ShareThis Page

Amendment prospects

| Friday, May 19, 2017, 8:57 p.m.

I read a Fox News article on the possibility of using Article V of the Constitution to push for a constitutional convention to add an amendment.

The news article included quotes from Mike Levine, the popular conservative radio talk show host, and former Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. They supported these “core Republican principles”:

• Requiring a balanced budget

• Reducing the federal regulatory burden on the states

• Restoring state sovereignty by eliminating federal mandates and grants

• And allowing the states to override Supreme Court decisions, federal laws and regulations by a two-thirds vote.

The article states that since 32 states are under Republican control, the possibility is within reach.

However, the first principle will never pass because in times of war, the government should be allowed to go into debt.

The other three principles listed have to do with regulations and general government overreach. To remove these completely is extremely unlikely.

The most important Article V amendment anyone should consider should involve term limits for Congress. This amendment would drain the swamp, take the money out of Washington and reduce the power Washington craves.

It would also bring in new blood, fresh ideas and people excited to involve themselves in true public service who listen to their constituents and who are not handcuffed to a political party.

Rich Patton

Franklin Township,

Beaver County

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.