If only a handful of States pass this type of law it will most likely fail. The issue that keeps coming up in my head is the money. The Feds control most of the States by withholding Federal money for education or highway projects. The States have to devise a way of collecting Federal taxes first and then sending them along. That way they can threaten to withhold the money and starve the beast.

Rich;

I don't believe Oklahoma's ploy will work. The US Supreme Court has already ruled. Are you familiar with Filburn? The Supreme Court asserted that via the Commerce Clause, the US Federal Government may circumvent what the rest of us see as the original meaning of the 10th Amendment.

You can tell a bully to stop, but until you take action he's likely to keep stealing your lunch. The Federal Government's a bully, and telling it to obey the 10th Amendment as we understand it, without taking action will have no affect.

Wanderer foresaw it. I choked as well.

I have to agree with Rich on this one, although I did choke on "good will and politicians".

Hi Wanderer
I would prefer to see States use the 10th amendment to re claim there power over the Federal Government. Oklahoma got it started and I believe 5 more States have passed 10th ammendment resolutions that assert they will be bound only by Federal mandates enumerated in the Constitution. I think this is safer than a Con Con.

Jim;

Thanks for bringing this up. It's very important and timely. I think it's our last hope, but no action is without its hazards.

Rich;

I think they've already destroyed much of what the founders accomplished. I believe some of the means they've used are unconstitutional but, we now see the Constitution is only as good as the Attorney General and the men and women occupying the Senate and House of Representatives. If they won't act, or if they act in bad faith, then the safeguards written into the Constitution are meaningless. Witness the last 5 1/2 years.

While the people controlling the House and Senate might change soon, the weakness in the Constitution won't. Abiding by the Constitution's mandates will still depend on the Attorney General and the people running the House and Senate. For this reason a convention might be useful, to institute changes to the Constitution that make it less dependent on the good will of politicians. (You're choking on good will and politicians, aren't you?)

While no political act is without risk, keep in mind at such a convention, any addition or subtraction or change to the Constitution would require the assent of 3/4 of the states attending; thus passing an "antiKoch" amendment would require an aye from 38 states. Think there are 38 states that would vote to limit private campaign contributions while allowing unlimited labor union contributions? I think not.

This is the safeguard built into a convention of the states; nothing can pass without the consent of 38 states and, being closer to the people, most states live in a world more real than Washington.

I recommend "The Liberty Amendments". I've given it away and can't remember all the amendments Levin proposed, but I do remember the only one I wondered about was term limits for Supreme Court Justices. (I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't know his reasoning. I haven't read "Men in Black".)

So, given the 38 state requirement, what amendments could we possibly pass? How about an amendment prohibiting the Federal Government from bailing out bankrupt states? Could it pass? I think so. Would it work? I'm not sure. We're currently transferring huge amounts of money to a half dozen states (looking at you, California and Illinois) via the "stimulus" bill that never ends as part of Harry Reid's continuing budget resolution in the Senate. Could the amendment be written to prevent this? I don't know, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. How about an amendment requiring fair compensation for land use limits imposed by the Federal Government, so when the EPA declares my lakefront lot a wetland and forbid me to build on it they must pay me the fair market value of a lakefront lot?

But those little things don't go to the root of our problems, things like Filburn and the 16th amendment. As long as the US Federal Government can use the excuse of the market impact of my actions to determine the lawfulness thereof I am a slave, waiting to be enchained and, as long as the US Government can use its discretion to impose particular and various confiscation on the productive peoples of this country, we are all slaves, wearing our particular and various chains. Could a convention of the states possibly repeal the 16th amendment? Could it possibly change Filburn and free us from the capriciousness of the Federal bureaucracy brought on by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 10th amendment? I don't know, but this country, the greatest of man's modern experiments, will not be saved unless we try.

Agreed completely, Rich. That's part of why I used the explosives analogy. I was being too generous to the looters. Assumption of good intentions on behalf of non-Gulch citizens is not wise. I need to check my premises.

I think it goes beyond not qualified. There are those with a clear objective to destroy what the founders accomplished. Like the explosives analogy.

A Constitutional Convention is like playing with explosives. If handled and deployed properly, explosives can be very useful tools. If not in qualified hands, well, ... The problem is that there are a lot of people who consider themselves qualified whom the founders would not have considered qualified.

Pennsylvania has 3 bills pending related to a Constitutional Convention. I e-mailed my rep and senator last night expressing my concern and asked them to oppose all 3 of these bills. This is dangerous stuff.