Is Changing the Constitution the Only Way to Fix Washington?

Next month delegations of state lawmakers will travel to Phoenix, Arizona, to attend what organizers say will be the first formal convention of states since the Civil War. They’ll gather at the capitol, inside the turquoise-carpeted House chamber, and draw up rules for a hoped-for future meeting: a convention to draft an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

No “amendment convention” has taken place since the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. But the idea is gaining steam now, stoked by groups on the left and right that say amendments drafted and ratified by states are the last, best hope for fixing the nation’s broken political system and dysfunctional — some even say tyrannical — federal government.
MORE

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Is Changing the Constitution the Only Way to Fix Washington?

  1. Dan says:

    There is NOTHING wrong with the Constitution as it is written and there is NO NEED to change it.
    The problem is NOT the Constitution. The problem is the elected powerful who IGNORE the Constitution and the judiciary criminals who interpret things to satisfy THEIR whims instead of following the restraints of the Constitution. If the document were followed faithfully we would not have most of the problems that plague the US. A “con-con” is not being sought to solve any problems that the average person suffers from. It is being sought by con artists and power brokers as an opportunity to EDIT the Constitution to make their evil and criminality easier. And the FIRST THING TO HAPPEN at such an event would be the elimination of the Second Amendment. So NO….oppose any such idea.

    • CorditeChris says:

      Here, Here! I agree wholeheartedly! If people would stand up and demand their congressmen follow the Constitution, there would be no issues. But Americans do not have the balls to stand up and make the voices heard. They want to give the very tyrants that hold political office the power to change the Constitution, so they can FINISH screwing over the American people.
      People, we have to say no more! We have to do it as one voice, or will be become a conquered people, bowing to our masters. What the hell has become of the American spirit? Are we all afraid that if we speak up we will loose our livelihoods? We stand to loose more than that if we do not stand up!!

    • ChuckN says:

      Ideally I would agree with you. But many are looking at this as the last possible peaceful way to correct dc caused problems. The groups I know of seeking this are pressing for strict term limits and a balanced budget amendment. Personally, given the problem we’re having with entrenched beaurocrats, I think a 15 year cap on ALL government employees (military exception only) should also be added. Is there a serious danger for the 2nd amendment, sure and it’s something to be very weary of. But if we don’t try one last way to correct the problems in a more permanent fashion we’ll have little choice but to use said amendment in totality. Any half measured would only end in failure.

    • One of the many Bill's says:

      Exactly.

    • bogsidebunny says:

      Right on, Dan. The constitution goes away and America, as I’ve know it for decades goes away.

    • WiscoDave says:

      AMEN!

  2. Sunny says:

    I’m going to try this again.
    It isn’t the Constitution that needs to be changed. It’s DC that needs to be changed.
    We must get rid of all the traitors that think they are the ones in charge. Ropes and light poles and/or guns and ammo are what is needed.
    Who is it that has the balls to get this thing kicked off?
    sunny

  3. crazyeighter says:

    Sort of like what happened when they gathered to “edit” the Articles of Confederation?

    And why do I have a feeling this is going to turn into what happened in Charlottesville today?

  4. Judy says:

    It is going to be one Hot conference. Phoenix doesn’t cool down until October.

    And I agree with Dan, it’s the Crooks-In-Charge not the Constitution.

  5. Chuck says:

    Yeah I love how Levin and his stooges think adding new rules to a document Washington completely ignores will make them stop ignoring it. It is a logically stupid idea so there must be a different agenda behind it.

  6. Grayrazorback says:

    The idea that any politically oriented group could draft something superior to the original Constitution is hubris. Looking at any bill that makes it through either chamber of Congress shows that almost everything is a vehicle for special interests, laden with loopholes, and amended to include pork spending to pay off donors.

    Obama was correct when he stated that the Bill of Rights are negative rights – they were created to protect people from the government, not to enumerate the things government will provide for people. Any attempt at reframing the Constitution would be seen as an opportunity to enshrine and expand entitlements – at the expense of the taxpayer.

    Some of Matt Braken’s writing deals with this very issue – it’s a mechanism to steal rights from the People.

  7. Kid says:

    How about just following the Constitution. Like that latest dem, Chatty Cathy, who claims NRA is a threat to national security. She took an oath, under oath, to defend the Constitution. She obviously lied. WHY can she not be removed, fined and even jailed. WHY? Wtf.

  8. orlin sellers says:

    The ink wasn’t dry on the document before the politicians started perverting it. The Rule of Law is dead. These bozos talk about progressive programs, what we need is to get back to the basics and roots of this document.
    Who in the hell needs government screwing up everything. Literally, EVERYTHING!

  9. Hallie says:

    The Forrest…
    Live Streamed…
    A Great Educator

  10. Alien says:

    OK, let’s assume The Magic Happens and real smart people add to / modify the Constitution with The Perfect Amendments to fix everything.

    Swell. Wunnerful. Glad to hear it. Thanks, guys.

    Now, how do those Perfect Amendments get enforced? Maybe in the same way the provisions of the existing Constitution have been enforced?

  11. HT (Towser) says:

    Dan, I almost agree with you and, no, I do not advocate a “constitutional convention” in any way. I would expect something similar the occur as did when our current constitution was put in place. We had the “Articles of Confederation” and delegates from each state were asked to attend a Philadelphia convention to consider some improvements. Of the 74 invited, 55 showed up. A total of 39 delegates voted in the new constitution. The original “Articles of Confederation” was clear – the agreement could only be modified by 100% agreement. All of this information came from a book I am currently reading “Hologram of Liberty” by Kenneth W. Royce (I’m reading it on Kindle Unlimited) While I am not very far into the book, I can already see not only the dangers of a new convention but the farce concerning our current constitution. Before the argument begins I’ll offer some food for thought from an old anarchist…

  12. HT (Towser) says:

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” ― Lysander Spooner

    Concerning a new convention, I’ll leave you with a link to a new version of the constitution presented by the good ol’ boys at the Ford and Rockefeller foundations: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm

  13. Bobo the Hobo says:

    “Our fellow legislators from around the country were so thoughtful, so intelligent, and so careful,”

    I’ll have what she’s having.

  14. Terry says:

    Totally agree with Dan. If they won’t follow the existing constitution what makes them think it will be any different with a new one.

  15. kydrty1 says:

    Bullseye!Dan nailed it.Once they open the box,anything can happen.

  16. mark r says:

    This is very dangerous, the snowflakes and the undrained swamp can and will use this to cement their quackery.

  17. Bigg Ale says:

    Power by the states have been usurped by .gov. A Article 5 convention should be called to undo the 17th Amendment. Govenors of each individual state up until Wilson crammed this down Americas throat appointed senators to congress. Those folk were subject to recall. They looked after the state knowing full well the next govenor may recall them! Imagine California under Swartzeneger had he had that power to recall the idots Boxer and Fienstien!! This would also stop the K Street PACs from courting those senators! The Article 5 convention is the backstop put in place by the Founders to fix the government…….

  18. Trib says:

    Don’t fuck with it. The lawmakers gave us welfare, obumacare, high taxes on good whiskey.

  19. =TW= says:

    “(The law) is like a single-bed blanket on a double bed and three folks in the bed and a cold night. There ain’t ever enough blanket to cover the case, no matter how much pulling and hauling, and somebody is always going to nigh catch pneumonia. Hell, the law is like the pants you bought last year for a growing boy, but it is always this year and the seams are popped and the shankbone’s to the breeze. The law is always too short and too tight for growing humankind.”

    – Robert Penn Warren “All The King’s Men”

    https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/900927

  20. Roger says:

    With a constitutional convention of the states, The US congress have NOTHING to do with it. It is solely a functions of the individual states. For a constitutional convention of the states at least 2/3 of the states must agree or request a constitutional convention, for any amendment to be ratified, whether it is from a constitutional convention or promulgated through the US congress, there must be 3/4 of the states accepting it. For any amendment modifying or changing the first or second amendments, getting 3/4 of the states to ratify it is highly improbable. Sure Californistan and New Jersistan, with the democratik rebublik of New Yorkistan might vote for that, but Texas? Alabama? Tennessee? etc? There surely are some items which demand an amendment to our constitution. Not the least of which are congressional term limits and a balanced budget. Yes, getting politicians to obey the constitution is difficult, but that is the job of individual VOTERS that keep putting lifetime politicians back in office and NEVER holding them responsible for the mayhem produced or the lies endlessly told.

  21. warhorse says:

    there is a huge difference between a “constitutional convention” and an “article V convention”, and I really wish people would stop confusing them.

    an article V convention can propose amendments. period. end. they have to approved in the regular manner. they have no other powers, and any other use of an article V convention means we drag out the attendees and shoot them. anything other than amendments come out of an article V convention, and it is null and void from the moment pen hits paper.

  22. mrgarabaldi says:

    Hey Kenny;

    Several posters have already touched in it. the .gov already ignore the constitution, what makes you think that .gov will obey the results of the “Article V” convention. I see if it happens in a city, the rent a mob that the democrats can form quickly will overwhelm the process and you will see all kinds of crap shoved into it. The people that helped write the constitution were more concerned about love of nation than the self serving people today that would make a go at it.

  23. Jacklyn Beidler says:

    I always reply to this sort of arguement with the extreme: like lynsander spooner expressed in the 19th century, the constitution is a legally binding document which only those that that signed it…. signed. None of his moderns, nor anyone living today, signed the constituion. We have no legal obligation to it, let alone a moral one…..
    And our congress and judiciary are obviously aware. Soldiers swear an allegiance to it wherein their commanders and elected and oppointed officials have no real obligation to uphold the constitution. We vote for representatives by secrete ballot, therefor relinquishing and legal responsibility for our representatives’ actions. And vice versa! Our representatives have no legal obligation to do whatever is in his constituents’ best interests, because od secret ballots, he does not know who elected him/her. No one takea responsibility for anything that happens by the rule of law and either appoint blame oe pass the buck for wrong doing….
    The constitution was therefor written with the express intention of the men that signed it to do as they will and by ours, and our ancestors’ naivete believed we should all abide by it because what, it states “we the people?”
    We are not “the people” that signed the constitution and to be veiled after the fact, and after industrialisation, that “we” are anything like the “we” that signed the constitution is foolhardy

Comments are welcome. Trolls will be banned and then shot.