I have an idea, let me know what you think.

I was at a town hall meeting with our state Sen. Randy Brogdon who's running for Governor. A question was asked regarding a Constitutional Convention and whether he supported it. He said no, for obvious
reasons. But he did mention proposing an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 16th Amendment (federal taxation amendment). This got the wheels turning in my mind.....

What if "We the People":
Gather signatures in accordance with our states' initiative laws to get 2 Amendments repealing the 16th & 17th Amendments (popular election of Senators) and (maybe) adding a Term Limits Amendment on our respective states' ballot for 2010? A popular amendment has never been used but the constitution does not disallow it.

From: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html:

"One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."

It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.

Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve."

This would have to be BIG and nationwide. In 2010 every house member is up for re-election. And 38 senate seats are up. If the movement is powerful enough we can support the candidates who will vote for the repeal of the 16th & 17th Amendments. Freshman Reps and Senators will rarely go against the wishes of those
who have just elected them. Even if this does not result in a repeal of these Amendments we'd still have the momentum behind the movement to "Flip the House".

If we can somehow get coordinated by the July 4th Tea Parties, they would be an excellent way of beginning to gather signatures. Also after the tea parties we could go to our local July 4th celebrations and gather more signatures. It would be perfect, and what a way to celebrate our Independence Day.

Even if we are not able to start this on the 4th, we could still turn this movement into something HUGE!

Hopefully there's a legal mind out there who could provide more input on this.

Thanks for reading.

Christina
Sooner Tea Party
Oklahoma City 912

Please, Glenn Beck, look into this.
Obama attempts intimidation tactics against blogger:
http://www.examiner.com/x-3704-Columbia-Conservat...

"One blogger in particular, who portrays a modern-day Thomas Paine in a series of popular You Tube videos, decries the assault on liberty by the Obama administration. For this he was summoned to the White House to 'give an account.'

Referring to the inherent patriotism in the videos as 'disturbing,' Obama requested that the blogger come to the White House to 'discuss' the matter."