Coburn's latest

[Ed W]

"I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions," Coburn told about 300 people at the Muskogee Convention Center. "I have a great fear now of not having one."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Coburn_calls_on_Oklahomans_to_push_for_national_constitutional/20130821_11_0_MUSKOG815093

So let's see...your party fields a crabby old guy and personable but clueless twit as presidential candidates, then loses the election. It spends the next four years castigating the president as a socialist, fascist, communist, etc. and blocks his legislation at every turn. In the next presidential election, you field a country club Republican who suddenly discovered he's actually a far-right populist and yoke him to a real far right populist, then go on to lose the general election once again.

The Republicans lost the presidential elections and lost on the Affordable Care Act. The obvious solution is to call for a constitutional convention in order to remake the government in a way they find more palatable. Perhaps we could have a monarchy or a parliamentary system like the Brits. Perhaps we should petition them to take us back and put an end to all this nonsense.

I have to ask - has the Republican party lost its mind?

A constitutional convention opens Pandora's box. I have to assume that Coburn knows this and is merely using a cynical ploy that will appeal to his base. He's making impeachment noises too, and a rational person has to ask what the basis is for bringing an impeachment vote against this president. As always, Senator Coburn doesn't want to get into the details - if he actually has thought this through.    

[heironymouspasparagus]

"I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions," Coburn told about 300 people at the Muskogee Convention Center. "I have a great fear now of not having one."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Coburn_calls_on_Oklahomans_to_push_for_national_constitutional/20130821_11_0_MUSKOG815093

So let's see...your party fields a crabby old guy and personable but clueless twit as presidential candidates, then loses the election. It spends the next four years castigating the president as a socialist, fascist, communist, etc. and blocks his legislation at every turn. In the next presidential election, you field a country club Republican who suddenly discovered he's actually a far-right populist and yoke him to a real far right populist, then go on to lose the general election once again.

The Republicans lost the presidential elections and lost on the Affordable Care Act. The obvious solution is to call for a constitutional convention in order to remake the government in a way they find more palatable. Perhaps we could have a monarchy or a parliamentary system like the Brits. Perhaps we should petition them to take us back and put an end to all this nonsense.

I have to ask - has the Republican party lost its mind?

A constitutional convention opens Pandora's box. I have to assume that Coburn knows this and is merely using a cynical ploy that will appeal to his base. He's making impeachment noises too, and a rational person has to ask what the basis is for bringing an impeachment vote against this president. As always, Senator Coburn doesn't want to get into the details - if he actually has thought this through.    

He used to be much more sane.  Don't really know what has become of him....

[swake]

He used to be much more sane.  Don't really know what has become of him....

When was he more sane? When he was crying in committee three minutes after working a crossword or when he was worried about packs of lesbians in southern Oklahoma school bathrooms?

[guido911]

Um, if you haven't heard, Mark Levin has a book out which speaks to this issue. It's kinda in the news now nationally. Some of the issues that are the subject of the convention are term limits for House of Rep members, repealing the 17th Amendment, something like 60% majority of Congress/state legislatures overriding majority Supreme Court opinions...I happen to find those thought-provoking concepts, with the goal being a restoration of federalism.

[swake]

repealing the 17th Amendment, something like 60% majority of Congress/state legislatures overriding majority Supreme Court opinions...

Do what? Having senators elected by state legislators again instead of voters and giving states the power to overturn SCOTUS? You want to give those powers to idiots that run so many states? Do we need to go over laws regarding fetal tissue in foods here in Oklahoma, or Arkansas reps saying that slavery was good for black people or anything from the states of South Carolina or Arizona?

You seriously want those morons to have more power while taking away power from voters and weakening constitutional rights. The right wing of the Republican party has truly and finally completely lost it.

[guido911]

Do what? Having senators elected by state legislators again instead of voters and giving states the power to overturn SCOTUS? You want to give those powers to idiots that run so many states? Do we need to go over laws regarding fetal tissue in foods here in Oklahoma, or Arkansas reps saying that slavery was good for black people or anything from the states of South Carolina or Arizona?

You seriously want those morons to have more power while taking away power from voters and weakening constitutional rights. The right wing of the Republican party has truly and finally completely lost it.

Do you not see your own hypocrisy in this post? Who do you think elects state legislators? I will not even touch that "you serious want..." paragraph. And since when do people enjoy having nine, unelected, politically-appointed justices deciding what is lawful, or being their being the final word? Or, having one federal judge overturning the vote of the citizenry of an entire state? It is a checks and balances argument, which I would think would appeal to everyone (I know, except you).  I have no problem placing in the hands of the American people, given that very high Congress/state legislature percent requirement, the ability to "overturn" (or in my opinion correct/stop) SCOTUS. It is roughly the same percentage which is required in the amending of the Constitution process--and we have seen how often that has happened. This could have prevented Plessy, Citizens United, Roe, Obamacare, Korematsu, or Kelo. All political sides considered.

And having Senators elected by legislatures, that's the way it was intended in the beginning, in order to give state governments more control over their states. I am as big of a federalism proponent as possible. Besides, who wants Harry Reid in partial charge of what happens in Oklahoma. Or, in your case, do you really want Mitch McConnell doing so if the Senate flips next election. Our federal government should NEVER be as large or as involved in our lives as it is. Period.

[nathanm]

And since when do people enjoy having nine, unelected, politically-appointed justices deciding what is lawful, or being their being the final word?

Since 1837, and continuously since 1869.

[swake]

Do you not see your own hypocrisy in this post? Who do you think elects state legislators? I will not even touch that "you serious want..." paragraph. And since when do people enjoy having nine, unelected, politically-appointed justices deciding what is lawful, or being their being the final word? Or, having one federal judge overturning the vote of the citizenry of an entire state? It is a checks and balances argument, which I would think would appeal to everyone (I know, except you).  I have no problem placing in the hands of the American people, given that very high Congress/state legislature percent requirement, the ability to "overturn" (or in my opinion correct/stop) SCOTUS. It is roughly the same percentage which is required in the amending of the Constitution process--and we have seen how often that has happened. This could have prevented Plessy, Citizens United, Roe, Obamacare, Korematsu, or Kelo. All political sides considered.

And having Senators elected by legislatures, that's the way it was intended in the beginning, in order to give state governments more control over their states. I am as big of a federalism proponent as possible. Besides, who wants Harry Reid in partial charge of what happens in Oklahoma. Or, in your case, do you really want Mitch McConnell doing so if the Senate flips next election. Our federal government should NEVER be as large or as involved in our lives as it is. Period.

Yes, let's have more backroom deals for who gets to be Senator. Let's have Sally Kern and Mike Reitze be important players in if supreme court decisions are overturned. These ideas are idiotic.

[Red Arrow]

Yes, let's have more backroom deals for who gets to be Senator. Let's have Sally Kern and Mike Reitze be important players in if supreme court decisions are overturned. These ideas are idiotic.

I'm sure states like California would more than make up for Oklahoma.

[guido911]

Yes, let's have more backroom deals for who gets to be Senator. Let's have Sally Kern and Mike Reitze be important players in if supreme court decisions are overturned. These ideas are idiotic.

Back room deals NOW bother your? I guess you got to see Obamacare before it was passed.  

Just look at all these idiots of obvious lesser intelligence than you at a Levin book signing.

[Townsend]

Back room deals NOW bother your?

Why do that?  That's silly to say.  "Now"...when did he say he was okay with it before?  Did anyone ever say "I'm so happy there are back room deals."?

[AquaMan]

Back room deals NOW bother your? I guess you got to see Obamacare before it was passed.  

Just look at all these idiots of obvious lesser intelligence than you at a Levin book signing.

Just a note to remind you. Most of "Obamacare" stemmed from principles and legislation proposed by Republicans as far back as Clinton. The act itself was heavily dependent on input from healthcare lobbyists and huge operations like BlueCross. It was hardly a back room deal.

[swake]

How about giving Senators votes proportional to the population of their states. There is no way the founders envisioned one state having 70 times the population of another state.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Well that was kind of the agreement that was made to have everybody sign. So....

[Gaspar]

Come on guys, everyone knows that Obamacare is Bush's fault.  Duh!