Tom Coburn: “The only way to fix Washington is to have a Convention of the States and limit their power”

It turns out that Senator Tom Coburn is a big supporter of Mark Levin’s new book The Liberty Amendments. When asked last night about this new 1000 plus page spending bill and the fact that the Senate will vote on it before anyone gets a chance to read it, Sen. Tom Coburn told Mark Levin that you can’t prevent this stuff from happening because all we have is a bunch of career politicians who only care about getting reelected. He says the only way to fix Washington is for the states to convene a Convention of the States and limit their power, something he definitely supports.



Listen:

 
Below is Mark Levin’s full interview of Tom Coburn where he talks about the hundreds of billions we could cut right now without anyone really noticing if it weren’t for Harry Reid and Obama, who he hammers pretty hard:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
newest oldest most voted
JohnCraven
Guest
JohnCraven

Sometimes Sen. Coburn does things that bewilder me and other times I think he does great things.
Supporting the call for a states’ constitutional convention to pass the liberty ammendments or any other necessary ammendments such as one to abolish the income tax and the IRS is something that is great that he is doing.
John Craven
New Orleans

flavius_maximus
Guest
flavius_maximus

The Problem: Our nations destruction is baked-in with the 16th & 17th Amendments, the first is the identity and re-distributional politics of the largess that each party plays thanks to the 16th Amendments gorging on the fruits of the “peoples” labor through the income tax. The other is popular election of Senators, has anyone ever asked themselves how many politicians of modest means and good character go to Washington and within a short time become millionaire’s? All because they can inside trade on information they receive in the performance of their duties, whereas if we do this same behavior we are subject to prosecution and a lengthy prison sentence. Just ask Martha Stewart about this. So to bottom line it, the income tax allows politicians a bottomless well, or ocean of money to but votes from their constituents, then they can legally act on information to make themselves rich. The… Read more »

Houdan Chick
Guest
Houdan Chick

Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful piece. This corruption of our politicians filters right down to 90% of stupid Americans who never look at anything beyond their own self interest and their own agenda.
We are indeed screwed because Americans have lost the connection with our constitution, the progressives have manipulated our education system to serve up only progressive pap to kids from kindergarten on up and the parents are just too self absorbed to pay attention or care. Again TY

kimber1911
Guest
kimber1911

AMEN….

Big Al
Guest
Big Al

That screaming deal was removed by a recent bill, wasn’t it? But nothing is in the cards to prevent them from accepting money from lobbyist!

335blues
Guest
335blues

I am with you Mr. Coburn. Let’s make it happen!.

George Foltz
Guest
George Foltz

The constitution needs to be reaffirmed as instituted not modified. Screw the atheist’s, Muslim’s, abortionist’s destined for the hottest place in hell, any illegal anybody’s. The “poor” bastards that are on unemployment for almost 2 years, too damn lazy to do a different job. If your criminal parents brought you here illegally as a baby, tough noogies. Go back where you came from and get in line or just off yourself and save us a lot of paperwork, we don’t want or need you. If you have to sneak into a place that means you are not welcome there. Just like stealing a Presidential election twice because he caters to the freeloaders and the bottom of the barell, if you voted for Obama you owe America an apology you ignorant moron.

gibbygoo56
Guest
gibbygoo56

Establishment Republicans are doing the work of Obama as we speak. House Republicans are trying to get AMNESTY passed. All the while they deny it profusely. They have the only power Republicans have in DC and these idiots want to help Obama complete the transformation of our country. They are ready and willing and we need to get involved to stop that. Yes of course they continue to say they are Conservative and would never want to give AMNESTY to anyone who has “willfully” entered the country illegally. That’s when they pull out the we gotta give the “DREAMERS” AMNESTY. They didn’t break our laws. They are here by no fault of their own. Of course they would never want to break up the family by denying the entire family AMNESTY as well. And there you go we’ve got 30 million illegals given citizenship. The Chamber of Commerce has demanded… Read more »

B-Funk
Guest
B-Funk

I have to agree with the Senator. Time to get radical because the radicals are running DC.

kimber1911
Guest
kimber1911

We need to strengthen our constitution.. Not Modify it.. OBAMA IS ALREADY IGNORING IT..

B-Funk
Guest
B-Funk

It needs modification. Several amendments need to be nullified right away.

kimber1911
Guest
kimber1911

I am all for nullifying the bad amendments.. We need to make sure that “LAWYER SPEAK” is not used.. it must be plain and simple english that we all can understand..We must eliminate the convoluted meanings..Straight talk..

Rowdy
Guest
Rowdy

There is no reason to modify our CONSTITUTION ! ! With the proof in on how much our votes count, why would you want to open the door for the left to finish destroying it. Oh that’s right the vote of the people would prevent that. Right. Our votes have worked so well to prevent the socialism we are being subjected to now. No need to amend it just start living by it as it is now, that is all that is necessary.

mesasmiles
Guest
mesasmiles

I think you misunderstand Mark Levin’s amendments proposal, if you’re saying you’re against any amendments. Get his book and read it. He wants to re-enthrone our founding principles by “un-amending” the ways the statists have been amending it all along – putting into the Constitution by creative interpretation things that were never intended. They’ve created a ruling class of permanent politicians and unelected bureaucrats, and they need to be thrown out so that we can get back to the way this country was founded.

Katie Dryden
Guest
Katie Dryden

It is sad that the people are so unaware and undereducated when it comes to the power that politicians have and the extent to which they are abusing that power, myself included. I am proud of the work Coburn is doing to cut spending and hope that him resigning is the right thing to do.

RogueRose
Guest
RogueRose

Pretty much thought their power was already limited by the existing Constitution, but I get his point.

skl20
Member
skl20

Let’s get started ASAP!

OK_Loyalist
Guest
OK_Loyalist

Coburn is a friend of Obama, don’t ever ever forget this.

mark
Guest
mark

A Good Friend of BO… Scary….

aposematic
Guest
aposematic

Do people forget the States elect the POTUS and they elected Obuma twice. You want them to call an Article 5 Convention to Amend the Constitution… Are you nuts!

Ryan H.
Guest
Ryan H.

Con-Con is not the answer. There are many drawbacks, which already have been addressed in other posts. A more constitutionally legitimate alternative is state nullification, which merely states that the Federal Govt shouldn’t have a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. I fear Sen. Coburn is simply an opportunist trying to accommodate himself to the prevailing consensus. If you’d like to admire a Senator (potential, but guaranteed at this point) look up Greg Brannon from NC.

In addition, Levin refuses to debate anyone who supports state nullification. Tom Woods offered to debate him on the subject where the loser would pay $10,000 to the charity of choice of the winner. I urge Levin supporters to plead to him to engage Tom in the debate. Then, finally, Levin will be exposed.

Joanne13
Guest
Joanne13

Once again, wouldn’t that require a Federal government willing to HONOR states that pass nullification? Therein lies the same problem.

Ryan H.
Guest
Ryan H.

I say no. The Constitution is a creation of state ratifiers. Therefore, the Federal Govt–being the creation–doesn’t have the authority to delegitimize its creator–the States.

History shows us that when states do cite state nullification the Federal Govt doesn’t prosecute. Latest example is legalization of marijuana in CO. Just one, there are many more.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

Anyone talking about a “Con-Con” isn’t even close enough to the facts to have a rational discussion.

First learn what the Article Five Convention is. Then get back to us.

Ryan H.
Guest
Ryan H.

They’re the same thing! Constitutional Convention=Article Five Convention. What exactly do you think I’m talking about? Are you going to bother addressing my other points, or just insult me further?

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

They are not the same thing. Get up to speed if you want to discuss it. We discuss this here every Monday.

Why would you decide that was an insult? It’s a fact of logic. Doesn’t matter who is involved.

Ryan H.
Guest
Ryan H.

We’re saying the same thing! A state convention to propose amendments. REGARDLESS, it’s semantics anyway. Care to address my other points?

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

It’s not semantics at all. You really should learn the difference.

Nullification won’t work. It’s not legally defined, it’s not “ratifiable” and it is in the same box a secession when it comes to problems.

The Amendments convention is fully legal, involves a convention of states exactly like we have had many times before in our history.

This nonsense about “opportunist” and “expose” is way out there in fringe territory. It has no place in this debate.

Ryan H.
Guest
Ryan H.

States have also cited nullification many times is our history. It doesn’t require amending the Constitution. It allows the States to interpret the Constitution to limit the powers of the Fed Govt that aren’t EXPRESSLY delegated to them, and that’s where it’s different from secession.

Since you’re the moderator for this site and since this site continues to glorify Levin I feel I must advocate for my own talk-show host historian-Tom Woods. He presents a very strong case for nullification that Levin refuses to respond to.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

Levin spent time on his program addressing nullification. He’s not some lone holdout. A lot of qualified, credentialed legal and history experts have done a lot of work in this area.

Nullification and secession have always had their champions, as well. Right now several of them are trying to impede the Convention of States, claiming many strange and some historically inaccurate things about it.

Their problem stems from weak premises in most cases, followed by an odd wish to see the Article Five Process fail. If nullification worked, most of us would be happy to see it succeed. Not so for the nullification camp, evidently.

Ryan H.
Guest
Ryan H.

Nullification does work and I’d argue it’s a more of a legitimate Constitutional mechanism to resist unconstitutional Federal laws than a Convention of the States. It’s been cited throughout US History and will be cited in lawsuits against Obamacare.

It’s not like I’m afraid of the consequences of a convention. Am I afraid that we’ll have a Congress that will continue to legislate anything it wants? Am I afraid it’ll give us a court system that’ll rubber stamp anything the Federal Govt wants? Or that it’ll give the President the power to spy on people and send troops anywhere in the world it wants? No, because that’s what we have now.

I’ll be shocked if a state convention ever occurs in my lifetime. It’s extremely difficult to pull off. States like NY and CA will never agree to send representatives. Education about nullification is a better option.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

Nullification can be “nullified” by a simple court ruling. Not that it’s right, but it’s all the Progressives would need to keep on rolling.

Amendments are an entirely different thing. They cannot be nullified, and where they give states the power to act, they most certainly will act.

Nullification cannot stem the tide of the federal leviathan. It can only be used to influence SOME justices now and then. Where it is not recognized by federal courts, it would cause major action to enforce, up to and including war.

But if the Seventeenth amendment is repealed, and a state should decide to recall their Senator and replace him, Then he will be replaced. The Congress won’t start a war over that, and neither could the Executive branch. And that’s only one example of the power of giving states authority to act.

maynardb50
Guest
maynardb50

Everyone settle down. Most likely we all want the same outcome. Smaller gov. and less meddling in our affairs by the gov. we have.

BearNJ
Guest
BearNJ

Please shut up. You want us to “protect” the Constitution while its violated and the country bankrupted. You neo confederates are as big a threat as the left. Unlike you we Conservatives want the constitution and the country saved. We are using the Constitution to do it.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

I second that Motion BearNJ.

Ryan H.
Guest
David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

What a joke! Tom Woods is a nobody! a Paulbot! God Save Us All…..;..

gibbygoo56
Guest
gibbygoo56

Nikki Haley has taken on the HONOR to Nullify Obamacare in her state. Lets see how that goes. I may have to move my family there. What exactly will nullification fix in DC. Nothing. These power hungry creeps are never going to change. We have got to fix this system. We can do this. Lets limit their power and take this country back.
Victoria Jackson has a great post today on her site. The top video on her page is long but worth watching. Its a video about the Convention of States. I am inspired.

Joanne13
Guest
Joanne13

I have not read the book. So I don’t having anything from the book to bring up. All I have is to ask if anyone actually thinks that IF amendments were made into ‘law’, do you actually BELIEVE that law (or those laws) would have a CHANCE of being applied? Would a convention REMOVE the administration in power? If not why would ANY law make a bit of difference. Obama’s administration is LAWLESS. They don’t care about laws, only in stomping on them if they don’t like them. I highly doubt they’d care what any new law through a convention had to say. They’d ignore it and walk on it just like they do with EVERY law they disagree with now. They’ve put so many rogue judges on the bench that we can’t count on THEM to carry out any amendments or laws either. I WANT to believe that there’s… Read more »

gibbygoo56
Guest
gibbygoo56

Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul and a few others aren’t enough to change things. Establishment Republicans are doing the work of Obama as we speak. House Republicans are trying to get AMNESTY passed. All the while they deny it profusely. They have the only power Republicans have in DC and these idiots want to help Obama complete the transformation of our country. They are ready and willing and we need to get involved to stop that. Yes of course they continue to say they are Conservative and would never want to give AMNESTY to anyone who has “willfully” entered the country illegally. That’s when they pull out the we gotta give the “DREAMERS” AMNESTY. They didn’t break our laws. They are here by no fault of their own. Of course they would never want to break up the family by denying the entire family AMNESTY as well. And… Read more »

Joanne13
Guest
Joanne13

I’ll take a look at it gibby.

aposematic
Guest
aposematic

Dream on dreamers. The fact is our Government is corrupt to its core and as far as any Constitution is concerned totally gone rogue. Even the Supreme Court (the third Brance of Government under the Constitution) Chief Justice Roberts confirmed in his twisted illogical support of ObumaNocare that it was not his job to uphold the Constitution against the other two Branches…deferring to the voters as those responsible.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

Senator Mike Lee wrote a fantastic book explaining how Roberts, on 2 occasions, re-wrote the law to make it fit the government’s argument. It’s an easy read for non-lawyers.

edsheppa
Guest
edsheppa

I am glad to see that some are finally coming to realize what I’ve known for many years now. But people like Levin still aren’t getting it completely. This shouldn’t be approached from a partisan or ideological basis. Nor should it be a specific set of reforms like Levin’s. Rather we need a simple enabling change so that the people can bypass and control the political class w/o having the encumbrance of convening a Constitutional Convention each time. Specifically, we do not need Amendments to be proposed by the Senate or a Convention. It is enough that 3/4 of the States adopt the same Amendment. In effect, there’d be a permanent Constitutional Convention consisting of all the People. So, at first that one single change. From it can flow the others are decided by the People. We Conservatives might not like every single change the People make then, but I… Read more »

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

You have two choices if you want to operate within the Constitution:

1) Let Congress propose amendments.
2) Hold a Convention for proposing amendments.

Anything other than that is not legal under the Constitution.

edsheppa
Guest
edsheppa

I don’t know how you could have not understood. I’m saying the States should call a Convention, as is Levin. But that the Convention should propose a single, purely procedural Amendment that just eliminates the requirement that future Amendments be proposed by Congress or a Convention. Instead, 3/4 of the States need merely adopt the same Amendment w/o any proposal.
On the one hand, Congress will never propose anything that will diminish its power. One the other hand, a Convention is a lengthy and heavy process. In these times when we’re having nationwide political conversation 24/7, there is no need. The People, on their own, should be able to propose change to the States.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

Levin made such a proposal. But it still must come from a Convention, and conventions can propose many things at once.

Importantly, nothing limits the number of conventions, nor simultaneous conventions, nor how the convention produces amendments needing ratification.

My expectation is that delegates wouldn’t just toss Levin’s book on the table and ask for an up or down vote. More likely you’ll see separate products come from the convention, each of which may be ratified separately.

If you read this article it includes more about those concepts:

ArticleFiveProcess: A Liberty Amendments Convention versus the Balanced Budget Convention

edsheppa
Guest
edsheppa

Don’t be obtuse. My point is that Levin’s approach to getting a Convention is wrong. Rather than a set of specific policy proposals that are likely to be opposed by half of the electorate, we need an enabler which they will more likely support. Once we have that and the political class is no longer a bottleneck, *then* go after the others.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

I wasn’t being obtuse, I was providing clear information.

You are simply in error if you think that one single amendment is somehow going to work better than several.

States can ratify them all in one go, ratify them one at a time, or ratify them in tranches of selected amendments. This is how the Bill of Rights came to be ten in number, when several more were on the list.

So having one, versus having several is not a factor. Remember, this isn’t a ballot proposal. THis is something state legislatures will debate and decide. (However they can pass it off on to the people to have a convention in the state and ratify it themselves.)

My Eye View
Guest
My Eye View

hahaha…Levin “gets” more than you ever will…hahaha

edsheppa
Guest
edsheppa

Maybe, but I doubt it. What is clear is that he’s been wrong about this, as he says in his book, and I have not.
But he’s finally come partly around so there’s that.

My Eye View
Guest
My Eye View

you doubt it!…hahahahaha…please post your credentials…this man will run circles around you…”the kitchen computer” is not credentials…what a laugh , thanks for that

Joe0230
Guest
Joe0230

Agree completely….

edsheppa
Guest
edsheppa

That makes two of us :-). I don’t know why others don’t see it.

Golem_Master
Guest
Golem_Master

Even if the Constitution is amended, Washington will still ignore it whenever it suits them.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

We addressed that concern in discussion #5, here at TheRightScoop.

The Sovereign States – A Phrase With Meaning

odin147
Member
odin147

Top conservatives need to push the conv. of the states in the media, make it part of the news cycle , this will create some momentum, just like how Obama pushed his agenda, high profile conservatives need to push the convention of states agenda in the media, make it a debate. I would also make it part of a litmus test for repubs running for elections.

Joanne13
Guest
Joanne13

Are you talking about MSM?? You don’t actually think they would do ANYTHING to support Conservatism do you? Seriously? They are in the hip pocket of liberal/progressives/socialists who are in love with their dictator OBAMA. Don’t EVER count on MSM for anything close to ‘fair and balanced’! That’s like the 3 little pigs trusting the wolf…

icowrich
Guest
icowrich

But a convention of the states not only requires 34 states to convene, but it also requires 38 to pass any given amendment. That means, in any given negotiation, it is the 12th most liberal state that will have the power to get something in. By my calculations, that’s New Mexico. I can’t believe nobody here is at all concerned about this.

RighteousCrow_JustCaws
Guest
RighteousCrow_JustCaws

Please read Levin’s book before commenting further on this.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

I did not want to comment on your post, but you leave me no choice!
First of all you must have been educated in the Common Core. Your math
skills are lacking. Two Thirds of the States Propose Amendments, “They will all be on the same page, agreed on in advance, Then Three Fourths of the Sates will Ratify
The Amendments to make it LAW! That will also be agreed on in advance! I
promise if you read the books you will understand how this is going to
happen! K Street will not know what to do! Most of the sleaze bags will have to file for bankruptcy! Thank you George Mason!!!!

aposematic
Guest
aposematic

Its those closed door agreements ‘in advance’ that should scare the you know what out of you…totally corrupt to its core Government is no place to put your confidence.

icowrich
Guest
icowrich

I corrected the post, thanks…but that just means you need even more states. To ratify these things. It means you need states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, etc. If 38 states can agree on a thing, my guess is it won’t be THAT conservative 21 states have Democratic governors. 17 states have a Democratic lock on the legislature (with another 5 split). Whatever passes will need to snag about half the blue states (plus or minus depending on what you call blue). If they’re voting for it, what does that mean for what’s in it?

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

It’s not going to be as tough a sell as you might think.

Check out:

Discussion 3 – The benefits accrue to all

NinjaMidget
Guest
NinjaMidget

Read the 5th amendment. It requires 2/3 of the states to call a convention, then 3/4 of the states to ratify approved amendments. Don’t pass on misinformation.
~edit~
Since math may not be your strong point, 2/3 of the states is 34 (to bring a conventions of states for the purpose of suggesting amendments. 3/4 of the states is 38 (to ratify any amendments approved in the convention)

icowrich
Guest
icowrich

I shall endeavor to correct…but that, of course, strengthens my position.

NinjaMidget
Guest
NinjaMidget

Article V in full: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. If you can’t… Read more »

icowrich
Guest
icowrich

…but I agreed with you in the last post. You need 38 states to get any amendment passed. That means the 13 most liberal states can stop any given amendment. It also risks getting the sorts of amendments that you wouldn’t want passed.

NinjaMidget
Guest
NinjaMidget

That means that there has to be a consensus of 3/4 of the states to make an amendment to the constitution. If an amendment can not get that, it does not get ratified. This ensures that “bad” amendments will not pass, but the ones that make sense, like term limits for members of congress and appointed judges will get that majority easily. Getting the good amendments that everyone likes will be difficult enough to pass. Unpopular ones don’t stand a chance.

icowrich
Guest
icowrich

That’s just it. The 3/4 requirement ensures that what doesn’t appeal to most of the blue states won’t pass. Again, we have 21 Democratic governors. Dems control both legislative houses in 17 states (and at least one in 6 others). I just don’t think ANYTHING but the most populist of amendments even has a chance for consideration. Finally, there is a belief in this country that our constitution is holy writ. Convincing the people that the founding fathers were wrong to make the judiciary independent from influence by giving them lifetime appointments is going to be VERY difficult. Can you imagine what SCOTUS would look like right now if Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy were term limited out?

NinjaMidget
Guest
NinjaMidget

I don’t think it’s necessary to make a case for the founders being wrong about lifetime appointments. They just did not foresee the things have happened in the judiciary. That is why there is a process for amending the constitution through congress or through the states. I maintain that term limits are good for everyone. Yes, the ones that I agree with would be limited, but so would those I don’t agree with. The regular turnaround of judges and congressmen will serve to check people who are just there for the power and keep a flow of new faces and new ideas (good and bad) in the long term

icowrich
Guest
icowrich

…or, the regular turnaround will ensure that representatives simply follow the playbook set by their chief donors. I can imagine term limits being very helpful of it weren’t for big money in politics. How we get that money out is still a puzzle.

As far as the new amendments are concerned, I must say that I’m quite comfortable with anything that passes 3/4 of the states. It’s a high bar, and if you guys can accomplish it, I won’t complain. I just don’t see states like Minnesota or New Mexico or Ohio voting that way.

Truth Happens
Guest
Truth Happens

Dead-on.

J.J. Sefton
Guest
J.J. Sefton

I support the Article V convention. However the one thing we do not have is time, especially against a government that is moving at light speed to subjugate the republic. I fear it will be way too late by the time the process can actually even begin.

RighteousCrow_JustCaws
Guest
RighteousCrow_JustCaws

We pursue COS while we’re working to yank out the RINOs and Libs and replace them with conservatives.
Levin has said this will be a decades-long process; it has taken almost 100 years to despoil our government, and to expect a fix in the short term is to invite frustration.

icowrich
Guest
icowrich

At least in the Senate, the Tea Party has proven more successful at yanking out RINOs and replacing them with Democrats.

RighteousCrow_JustCaws
Guest
RighteousCrow_JustCaws

Sigh! Tunnel vision will be the death of our country as much as anything else.
Those who believe in the Constitution are welcome to visit TRS and learn; those who don’t might as well crawl back to their hives.

icowrich
Guest
icowrich

I’m just citing a fact. If you want to get conservatives elected, you have to do more convincing. Telling the 51st percent to crawl away isn’t going to do it…unless all you’re interested in is the purity of a losing ticket.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

“More conservatives” won’t fix the problem.

JoeTulsa
Guest
JoeTulsa

Well, I guess I can’t hammer Coburn anymore.
He has cancer, and he supports a convention of the states.
If neither of these were true, I’d be hammering him for his tough talk and weak walk.
Prayers to Dr. Coburn.

johngalt30
Guest
johngalt30

@moderators

Keep the content coming. But I’m not really sure what the deal is with the mis quoting going on on this blog. Coburn didnt say that, nor did Obama say what was quoted yesterday.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

1)You need to be more specific.
2)The videos include the exact language spoken.

12grace
Guest
12grace

Solve the problem…Try and convict on grounds of treason.

Jason Priestley
Guest
Jason Priestley

They think a law they pass will matter to the ‘Lawless One’. You people are cute. No law will fix a Dictatorship.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

They who? What law? Which people?

No sense trolling if you can’t even hit a target.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

Most of the people posting on this story so far sound like a Convention of The States will take money away from them personally. Your Alinsky tactics and posts will not fly anymore. When The States pass something like the 11 proposed Amendments Mark Levin suggests, the majority of the Tax Revenue bypasses Washington D.C. and flows directly to the States! Read the Damn Book before you post dumb ass remarks. You sound like Saul Alinsky…..

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

??? A LOT of us here are strong supporters of an Article Five Convention.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

Good,It’s the only way to fix the Debt Problem! The only lawful way!

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

The debt problem? If you think states don’t have debt of their own, do a bit of research.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

Sir, Your part of the Federal Debt if you are a Taxpayer is now over $1,257,590.00 growing at about $2,000.00 per 30 days! If you don’t believe me pull up US Debt Clock and find the 2 boxes that tell you debt per taxpayer and unfunded liability per taxpayer and add them together! It’s madness!

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

The goal of the Convention is not focused solely on the debt. Believe me, I’m well aware of the additional monies the government is anxious to steal from my family in addition to what both the STATE and FEDERAL governments take from our business every month.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

Again, Read the Book not some blogger that is telling you what is in Mr. Levin’s book! He understands the problem, he is brilliant and most of all he loves his Country and Most importantly he is correct about his 11 proposed Amendments! I will restate this for you one more time, Read the Liberty Amendments, You have not read it!!!!!

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

“some blogger”? K-Bob is brilliant and has been following the Liberty Amendments and meetings from the beginning.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

I did not say K-Bob! There are many other bloggers and they all have an opinion, most are wrong and have no answers to the runaway federal debt and the core problems on why it is happening! Why don’t you read Men in Black, Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia and The Liberty Amendments! Then go to the Landmark Legal Foundation web site and spend 10 to 15 hours reading about what Mr. Levin has been doing for 25 to 35 years protecting your liberty by fighting the Progressives in the name of The United States Constitution and the framers intent! Man get up to speed if you are going to come on an adult post and make comments!

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

You might want to check your attitude at the liberal blog site. I know more about Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation than you do.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

I do not know what you know but I know what you post!

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

Thank you for your list of resources! I will read every one of them. But I am Mark’s age, have been involved in politics for my whole life and have been paying attention since LBJ was President! See as the youngest of 3 I remembrer my father (A Goldwater) supporter having arguments with my Grandfather (a retired federal bureaucrat of Washington D.C. ilk) and a supporter of that sleaze LBJ. I am a Reaganite and might not understand that most on this blog don’t even know the difference between George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan… My mistake and my apologizes to you!

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

I think you’ll find that most who hang out here are very much in tune with what’s going on. I wouldn’t be shocked if 50 is the median age for commenters here.

We have several Vietnam vets, and lots of Reagan voters.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

The fact remains that our children’s children have a federal debt obligation of over $1,257,600.00 per taxpayer if the federal government never spent another dime! There is only one way to fix this problem and it rest with the State Legislator’s.
They have ultimate power over The Progressive Federal State and my belief is that they will act collectively before it is to late! How do you know it is to late? You wake up one morning and the $33,000.00 you have in savings will not buy you a loaf of bread at the Grocery Store because the Dollar has collapsed over night and is worth nothing! This is serious !!!!!!!

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

We could be in for hard times, no matter what we do. I only hope we can arrest some of the people responsible.

Garrett Menard
Guest
Garrett Menard

When my tax monies goes directly to a state still fighting “the war of northern aggression” so they can bring about Creationism teaching & Jim Crow laws is when i get a gun!

Dustoff
Guest
Dustoff

What a loon.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

I fully agree.

whenthe$hitsthefan
Guest
whenthe$hitsthefan

you should already have a few.. lol

Joanne13
Guest
Joanne13

‘flows directly to the states’? Well in that case it’s Illinois and guess where that money will go… to the BIG WIGS, not the people. Just sayin… Sorry, I’m not on a purposeful downer. I’m just stating facts and what ever money comes into my state will only fatten the wallets of Cook County crooks and the politicians in league with them.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

Thank God there are 49 other States! I see Greater Chicago turning into Detroit! If I where you I would move!

Joanne13
Guest
Joanne13

David… I’d LOVE to move! But my daughter & her family live here (I have all of my life). We won’t move away from them otherwise we’d be OUTTA here in a NY second!

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

Joanne, I understand!!!!!

Al Datum
Member
Al Datum

I think the Convention of States is the only option for us, unfortunately. Maybe the Federal Government had to get this bad to wake us up and push us to take this step.

If it’s not this, I don’t know what the solution will be…

Rowdy
Guest
Rowdy

I do but no-one wants to hear it.

aposematic
Guest
aposematic

The States have already sold their people/citizens out to a totally corrupt lawless Federal Government… What makes anyone think new laws for them to ignore/break will solve/resolve the corruption and lawlessness. It sounds a lot like the progressives and their gun control laws nonsense that more gun laws would prevent the lawless from misusing/obtaining guns…total nonsense.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

The Administration already ignores the Constitution. A Convention of States gives Obama the opening to threaten the power of federal funding if State legislatures don’t do as HE has directed. Even if it is successfully amended, Obama will ignore it anyway.

Arson Wells
Guest
Arson Wells

So let’s just throw up our hands an give up, right? Please, don’t ever think that you have the ability to lead or inspire. You are a whining negative nancy. As for me, I’ll be dead and cold before I give up on my country and principles.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

No one is saying that, least of all me. What are you proposing, a gun fight at the OK Corral? Experts have said the very same thing.

If you fail to assess risks and pitfalls, you can not properly plan.

And if you believe the ObamaBots will not reek destruction of everything in their pathway when they don’t receive their welfare and SNAP, I suggest you watch the following. IMO this was planned to warn Republicans about not passing SNAP at year’s end.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/14/video-ebt-glitch-sparks-run-on-walmart-shelves-in-louisiana/

BTW, it is not your country. The US is all Americans’ country.

aposematic
Guest
aposematic

No one is suggesting doing nothing. The question is how will Amending (even if that very remote possibility were to have even a slight chance of not totally destroying the Founders US Constitution) a totally ignored Constitution going to accomplish what the people presently will not do.

Arson Wells
Guest
Arson Wells

In case you missed it the Constitution is being destroyed. The SCOTUS rewriting the Constitution every summer with their judgements, obama picking and choosing which laws to follow and enforce. All I’m saying and many others too, is that we use the Constitution(Article V) to save the Constitution, but then again I’m sure you have a better plan than George Mason and the rest of The Framers had, right?

aposematic
Guest
aposematic

Not at all. What I am saying is: In 1913 the Constitution was Amended (the 16th and 17th, income tax and Federal Reserve) at the start of President Wilson’s term. Among other disastrous Bills passed under Wilson. It is the mindset of the Nation under Obuma that scares the you know what out of me at the thought of a Constitutional Convention under the current mindset of our Nation. Forget History and you will repeat it.

Sherri Jackson
Guest
Sherri Jackson

I trust Senator Coburn will continue beating the drums to encourage the states to convene a Convention of the States to limit the feds power and take back our country. We are at a point that we MUST fight to save our nation. We simply CANNOT ALLOW this unprecedented power grab and reckless spending to continue..or we will no longer be a free people.

slhancock
Guest
slhancock

He is a dicotome. Some days he is all in for liberty and other days he is censuring those brave enough to take the stand publicly. I wonder if he is losing it, or if he states things off the cuff, like Rubio, then realizes later he should’ve kept it zipped. I don’t get it, though. He was a much better conservative in the past. He has begun the McCain/Graham shuffle more recently and has been outspoken in his criticism of Ted Cruz. He SAYS that is is because it is wasted effort, but if no one ever takes a stand, even when it doesn’t look feasible, when WILL these people take a stand? That is the point. You stand on principle, regardless of the supposed outcome, because you are principled. Unlike Rand Paul, who stood on some things like Cruz, but voted FOR the thing when it was not… Read more »

deTocqueville1
Guest
deTocqueville1

Agreed, he talks a good game from time to time but in fact he was describing himself as well as most of his colleagues when he described career politicians. Why, incidentally can they not stop the wilful subversion of the Constitution? How about some spine.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

Coburn is also up for re-election in 2014. Does he want the voters to ignore the last 6 years and focus on this? Perhaps.

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

Dude, you do not know what you are talking about! He term limited himself! He is not running for reelection. He is going back to Oklahoma! Mr. Coburn is a good decent man!

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

Coburn has a 76 rating from FreedomWorks. Pretty darn low score for a “good decent man”. http://congress.freedomworks.org/

David Thompson
Guest
David Thompson

What can I say!

Cincinnatus
Guest
Cincinnatus

My problem with Coburn has been that he was on the Obama bandwagon, as soon as Barry got to the Senate. In spite of all of the information available to those, who cared to read it, Coburn embraced the Marxist fully. It could have been a misguided act of bipartisanship, or a reflection of “white guilt”, but nonetheless, he and others helped grease the skids for the Chicago gangster to slide into the WH.

Jack_Reacher
Guest
Jack_Reacher

I would suggest that in the beginning of the Nazi-Obama era, DOCTOR Coburn, a competent medical doctor, was hopeful and supportive of the potential of providing Americans with affordable healthcare. I’m confident that when Sen. Coburn realized Obama was all smoke and mirrors that he distanced himself from Obama.

Yes, I believe it was an attempt at bi-partisanship, certainly not a “Marxist” stance on his politics.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

Senator Coburn was on board right from the early days that Levin started discussing it. My guess is that he knows some of the “big idea” people behind the movement, and was already up to speed.

In an early interview with him, he was asked about Levin’s proposals, and his response was, “I’m afraid of NOT having a Convention.” He knows things have gotten too unstable to fix any other way.

As our friends at ConventionOfStates say,

“It’s the only solution as big as the problem.”

phil
Guest
phil

although Coburn is apparently serious about the long term solution this country is looking for, he is weak in trying to stop the bleeding in the short term,

he is one of those who are scared of a dem-government-shutdown That they try to blame on the GOP, and thus Rubber stamping %100 of what the dems wants (harry Ried accepts nothing less, & bohener who claims %100 of what u guys want but “no more”….)

Laurel
Member
Laurel

True. His comments from his place on the debt committee were disturbing.

phil
Guest
phil

What were does ?

Please post it,

Laurel
Member
Laurel

No. Look it up but I can tell you that he was for means testing for starters with a very low bar among other draconian measures to fix the mess DC made on the backs of the working man….and be aware not the rich, and not even the poor but the middle class.

In the end he voted against the deal but showed his true colors on how he would fix the debt problem in this country which amounts to band aiding entitlements. I should tell you that in my view I think entitlement programs are un-fix-able.

I agree with Levin…he is a good man but I have my disagreements with him. Quite frankly with the changes seen in him since the advent of Obama I think maybe he is just plain tired of the swamp.

Jack_Reacher
Guest
Jack_Reacher

It might also be the fact that, once again, Dr. Coburn is fighting a rare form of Prostate cancer. Unfortunately there is the very possibility of Dr. Coburn leaving the senate and not finishing the last 3 years as a Senator.

Coburn speaks the truth. Sometimes even I don’t particularly care to hear it or even believe it. But it is what it is and I only wish we had more US Senators with the integrity of a Tom Coburn.

Laurel
Member
Laurel

I did not know he has prostate cancer.

Thanks for the information.

marilyn
Guest
marilyn

Nothing is unfixable. It is just that a fix that will actually work may be painful. Until we have people who understand how things work and are unafraid of a little pain we will still be stuck. There are infinite solutions out there, not just two or three.

Laurel
Member
Laurel

I agree.

IMO the advent of entitlements began the downward slide in this country and undermined our society at every level including our humanity. doing away with them would be a huge fix at every level but also the most painful.

Unsooper
Guest
Unsooper

I agree. I think he is proof of his own premise: That you go to DC and are dragged down into the insular bubble of corruption and power. He has virtually said as much. He is also suffering from prostate cancer right now.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

Coburn is a real enigma. Some days he’s a serious, fire-breathing conservative, and other days he’s a mild-mannered Progressive. Drives ya nuts!

But he’s totally right about this issue.

Laurel
Member
Laurel

Excellent summation.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

Any insight on his motivation K-Bob? He’s up for re-election in 2014. Anyone have ideas on who is going to primary him?

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

He’s not running. There will be a real fight over that seat, I’m sure.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

Thanks K-Bob.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

K-Bob, I haven’t had time to catch up with your posts yet, promise I will, but quick question. Has Levin addressed how this Convention of States will be handled when Obama withholds federal funding from the states? There is a reason the federal gov’t has taken the power of the purse. We saw it demonstrated, every so slightly with the closing of federal memorials in DC and federal parks across the country.

Arson Wells
Guest
Arson Wells

Yes, Mark Levin has addressed this question and more in his book The Liberty Amendments, maybe you should read it first before doubting it. Levin also has a radio show and a good website that is free to download current and older podcasts. Hell, I’ll mail you the book if you read it, lol.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

I already have his book. Unlike some, my wife and I run a business and are working on a Constitutional challenge to Obamacare so have LITTLE time to read.
If you pay attention, K-Bob has been posting on the Liberty Amendments and my question was directed at him.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

It’s all about structural reform. Right now the federal system has that power to pick and choose who gets the candy. So we start removing that power legally and structurally.

If we can at the very least repeal the 17th amendment, that would make a HUGE impact on the overall threat of witholding money.

But more importantly, a threat of witholding money would have to be balanced against states wanting more sovereignty. California would stay stuck firmly on the federal teat, because they are in dire trouble, and their legislature is predominantly leftist lunatics. (And I write that with all due respect.)

But a lot of purple states like Michigan would likely prefer more sovereignty, even among the Democrat side of the legislature.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

Thank you K-Bob, I knew you would have thought about this and researched it. I wish I could find a solid analysis of the unrecorded liabilities per state so we could see the risks that lie ahead of federal bailouts like Detroit.

K-Bob
Editor
K-Bob

That would be good to have.

Also balancing that though, are the unfunded federal mandates. Chopping those out would help the states quite a bit.

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

I’ll see what I can find. I wonder if there might be something on federal funding per state per year for the last several years compiled somewhere too.
Yes, the unfunded federal mandates are a huge issue. I’m thinking the 20-50 year bonded roadway projects, airports and other cap improvements in particular where the federal share is 80% or 90% and the states bonded based on future funding.
At least state wage taxes and state UI are paid directly to states.

Arson Wells
Guest
Arson Wells

I’m floored to learn that the late and great Milton Friedman advocated for the Article V process in his book Free To Chose, as I heard in the 3rd hour of the Mark Levin tuesday show. Do you think next monday you could segue The Liberty Amendments discussion to the Free To Chose passages? Btw, sorry to reply to an old post, just wanted your take on this. Thank you and have a good day.

stage9
Guest
stage9

I have to go back to what I truly believe, and know, based on history, and that’s that the only way to fix Washington is through spiritual revival — a return of our leadership and nation back to God. The same sort of spiritual revival that gave birth to this nation to begin with. Anything short of that will end in utter futility. I mean think about it folks, even during the Constitutional Convention there was much infighting and bickering, and one man had to rein everyone in by reestablishing their reason for establishing this new nation. He had to remind them to return to the central Figure who would determine whether we rose or fell. “Mr. President The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other,”our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many… Read more »

stage9
Guest
stage9

Change the heart and you change the man; change the man and you change the way he thinks and the way he governs. To put it more eloquently:

“Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.”

Framer of the First Amendment. Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.

Laurel
Member
Laurel

Valid point. Without intellect and morality nothing is sustainable.

deTocqueville1
Guest
deTocqueville1

Agree, Aristotle and the great thinkers since have always said no free society can continue without virtue as the paramount value of the people.

Pantano's Law
Guest
Pantano's Law

Under Article V, the Constitution gives ultimate authority to the States. The States created the federal government, and ultimately the States have the power to reign it in. It’s time for the States to reassert themselves and save this Republic!

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

How are the states going to do that when they receive significant monies from the federal gov’t?

Unsooper
Guest
Unsooper

Keep the money.

skl20
Member
skl20

Why not? Obama promised to uphold the Constitution and HE lied. One thing has nothing to do with the other!

OneThinDime
Guest
OneThinDime

Check out the so-called Conservative Governors that sold out for Medicaid money. Might begin with Scott Walker, Jan Brewer, Christie, Kasich. Do you trust them with amending the Constitution?

John Queue
Member
John Queue

Hey! Sounds good to me! Can’t argue with common sense, right? smile

Marridge
Guest
Marridge

We better do something quick.

Back to Top of Comments