3 branches of govt and the "Axis Of Evil."

e cowan| 10.12.10 @ 2:47PM

"The Constitution has never been amended through a convention of the states, and this route remains controversial, with many conservatives fearing that the meeting would turn into a circus in the modern media age, and open the door to a wholesale rewriting of the nation's founding document"
EXACTLY!
I vote NO!

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 3:38PM

Do you think 3/4 of all state legislatures would agree to having had our Constitution rewritten wholesale? No, they wouldn't. I think this is an overreaction, but I share your fear. Scary times we live in, folks.

Intelligent Design| 10.12.10 @ 2:52PM

The Constitution has been trashed and violated repeatedly by the representatives we have selected over several decades. These violations have been upheld by the Supreme Court, whose members reflect the views of the presidents we have elected. So unless voters become more aware of and opposed to unconstitutional laws, all the amendments in the world will be futile. A good book on the topic of the Constitution being trashed is titled The Dirty Dozen (Supreme Court cases) by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor.

Sick of it| 10.12.10 @ 2:52PM

We don't need a Con/Con. Our constitution is written just fine. It just isn't followed anymore.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 3:44PM

True enough, except for the Balanced Budget Amendment. If we could get that somehow without a ConCon, I think many other problems would resolve themselves because the money just wouldn't be there.

NeilBJ| 10.12.10 @ 6:56PM

I agree. If we would have followed the Constitution as written, we wouldn't be in nearly as much trouble as we are in now.

Now it may be that some unconsitutional legislation is desirable. If so, then the Constitution should be amended accordingly.

I believe two things are needed.

1)A formal way for the states to determine the Constitutionality of federal legislation. The federal govenment should not have the authority to determine the limits of its own power.

2)A document that defines the intended meaning of all the clauses of the Constitution according to the best historical and legal scholarship. It would be incumbent upon the states to follow this document when ruling on pending federal legislation.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 9:22PM

Well, in THEORY, the SCOTUS is supposed to determined Constitutionality. In THEORY, the judiciary branch is supposed to be the check on the executive, which is supposed to be the check on the legislative, which is supposed to be...you get the idea. In THEORY, the 10th Amendment and ConCon were supposed to enable the states to trump the feds. Our beautiful, perfectly balanced Constitution, alas, has been polluted by greedy, avaricious have-nots who covet what they have not earned, yet how can we stop them? There are days when it seems impossible to prevent the complete annihilation of our Republic. I fear we are the Cicero of America, my friends. And we all know what happened to him.

fredCPA| 10.12.10 @ 2:55PM

if all those goodballs have to wear powdered wigs. and those stockings, dress in period garb, and cannot shower or leave the room until they are done. no air conditoning either. make sure it happens in DC in august. then i am all for it. otherwise, lets just keep viting (correctly, hopefully) and start the rollback that way. i dont trust any of those jackasses with our founding documents.

Siegfried X| 10.12.10 @ 3:27PM

If the 17th amendment were repealed, then government spending would be much, much greater. The state's senators would use the federal government as an ATM. Whatever they wanted would just be charged to the federal debt. We'd have all 50 states spending our grandchildren's money in order to get elected (instead of just the federal government doing it).

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 9:25PM

No they wouldn't, not if we had a Balanced Budget Amendment, too. But I will say it again: most Americans will never repeal 17. They will never give the right to vote for Senators back to the state legislatures. Not. Gonna. Happen.

MarkD| 10.12.10 @ 3:54PM

The fears are overblown. Delegates do not walk out of a room with something that is binding on the states. Nothing that doesn't meet with approval will be passed.

Right now we've got "you have to pass it to find out what's in it," and unelected judges making the decisions - with guidance from Europe no less. A convention is going to make this worse, how?

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.12.10 @ 3:55PM

Mr. Klein,

In case you have not noticed, our country has been polarized to such an extent by takers vs. makers, (roughly fifty fifty now), that a conV is just not going to be effective...and possibly disastrous.

I honestly don't know if "universal suffrage" in combination with government handouts can work anymore.

Publius| 10.12.10 @ 3:59PM

This entire article ignores one critical aspect of such a convention: Any amendments must go to the states for ratification. Thus, if they propose amendments that are off-topic or overly broad or overly radical or overly far-reaching, both the people and the states have the opportunity to chime in and end the process. This is a straw man argument & should be dealt with as such.

Siegfried X| 10.12.10 @ 4:17PM

Why should we take the risk of having Obama and Nancy Pelosi run a constitutional convention? It's taking on a risk when there is no possible benefit from a con con. No one has said why we need a con con instead of Congress.

Siegfried X| 10.12.10 @ 4:14PM

Why not just elect a Tea Party Congress?

They wouldn't even need constitutional amendments. That Congress full of Tea Partiers could shrink the government to whatever size we wanted just by voting.

And if someone says "We don't have the votes to elect a Tea Party Congress", that's the point. We wouldn't have the votes to elect a Tea Party constitutional convention either.

John Bailo | 10.12.10 @ 4:49PM

It's not the style of representative Government that needs changing, but the notion itself. Current technology is well enough advanced to allow for direct participatory eDemocracy by every citizen.

John Lesnik| 10.12.10 @ 5:50PM

John:

"In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." -- Federalist #54

With electronic media available today the "wired" public would still tend to act like a mob. Besides, we hire people to represent us because those of us with real lives don't have time to consider all the points of a law being considered. Plus, who writes the drafts of laws, who attends fact finding hearings, who negotiates final language that the rest of us vote on. We still need a representative assembly.

NeilBJ| 10.12.10 @ 6:24PM

Apparently you have never been taught about the evils of democracy, which is encapsulated in the aphorism, "Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote to decide what to have for dinner."

That is the purpose of the Constitution: to put restraints on the excesses of democracy. The majority rules only if certain pre-established rules are followed.

Chris| 10.12.10 @ 4:58PM

While it is refreshing to read statements from articulate rightists for a change, I would like to propose this question: what would you have preferred the Obama Administration do? There is so much negativity towards him and his cabinet, but I think his agenda was one that would have significantly improved the lives of many Americans, had it not been so fervently rejected by the right. I mean, use "ObamaCare" as an example. What isn't good about expanding coverage for an extra 30 million people and creating better protection for sick insurance customers? The primary argument I hear is that people don't want to pay for their neighbors health care, but what people fail to acknowledge is that we have been doing that for a while now. ObamaCare's aim is to strengthen the system overall to make sure that everyone is paying for their OWN coverage, but also to enable everyone to have coverage. Over time, this system will save tons of money! Besides, I don't know when sharing and caring for a neighbor ceased to be a popular moral stance, but it is high time that we set politics aside and actually govern for the good of all people, not just the financially solvent.

As for the financial reforms that have actually survived the onslaught of denegration from the GOP to actually pass, I would appreciate some enlightenment because I can't see why we shouldn't correct the system that has failed us so terribly. People commenting on this article like to aim their blame at Obama for things that were set in motion long before he was a presidential candidate. Where is the fair, sensible, rightist justice here? Must we not stand to correct our governmental flaws so as to avoid them in the future. This administration deserves a lot more credit than most of you will ever be willing to give. It is easier to criticize progress than to actually take part in it because people fear failure, but we can't afford to not have progress right now.

So, in closing, I would like to hear what you posters would actually like to happen. Obama is more of a public servent than the right credits him. If the right would organize to try and help America reform and progress, rather than just halt that process for the democrats, we would be much better off.

-Chris

Siegfried X| 10.12.10 @ 7:54PM

"what would you have preferred the Obama Administration do? "

Use voluntary, free market, small government solutions for health care instead of having the federal government do everything.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 9:36PM

Chris, at the risk of being one of those evil, heartless conservatives, the 30 million uninsured are not my problem. Not because I don't care, because I can't solve their problem. Why? Let me count the ways: (1) Government healthcare DOES NOT WORK. It morphs into a bloated, expensive, bureaucratic nightmare everywhere it's been tried. (2) It is morally WRONG to STEAL from the able to give to the needy. That's what charities are for. (3) We CAN'T AFFORD IT.
Republicans outlined their healthcare suggestions (which were much less expensive, less radical and much simpler) at their summit with Obama and he told them to pound sand.
As for the rest of Obama's agenda, it's all equally short-sighted. The recession would have ended if Congress had cut taxes, cut spending and stopped making things worse. We MUST return to fiscal sanity or we are doomed. Period. I wish people would FACE FACTS. WE ARE BROKE!!! And Obama has done nothing but spend more. The right does not oppose him for mere party politics. The man is DANGEROUS, to us, to our children, and to our Republic. He must be stopped.

Don| 10.12.10 @ 5:05PM

The best argument for a Constitutional Convention is that none of the federal branches will willingly cooperate in limiting their own powers. Congress will find a reason to expand their own powers - ICC for example. The President will find new and innovative ways to expand his/her own power. The Judiciary will likely expand their own jurisdiction and expand the realm of the other branches. ICC again. They all get more power and authority and will continue to do so if there is no check in place. The first and second amendments are the ultimate checks, short of a convention limiting their power. Don't expect humility or recognition of limitations by any branch of the federal government. Indeed, Madison is dead.

Don| 10.12.10 @ 5:14PM

Chris, you are naive. A nation with unenforced borders that offers unlimited entitlements is destined for bankruptcy, moral and economic. The ultimate and easiest example is to ask this: "Who works when everything is free?" It's not generosity on your part to give away other people's money. It is immoral to reward bad behavior, and that's what is being proposed. A person who worked diligently until retirement is now being FORCED to sacrifice for the drug addled, the criminal, the lazy and the illegal. Explain to us how this is "good" and not state sponsored theft.

GENE HAUBER| 10.12.10 @ 5:37PM

it sounds good, BUT.........THE PRESENT CONGRESS IS MADE UP OF ACOLYTES TO THE PRESIDENT AND HAVE COMPLETELY ABDICATED THEIR ROLE IN THE CHECKS AND BALANCE PRESCRIBED IN OUR CONSTITUTION, WHICH LEAVES US, AS A COUNTRY OF FREE PEOPLE, VERY VULNERABLE.

SINCE THEY HAVE DISHONORED THEIR OATHES TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION...
WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

I AM ALL FOR HUNTING THEM DOWN AS TRAITORS AND KILLING THEM, BUT THAT IS ILLEGAL.
IT SEEMS THEY ARE WELL PROTECTED AS ARE MOST CRIMINALS......WHAT ARE WE TO DO?????

RCV| 10.12.10 @ 5:39PM

That's what we have elections for. If you can convince your fellow citizens of the wisdom of your point of view, you'll win. If not, you'll lose. That's called self-government.

idalily| 10.12.10 @ 9:40PM

Really, RCV? Tell that to the military personnel from New York who aren't getting ballots this year. Tell that to the voters of Minnesota and Washington who watched Dems steal, yes, STEAL, the election out from under them with endless recounts while they printed more Demo votes and found them in closets. Yeah, we have self-government. Sort of.

RCV| 10.13.10 @ 12:01PM

If you have a single shred of evidence for your made-up-out-of-thin-air claims re Minnesota and Washington fantasies, let's see them big mouth. Every time you guys lose an election, you whimper like little children. Pathetic.

idalily| 10.13.10 @ 8:19PM

I didn't insult you. Why do you insult me? Hit a nerve, did I? But as for evidence, yeah, on the fourth recount after Dino won, they just happened to find just enough votes (in a closet) for Patty Murray to overtake him. How about that? Wow. Ditto for Franken in Minnesota. Anyone paying attention who isn't blind knows it. Your side cheated. Dems made a mockery of our election process when they asked for recount after recount in 2000, and the only thing that stopped them from stealing 2000 was the SCOTUS, who said NO, you can't have endless recounts until you get the outcome you want." And it's Dems who have been whining, about that, ever since. It's Dems who didn't mind that Mickey Mouse voted, Dems who fight against showing ID at polling places, Dems who put the intimidating looking people in SEIU shirts outside polling places, Dems who funded ACORN, Dems who didn't care that Obama got foreign contributions via credit cards when the control to stop it "didn't work right", Dems who mysteriously lost the ballots for NY military personnel. And everybody knows it. The difference is the Dems don't care as long as they win.

RCV| 10.14.10 @ 2:42PM

Idalily: Sorry if you took offense. But you saying there was fraud doesn't make it so. We have courts and prosecutors if there was fraud. As for military ballots, that's as upsetting to me as it is to you, and whoever is responsible for that should be brought to account. Where did you get the information that the people who lost the NY military ballots were Democrats? I missed that in the reports. You must have inside information on this, which you should share with prosecutors, who tend not to be Democrats.

idalily| 10.15.10 @ 12:59AM

Oh, please. This is willfully obtuse BS. The NY voting machine is totally controlled by Dems. I live in Idaho, where it is totally controlled by R's. Your willful blindness on this is destroying your party. Jeez, can't Libs EVER admit they aren't pure as the driven snow? Own up. They are cheating. And please, if you think those Patty Murray votes that showed up afterward weren't fabricated, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. How about we talk about the latest Dem cheat? Michelle's conduct today when she voted. She BROKE THE LAW. Shouldn't the First Lady of the United States know better than to sell her husband's agenda at the polling place? Is she new? How soon until we see how the FLOTUS broke the law on the Chicago evening news? Guess what, we won't. Jeez, Dems, own up! Take some flippin' responsibility. Oh, wait. Can't. All the evils of humankind are Bush's fault.

Chromehawk| 10.12.10 @ 5:38PM

One of the things I keep seeing here is "No, the best way to change things is to use the existing framework our founders built." As JP stated ...

errrrrrrrr .... The convention as suggested IS in the Constitution. Therefore it IS part of the existing framework.
People!
We are not talking about some new fangled idea. In fact READ the damn article and you will see ... Hamilton put it in for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE we are talking about!
To allow the states to tell the Federal government enough!

It is IN the Constitution already!!!!!
It IS the RIGHT of the States!
A right never exercised is a right that does not exist.

Runaway?
As people say ... probably not going to happen due to the ratification process.
Liberal take over?
Not unless somehow the liberal states suddenly outnumber the conservative ones.
Remember one state -- one vote.
38 states would have to sign in on the proposal.
Same sex marriage ... dammit we got 700 delegates from NY and Cal we demand it be proposed.
*coughs*
ND,SD,NC,SC,ID,UT,MT,MO,LA,GA,WV,AL,AK say nope.
"No fair you only have 14 people we got 700 we over-rule you!"
ND,SD,NC,SC,ID,UT,MT,MO,LA,GA,WV,AL,AK say nope.
And you only have 37 states ... proposal fails.

It can be hijacked by multiple "groups".
The process would be pretty much the same as a ratification convention. Every state already has a process for that.
Not exactly sure, but I believe in NM it IS the legislature.
In Washington there is an election where anyone can run and state how they intend to vote ( non-binding though ).
In the process of creating this, you would have a few "legal minds and scholars" and push for quite a few "regular folks" so you get both.

Brian| 10.12.10 @ 5:45PM

1. Repeal the 16th amendment
2. Repeal the 17th amendment
3. Strike the commerce clause
4. Strike the general welfare clause
5. Constitution term limits for Senators and Representatives of two and four terms, respectively.
6. Pass the 10th and 2nd amendments again, verbatim, merely to reiterate but slightly modified for emphasis by passing them again in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
7. We have our republic back

Chromehawk| 10.12.10 @ 6:01PM

Actually for the nay-sayers ... how about a two-step Amendment Convention?

Step one ... a convention that creates a process and procedural rules for all future state-initiated conventions.
In other words ... this is our first convention. We are going to create the process that deals with the concerns of the detractors.
* membership to be determined by a popular vote in each district and 2 for the states with every candidate stating general in favor/opposed.
(i.e. the Washington state model )
* In all votes. Each state gets one vote.
* The Convention is to be run by the Chief Justice. Each of the sitting justices will be on call to explain ramifications and procedures to the states in their district.
* All amendments to be considered will be decided in the initial proceedings. No new amendments may be proposed.
You can see adding things though it will be a long process. The actual text could refer to the Original amendment papers ( i.e. federalist papers ).

6 months later ... a second convention to consider the Repeal Amendment ( having been limited and the

Jeff in Texas | 10.12.10 @ 6:35PM

Annulment by individual states is the answer. It has been done many times throughout American history, even recently. No branch of the federal government, including the federal courts, is the exclusive arbiter of the federal government's power. Read up on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Fascinating articles can be found at www.tenthamendmentcenter.com and www.wolvesofliberty.com

Jeff in Texas NULLIFY NOW! | 10.12.10 @ 7:03PM

To clarify, I should have written: The answer is annulment, by individual states, of unconstitutional laws and actions of the federal government. No way we should shoulder the burden of amending the Constitution every time the federal government does something unconstitutional. They can do too much mischief too fast! Witness the last 21 months.
By the way, the Constitution means what it clearly meant in plain English, as understood (and publicly debated) by the signatories, aka the Founding Fathers.
NOT what it is now INTERPRETED to mean after 240 years of obfuscation, obliteration, and hijacking by the Federal courts, executive and Congress.
We the people, working through our state governments, already have the powers necessary to reign in a federal government run amok. It is up to us modern-day Patriots to GET OFF THE POT, take action and tell our friends.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.12.10 @ 7:28PM

These comments ...
Demonstrate quite clearly that we are in a mess.

Between folks like Chris above who think everything would be hunky dory if we all just shut up and accept our chains...
and the guys who want butterflies and unicorns flying out of our rears...

And great sweeping plans no one will sign in on...

...And then we forget that there is a hostile world out there that wants to take us down.

Do any of you remember the story about the Battle of Britain?
Immediately preceeding that battle was the "fake war". Armies were moving and yet there was an eerie quiet on the soon to be battlefields.

Folks, we are in that eerie period. No one knows how and where the battles will take place yet, but we thoughtful people realize they are coming. I'm talking about blood by the buckets, folks....and some of it yours and mine.

I wrote a story about one plausible scenario, ( www.texassaidno.com ), and you need to read it for your own family's sake.

The "summer" of America is over. Now we have got to edure the "winter".
I pray for each of you.

Mac| 10.12.10 @ 7:29PM

Take the power from DC and repeal amendment 17. This will, once again, provide representation for the states, which currently they do not have. It will also decentralize the power of lobbyists and the political parties. Each state will become the field in which politics are waged and make it local again which is what the framers envisioned to keep the federal government in check. The move to greater federal power over the past 70 years is a direct result of the 17th amendment. The country cannot substantially move back towards federalism without its repeal, and even then it won't happen overnight.
The greater danger from amendment 17 has yet to be realized. As this election is proving, the election of senators is now becoming nationalized. One can donate to any state senator and influence the election of that candidate, even in a state they do not live in. Which means that if you can effectively control the election of just 33 seats every two years you can control the legislative branch of the federal government and all regulation and law! Boy, that's representative government for you! REPEAL 17!!!

Bill Walker| 10.12.10 @ 7:57PM

Overall this is a fairly well written article except that Mr. Klein fails to mention the work and efforts of one of the major groups behind an Article V Convention--FOAVC. As such his article fails to mention facts the group has uncovered or deal with at its website, www.foavc.org. This includes the fact there are over 700 applications on file with Congress to call a convention, that two federal lawsuits have been filed in this matter, one going to the Supreme Court and that the Burger Letter referred to in this article is a phoney. For Mr. Klein not to mention FOAVC means he is not giving all the facts and needs to update his information accordingly.

John David Galt| 10.12.10 @ 10:10PM

Wasn't the convention of 1787 every bit as limited (at least in the view and intention of those who called it, and in what they charged it to do) as an Article V convention would be? (Not to mention that the Framers didn't even bother trying to enact the new constitution as an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, since that would have required approval of all 13 states and was unlikely.)

Based on that precedent, if Congress ever decides they want a new constitution, they could just write it and put it to a vote of the people, without bothering to try to enact it as an amendment using either of the methods in Article V.

Compared to that, an Article V convention is a very tame process, not least because anything it produces still has to be ratified by 38 states.

Becky| 10.12.10 @ 10:42PM

We don't need to have a convention. We need to uphold The Constitution as written. Anyone who refuses to abide by it, should no longer hold the office to which they were elected. Obama would no longer be president, Pelosi would no longer be Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid would also be sent packing. We should be in the midst of impeachment proceedings, however, no individuals in the position to make this possible are stepping up to do their sworn duty. The people can change this, and I am hopeful in November they will. The majority of people most likely have experienced all the Socialism they want. Meanwhile, Mr. Community Organizer is out there fanning those Socialist flames....his latest finger pointing demonizing attack aimed at The Chamber of Commerce. He attacks Americans with values, who love their country because they reject his liberal ideology. Attack, attack, attack is all he understands. Homer Simpson comes to mind. Homer worked in the nuclear plant...having Obama in the White House is no different than having Homer in the nuclear plant. Danger! Danger!

Eric Siverson| 10.13.10 @ 12:06AM

I don't think the constitution has ever been followed religiously , it is a great piece of propaganda and has been used as a guide to straighten out obvious wrongs . But no one has ever been able to go to the federal or state goverenment and be assured of getting their constitutional rights honored . The goverenment has from the begining been all powerfull and done as they wished ireguardless of what the constitution might say .

VinceP1974| 10.13.10 @ 12:06AM

Testing the

pasting of line breaks

VinceP1974| 10.13.10 @ 12:07AM

These are my 4 Amendments...

Amendment XXVIII - Restoration of the Republic Amendment

Section 1
The validity of the public debt of the United States, including government debts incurred for issuance, purchase, sale or resale, or repackaging, or reforming, or guaranteeing, or implicitly guaranteeing of real estate loans and post-secondary-level student loans and derivatives thereof including debt arising from the Government's interference with otherwise insolvent banks and organizations affected by such obligations , shall be questioned.All such directly incurred debt shall be disclaimed and all guarantees of such debt held by other parties shall be repudiated.

All such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void if owed by the Federal Government. The financial obligations of previously classified "Government Sponsored Enterprises" shall be assumed , by share, to the political parties of the campaigns of candidates employees of the GSEs donated, also by share, the obligations shall be born to all Non-Profit Organizations that the GSEs' foundations funded. Upon the disestablishment of a NPO, the successor NPO shall assume the previous NPOs obligation share.These debts were incurred in bad faith and constitute a Social-Contract-breaking crime under this Constitution and thus it is illegal for the Government of the People of the United States to honor such destructive disingenuous obligations.

Section 2.
The Article III definition of Treason shall be expanded to also include Conspiracies to render the Government of the United States insolvent by the abusive assumption or issuance of knowingly unpayable debt.

The Article I Section 6 Treason exception to the protection against arrest shall be extended to include this definition expansion.

Section 3.
Until the Federal Government of the United States pays off all debt or has a balanced budget for more than 10 years (whatever comes last), the city of Washington in the Federal District shall be named "Pelosi" afterwhich the name "Washington" can be restored.

Section 4.
Article I Section 8 shall be amended from

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Shall now read

"Restricted by the following enumeration, the Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Article I Section 8 shall be amended from
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

shall now read

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and to encourage ,ease and constructively facilitate in the most limited sense, Commerce among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Section 5

Article of Amendment XVI is hereby repealed

Article of Amendment XVII is hereby repealed. The restoration of the original rules will be by Class when that Class election normally occurs.

Section 6
The "Progressive Era" Amendments (excluding Amendment XIX) shall be regarded as a direct attack upon the Principles of the American Revolution and Self-Governance.

All schools shall teach their students that such ideas are anathema to the Republic of the United States of America.

Treason shall be expanded to included anyone who teaches a student otherwise

Section 7
The Federal Reserve System of the United States shall be abolished within one year of adoption of this Article of Amendment.All Federal Reserve Notes shall be redeemed by that amount of gold which shall be established by Congress and shall not be altered subsequent to the initial valuation.

Federal Reserve Notes shall be invalid for the tendering of any debt public or private two years after the adoption of this Article of Amendment

Any bank notes in the future shall be issued purely by private banks for non public purposes. The Congress of the United States has no authority to delegate matters of currency to any institution which shall do so by the issuance of notes or electronic equivilent of notes.

VinceP1974| 10.13.10 @ 12:08AM

Amendment XXIX Failed Government Abolishment Amendment

Upon the establishment of any extraordinary advisory or policy panel, the creation of which being required by a lack of established delegation and responsibility to a specific office within the Departments of the Executive of the United States; the pretitent Department Office or Agency; or Independent Regulatory Agency, or the House and Senate Congressional Committees of jurisdiction, which failed to mitigate the need for such panel shall be abolished and no money from the Treasury of the United States shall be appropriated to sustain it's operation.

==========================

Amendent XXX - Establishment of Judicial Review Supreme Court Amendment

Congress shall Establish a Federal Judicial Review Supreme Court.

Justices must conform to Founding Father’s intention in Constitutional definitions

Justices must agree that the enumerated powers in Article I limit the powers of Congress to address any general clauses (ie: General Welfare clause is restrained by enumerated powers, not in addition to them)

Justices shall use only Constitutional text, or any other writings of the signers of Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

No other precedents are usable.

Any “novel idea” must be advocated by more than one Founder

No legal weight is to be given by implied authority

Any lower Federal or State Court that declares a law unconstitutional must have its decision affirmed or rejected by this Court

Courts, in the context of Judicial Review, may only declare actions unconstitutional. They shall not direct other branches of Govt to do anything more than what is already enacted law.

VinceP1974| 10.13.10 @ 12:09AM

Amendent XXXI - The Defense of Liberty Amendment

Section 1 - Right to Property

The Fifth Article of Amendment shall be amended

from

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

“nor shall private property or private income or privately held money be taken for public use, without just compensation”

Section 2 - Right to Individual Liberty

The First Article of Amendment shall be so Revised:

“Freedom of Religion does not include freedom to conspire to impose Sharia law in the United States or other forms of Non-Civil Law Systems, recognizing that in American tradition, basic human rights are a consequence of man being made in the image of Biblical Deity and permitted Free Will and Free Conscience by that Creator”

Section 3 - Right to Sovereignty and Rejection of Foreign Influences on President of the United States

Article II “Natural Born Citizen” is clarified to mean one born of two US Citizen parents, regardless of place of birth provided both parents have 20 consecutive years residency in the US, or their entire lives, whichever was a fact at the time of birth. Those born to unknown mother or father shall not be eligible for the Office of President, Vice President and nor shall any person be elevated to such offices due to order of succession”

RCV| 10.13.10 @ 11:58AM

Exhibit A as to why a constitutional convention would be madness. I'll stick with Madison and the boys.

VinceP1974| 10.13.10 @ 12:44PM

> I'll stick with Madison and the boys.

Noted

Yosemeti Sam| 10.13.10 @ 2:12AM

" Is It Time for a Convention?...."

TIME - will tell.

For better or for worse, always look to the stars for reflective context - and humility.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

JWL | 10.13.10 @ 3:00AM

The problem with using an Article V convention to initiate federalism amendments is that such a convention would be dominated by politicians and law professors, not constitutional conservatives, and would be as likely to move us away from the original constitutional structure as towards it.

The best solution is an "amendment amendment" which gives the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without a convention. Article V only uses a convention mechanism because in 1789 there was no other practical way for States to communicate with each other to formulate amendment proposals.
If individual States can launch amendment proposals, grassroots supporters of the original constitutional structure can control the specifics and wording of the amendments to assure they focus on the intended purposes, a control which could not exist with a convention.

See timelyrenewed dot com for more specifics on this proposal.

CalMark| 10.13.10 @ 3:26AM

"However satisfying this backlash against ObamaCare may be to opponents of the law, these state-based efforts could all be for naught if the U.S. Supreme Court sides with Congress and rules that the legislation's individual mandate is constitutional."

Oh, I see. A bunch of judges say, "Your rights as free citizens are gone," and we just knuckle under.

NO. Let me repeat, for the benefit of those in pundit-land who are hard of hearing: HELL NO.

It's time we stopped listening cravenly to judges. The judiciary is out of control, acting like a bunch of dictators. We are less obligated to listen to their despotic rulings than they seem to regard themselves as being bound by rules of any kind.

No matter how much the pundits might tut-tut about the "bad precedent" (precedents being only relevant, apparently, when they benefit Democrats) and "rule of law" (which applies only to conservatives).

Sorry, pundits. There will be a revolution. Pray it is a peaceful one, so that you don't loses your comfy Pundit-land sinecures.

MtTopPatriot| 10.13.10 @ 6:21AM

This whole argument against is power mongering trash. At the root of this argument is the simple fact no one wants to give up their powers, when the real power, the sovereign power that exists is in the will and hands of The People, and no one wants We The People to have any power whatsoever because they damn well know where that is going to lead. As one of the people, I have some worldly advice, either follow the Rule of Law as defined in MY Constitution, or give us a Convention, because one way or another the days of omnipotent runaway abuse of power and MY instruments of Liberty are over.
Things have gone too far, the abuses have gone beyond the pale. Of course those in power see it as just fine and peachy, it is to their benefit, but that is just the reason why it has to end, one way or another, and end it will. Consider it a warning given in the light of decency and good moral respect for the rule of law, because We The People are the only ones who respect these things.

Tea Party Patriot| 10.13.10 @ 8:14AM

I have been saying this, and calling for a Constitutional Convention for over a year now. Now, being a blogger, and not a Politician, all I can do is ask and shout it out.
Now, first of all, when the Founding Fathers, created / wrote the U.S. Constitution, they made the 3 Branches of Govt. Separate and Equal, thereby ensuring that there are checks and balances on the Govt. by the People, and by each Branch of Govt. Now, that's fine, and it has worked awesomely up until now. But they hadn't envisioned that 2 of the 3 Branches of Govt., could and would, Conspire against the American People together, and become an Unrestricted, Unlimited, Uncontrollable, Tyrannical Oppressive Regime. This is our 21st Century nightmare and reality right now. And only we, the American People, can put a stop and end to this Tyranny, by 2 ways.
One is to have Elections, to decide and determine who are going to be in, and who are going to be out, of the Govt., and doing what they are elected to do.
2 is the other and most preferred way, and that is to have a Constitutional Convention, whereby the Constitution is Amended by adding Amendments.
Such as these;
1) - To have a Presidential Election Recall, after 1 year in office, if the President, and or his Policies, is proven to be a Danger / National Security Risk, to the People and the Nation itself, by his actions and words, which contradicts the U.S. Constitution, and or, if the Congress refuses to Impeach the President, and or is complicit in the actions, with and of the President.
2) - The Federal Govt. cannot force, by threat of Fine and or Jail, of the American People, to purchase a product, and call it a Tax, or use the Commerce Clause as a tool, for that end.
3) - The Federal Govt. is not allowed to give away any part of each Sovereign State of the United States of America, and or, which will result in the hand over of control, and or Jurisdiction, for adjudication, any part of the United States, to any Foreign Entity, such as the U.N., IMF, etc.
4) - U.S. Courts shall ONLY use either the Individual State Constitution, and or the U.S. Constitution, in the Decision and Judgment / Adjudication of any U.S. Court of Law, in any part of the United States of America.
Which means, NO Foreign Law, Sharia Law, or International Law, of any kind, shall ever be applied to anyone, or anything, in a U.S. Courtroom.!!!
5- An annual Federal Govt. Balanced Budget Amendment, by the end of each Fiscal year, for the following fiscal year.

Joel S. Hirschhorn| 10.13.10 @ 11:08AM

Constitutional Traitors

Joel S. Hirschhorn

In recent days the idea of using the Article V convention option in the Constitution received support in an article by Texas US Senator John Cornyn published on the Fox News website. He noted “Recent polling suggests that a plurality of Americans support a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution if Congress will not do so.” He made a good case for using the convention option by saying it “would be part of a national conversation that could last well beyond one or two election cycles. The very length of the convention and ratification process would allow the American people ample opportunity to judge proposed reforms, and ensure that they would strengthen the checks and balances that have served our nation well.”

A few days later, on the pages of the Wall Street Journal a strong case was made for a “repeal amendment” that would give state legislatures the power to veto federal laws, something worth proposing. Though the oped by a professor and the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates did not say so, obviously Congress would never propose such an amendment. That means using an Article V convention whereby state delegates could propose new amendments just as Congress has done, which the Speaker has acknowledged elsewhere.

At the same time a policy report from the Goldwater Institute recommended that “states seriously consider” using the convention option “to restrain the federal government.”

So the issue of using this convention option that Congress has refused to convene despite hundreds of state applications and that establishment powers on the political left and right have long opposed merits serious examination. Start with this: Americans overwhelmingly say they love and respect the Constitution and usually specific amendments, though often different ones on the political left and right. Three frameworks help understanding why most Americans oppose using the Article V convention option. Two explain why convention proponents have not been able to impact most opponents that fit these two frameworks. I offer a third framework or plan of attack which I believe will work.

First, consider the craziness framework. Many Americans have been taught to fear using the convention option, even though it has never been used. They are irrational. This is like being afraid to eat the fruit of the constitutional tree first planted by the Founders even though no one has ever tasted or been harmed by the fruit. Such people stubbornly think they are acting rationally; I think they are crazy and irrational. This delusional thinking based on what is imagined to might happen is not easily changed, because such people have been purposefully and successfully brainwashed. They have an emotional block.

Rather than fear a runaway convention, people should fear our runaway politicians and government. As quoted in the Goldwater Institute paper Ann Stuart Diamond pointed out that the interpretation that an Article V convention would or could rewrite the whole Constitution “is often a rhetorical ploy to terrify sensible people.” The convention can only offer specific amendments. It is time for Americans to recognize their fear of a convention as having no basis in fact. And that those promoting fear themselves fear the reforms in government that a convention could propose.

Second, consider the analytic framework. Many Americans use what they think are rational, substantive arguments. Convention proponents use facts based on the exact language in Article V or other historical facts to objectively contradict wrong-headed thinking. But correcting the record has not worked sufficiently, largely because opponents invent their own facts, ignore correct ones, and consume disinformation disseminated by convention opponents. They have an intellectual block. Cognitive dissonance works to prevent the pain of accepting new information incompatible with their negative views about a convention.

We should not invite, respect or participate in arguments by opponents that fit these two frameworks. We should, in particular, recognize and condemn morally offensive fear mongering used intentionally by convention opponents. Convention opponents seeking protection of their ability to influence the political system and selling fear and disinformation must face their constitutional guilt.

Converting convention opponents to proponents requires a paradigm change, which is very difficult. However, the current justified high level of dissatisfaction with government, politicians and both major political parties and the strong desire for reform of government justify use of a new approach.

The patriotic framework better gets to the root of the problem from a rule of law perspective. Rather than condemn convention opponents as irrational or ignorant, we condemn unpatriotic constitutional hypocrites. When they openly oppose the convention option they are constitutional traitors.

With the patriotic framework we take advantage of frequent strong public support for constitutional amendments not proposed by Congress, including these: In 1996, 74 percent of Americans favored a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the US Senate could serve. In 2005, 76 percent favored an amendment to allow voluntary prayer in public schools, and in 1983 81 percent favored it. In both 2000 and 2004 61 percent favored amending the Constitution so that the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes would win, replacing the Electoral College. In 1995, a balanced budget amendment passed the House but failed to meet the two-thirds requirement in the Senate by a single vote; this year there is a strong national movement to get it and a number of other amendments that would surely earn broad public support.

The basis for the new framework is this: Virtually everyone professes respect and admiration for the US Constitution and knows that it includes a process for amending it. But if someone opposes using the Article V convention option, then he or she is an unpatriotic constitutional hypocrite. When they openly oppose a convention they are a constitutional traitor replacing the Founders thinking with theirs, putting themselves above the law.

Moreover, it is impermissible to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are supported and obeyed. Similarly, elected public officials who swear obedience to the Constitution cannot pick and choose which parts to obey. Such behavior makes a mockery of the supreme law of the land, the rule of law, and our constitutional republic. Silence by public officials on the issue is cowardly opposition to using the convention option.

No one can accurately forecast exactly what a convention would propose, but we do know that continuation of the status quo will not eliminate the corruption and dysfunction sustained by the two-party plutocracy. The two major parties are rejected by 58 percent of the public for not effectively representing them, but a convention is far more attractive than forming a competitive third party. Many reforms can only be achieved through constitutional amendments that Congress will never propose; this is inarguable. Voting in elections to get reforms is passé. A hard truth to take, but one that an increasing number of Americans have begun to accept.

Amending the Constitution in our modern world should compete with ordinary elections. With Internet news, blogging, email, tweeting, texting and myriad other forms of instant communication, holding a convention is a new way to satisfy public thirst for true reforms, not promises. Amending the Constitution can be done relatively quickly. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven took one year or less to become the law of the land because of public engagement. The 26th amendment (giving the right to vote to 18 year-olds) took only 3 months and 8 days to be ratified in 1971! Public pressure works. It will work for and against specific amendments. Americans deserve the constitutional opportunity that Congress has deprived them of.

Americans must be taught this: Just by being in the Constitution the convention option demands public support. Citizens are obliged to support it. People cannot be allowed to have it both ways and be two-faced and hypocritical. Embrace the convention option or be openly and aggressively condemned for unpatriotic hypocrisy and behavior that undermines the sanctity of the Constitution and the rule of law, both crucial for maintaining the integrity of our republic.

Trust is the crucial issue. So many Americans have lost trust in their government and politicians but far less so in their Constitution. Trusting the Constitution means trusting the Founders’ wisdom in providing the Article V convention option. They anticipated the day when citizens would lose trust in the federal government, which has surely arrived. The convention option bypasses Congress, the President and the Supreme Court; it gives power to the states and citizens. Wisely, ratification by the states is required for any proposed amendments from a convention, providing a hedge against dangerous amendments. When it comes to reform and making government work for we the people, the greatest risk for the nation is not using the convention option.

What political powers on the left and right fear and oppose we the people must demand. They are guilty constitutional traitors. We must be courageous patriots. There is no room for compromise with convention opponents. We must shame and embarrass them; they are lousy citizens. The time to argue about specific amendments is when the convention is in session and delegates must contend with public sentiments and later when proposed amendments are considered for ratification by states.

We cannot know with certainty whether holding a convention would revitalize the nation. But refusing to use the convention option as a constitutional path to reform disrespects and undermines our constitutional republic. The sorry state of the nation demands that we do more than just talk about it. This year every candidate for the House and Senate should be compelled to publicly support using the convention option. Lack of support for it should be grounds for defeating them.

[A shorter version of this article was presented at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School Article V symposium in Lansing, Michigan on September 16, 2010; contact Joel S. Hirschhorn, a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention, through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

rollzone | 10.13.10 @ 11:23AM

hello. not every American knows our government is broken. our representative House is bought. capitalism does not represent the will of the majority of the people. the Senate no longer represents the Republic. capitalism has lobbyists writing laws to not be read. capitalism has destroyed the spirit of our Constitution. capitalism is great in economics, but has no place in our politics. convention this, repeal that: abolish the money from our government, and make them operate on donations.

fwb| 10.13.10 @ 12:28PM

There is an alternative as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The authority/right of the People to abolish or alter their government still exists. We the People through our state legislatures formed this federal government and We the People can change it by a simple majority of votes. The 2/3-3/4 of the Constitution is the process by which the government asks US permission to change things but We the People retain the authority as an inalienable Right.

VinceP1974| 10.13.10 @ 12:50PM

>There is an alternative as stated in the Declaration of Independence

Heh.. That's like saying "If you're having problems going to point A by walking over this hill.. as an alternative solution, you may want to consider crawling over this 10 mile high mountain"

Byron DeLear | 10.13.10 @ 2:55PM

An Article V Convention is a place where American citizens of good conscience--of all politcal inclinations--can come together to rein in a status quo that's completely dysfunctional and out of control.

Philip Klein's article make several mistakes of presenting the irrationality of convention opponents as reasonable.

There are sufficient protections built-in to prevent any kooky, radically partisan, or extreme ideas from surviving the two-step nomination and ratification process. If you believe in the brilliance of the Founders, you cannot presume to think that they would have been so idiotic as to put a poison pill right in the heart of the constitution.

The convention clause was seen by the Framers as a necessary check-and-balance, and has the potential to reboot the Federal laptop that's been locked-up and frozen for years. While banging on the keys may seem like it's working (elections), if you really want to get something done, Article V is the reset switch.

For a brief report on the Article V symposium held at Cooley Law, please cheack out my latest column here:

"Glenn Beck's Mormon prophecy of the Constitution hanging by a thread"

http://www.examiner.com/progre.....y-a-thread

John Lesnik| 10.13.10 @ 3:38PM

This is the first argument in favor of a Con Conv that I've found both convincing and reassuring. It makes me reconsider some of the comments that I've posted above. Coming from a Progressive perspective, however, it gives me pause as I can't imagine how a convention with Progressives on one side and Libertarians/ Conservatives on the other could ever agree on anything of importance since their desired end states are opposite, even mutually exclusive.

Timely Renewed | 10.14.10 @ 1:46AM

The better solution is an "amendment amendment" which gives the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without a convention. Article V only used a convention mechanism because in 1789 there was no other practical way for States to communicate with each other to formulate amendment proposals.

With an "amendment amendment" allowing individual States to initiate constitutional amendments, grassroots constitutionalists could initiate amendments carefully drafted to achieve the restoration of the original constitutional structure, a control which would not exist with a politician dominated convention.

See www.timelyrenewed.com for more on this and other amendment proposals.

Bill Walker| 10.14.10 @ 11:03AM

While Mr. Klein does present a fairly balanced article, there are several problems with it. First, Mr. Klein notes the Constitution has never been amended through a "convention of the states" (misnomer as the proper term is Article V Convention or amendments convention) but fails to note the reason for this is Congress has refused to obey the Constitution as more than a sufficient number of applications have been submitted by the states for a convention call. As shown at the www.foavc.org, the applications for a convention call number over 700. As such Congress is mandated by the Constitution to call a convention.

The fact Mr. Klein does not mention the key fact that a convention call is mandated presently rather than at some point in the future, show a key lack of research on the part of Mr. Klein. It would be difficult to imagine that Mr. Klein even so much as Goggled "Article V Convention" that he did not come across mention of FOAVC.

Second, had Mr. Klein gone to FOAVC and researched its database he would discovered irrefutable evidence that the Burger letter referred to by Mrs. Schlafly in his article is bogus, that is, that is was created by convention opponents rather than being written by Mr. Burger. Again, it would be very difficult if proper research were conducted by Mr. Klein, to believe he could have missed this evidence.

While it is useful that Mr. Klein quoted Mr. Natelson, the fact is he misstated several facts that more through research would have correct. He states for example 32 states applied for a balanced budget; as shown by official public record gathered for the first time in United States history by FOAVC, the correct number is 36 applying states. More importantly, Mr. Klein fails to point out the language of Article V mandates that a convention call is based on a simple numeric count of applying states rather than any amendment issue as he implies. This was acknowledged by the federal government officially and formally in the two federal lawsuits that have already been filed regarding an Article V Convention call. Mr. Klein makes no reference to these suits and their results showing a considerable lack of research. Details of the suits can be found on the FOAVC website.

In sum, Mr. Klein failed to research all the material available to him particularly material found at FOAVC and given that FOAVC is greatly responsible for the present movement toward a convention call, such omission is inexcusable as it presents a clearly skewed view of all information available on this issue, particularly when examining public record which Mr. Klein misquoted when referring to the number of applications on file with Congress.

It would be incumbent on Mr. Klein to rewrite his article after researching the materials found on the FOAVC especially those regarding public record. As always members of FOAVC are available to answer any questions anyone might have regarding an Article V Convention and to present the facts, Supreme Court rulings and public record that tell the true story about a convention. In sum, these records show a convention must be called and we have sufficient law already in place to hold such a convention without fear of what opponents of a convention speculate might happen but who have never provided any proof such things will happen. Mr. Klein has a duty to reflect the true public record on this subject and he has failed to do so.

David in MA| 10.14.10 @ 2:07PM

There is a problem in convening a con-con.

They do not have to stick to the reason for calling it, once it is called and opened ANYTHING can be on the table for discussion and passage.......

Tricky little devil, this is!

KSmith| 10.14.10 @ 2:26PM

Since Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have no respect for the existing Constitution, and since they violate it with impunity, I can't imagine a Constitutional Convention doing anything other than making things worse. The strengths of the existing Constitution would be destroyed and be replaced with features that would make the State governments and the people even weaker.

freeper| 10.14.10 @ 4:01PM

Not a big deal, but Natelson's first name is "Rob" not "Robert." Might help in any searches for his publications.

freeper| 10.14.10 @ 4:11PM

Oops! Spoke too soon. Looks like he uses both versions in his publications.

Les Coomer| 10.15.10 @ 4:29PM

The safe way for states to call for a conventiuon to amend the constitution is to word the request, " That a convention be called to consider the following amendments and only the following amendments x, y, z. The delagate to the convention shall vote on the amendments as the states have presented them without altering or amending them".

Robert| 10.21.10 @ 12:40AM

Key, as always, would be the character of the delegates sent to a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. If the states choose only delegates who understand and respect the Constitution, with the aid of the Federalist Papers explaining the purposes of the clauses and powers enumerated in the Consitution, and the Anti-Federalist Papers whose authors raised concerns about the Federal government becoming too powerful, then we would likely get a convention that sticks to its authorized purpose and stays under control. But if we get a bunch of Marxists appointed as the delegates, we would get the nightmare scenario of a runaway convention as the Marxists try to re-write the Constitution wholesale to their liberty-hating, big-government-loving tastes. The last couple years should have taught us the same lesson about those we elect to Federal office - character counts heavily!

Thomas Meredith| 10.25.10 @ 4:39AM

"Are you kidding? Are you kidding?"

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|92 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|97 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|29 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Feature