(National Sentinel)Â It’s Time: There hasn’t been one since the earliest days of our founding, but conservatives — increasingly alarmed by creeping socialism, Left-wing courts, and Democratic efforts to overturn the 2016 election are now turning their attention more avidly towards a “constitutional convention.”
In the days of the Tea Party movement, a book called “The Liberty Amendments” by constitutional scholar, author, talk host and former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin sparked a modern-day convention movement that would operate much as the first “con-con” which took place fromÂ May 25 to September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia.
â€œI think weâ€™re three or four years away,â€ former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn told The Guardian on Friday at the annual convention forÂ American Legislative Exchange CouncilÂ (ALEC).
The paper noted further:
Coburn, a veteran Republican lawmaker, now works as a senior adviser for the advocacy group Convention of States, which seeks to use a little known clause in article V of the US constitution to call a constitutional convention for new amendments to dramatically restrict the power of the federal government.
Coburn, who retired from the Senate in 2010, said that the American republic is â€œfailingâ€, and that such a convention is the â€œonly answerâ€ to the problems the country faces today.
â€œWeâ€™re in a battle for the future of our country,â€ Coburn told the assembly of mostly conservative state lawmakers meeting inÂ New Orleans. â€œWeâ€™re either going to become a socialist, Marxist country like western Europe, or weâ€™re going to be free. As far as me and my family and my guns, Iâ€™m going to be free.â€
Critics of a con-con claim that it could become a “runaway” affair, with states proposing all kinds of new amendments that wouldÂ repeal current amendments like parts of the First Amendment, the entire Second Amendment, and provisions having to do with privacy rights.
Levin and other experts have explained in the pastÂ that’s impossible because, as in the first con-con,Â rules for the convention would be established beforehandÂ that would protect the Bill of Rights. What’s more, they note,Â any new amendment proposed out of the convention would still have to be ratified the very high threshold of three-quarters of the states.
What’s being pushed so?Â The Guardian notes:
On the agenda for Convention of States: an amendment to require a balanced budget, term limits for congress, repealing the federal income tax and giving states the power to veto any federal law, supreme court decision or executive order with a three-fifths vote from the states.Â
â€œAll it takes is 13 judiciary chairmen, in 13 states, to stop anything stupid that might come out of that,â€ Coburn said. â€œNothingâ€™s going to happen, Iâ€™ll stake my life on that.â€
Convention of the States has beenÂ operating in the background for yearsÂ lobbying state legislatures to pass a resolution calling for a constitutional convention. Once enough states — two-thirds, or 34 — pass such resolutions, Congress has no choice but to convene one under Article V.
So why hasn’t that happened yet? According to Newsmax, Michigan became the 34th state to pass a resolution in 2014.
At the time, then-House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was said to be ‘looking into’ the matter.
Which sounds an awful lot like, “I’m going to sit on this for as long as possible to avoidÂ doing the right thing.
A number of states long ago rescinded their resolutions, but here’s the thing:Â There’s nothing in the Constitution that allows for them to do that. The language of Article V containsÂ nothing about recission of initial resolution.
â€œThe only chance we have to restore this country, that is peaceful, is this convention,â€ Jim Moyer, a Convention of States supporter and attendee at the ALEC annual meeting, toldÂ The Guardian.