State Senator Arthur Orr Says Constitutional Convention in the Works

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

(WHNT) - State Senator Arthur Orr is working on some big ideas, including a constitutional amendment to make the federal government work with a balanced budget and an amendment to the Alabama constitution that would institute term limits.

Senator Orr began his Leadership Perspectives interview by telling WHNT News 19's Steve Johnson why the states need to take the lead in amending the U.S. Constitution by using Article Five.

“[Article Five] was put in back during the deliberations on the U.S. Constitution, back during the 1780s, and it was inserted for a means for the states to come together and bypass Congress by having a convention to consider amendments,” said Orr.

“They saw this around the turn of the last century, where U.S. senators were elected by the state legislatures across the country and each state legislature selected our U.S. senators, and it became subject to a lot of bribery and a lot of dirty dealings in the legislatures to get that U.S. senator elected. So the movement started to have an Article Five Convention, and once that pressure built on Washington, you saw the Congress come with its own amendment and they passed it, submitted it out to the states and the states ratified it to allow the direct election from the people to elect senators,” said Orr.

Support for a possible Constitutional Convention is starting to pick up among the states. In fact, Orr says the number of states that want to play ball is more than 30.

“I went with another Alabama state senator to an assembly in Mount Vernon in December, where we convened with 33 other states that attended. And at that meeting we decided and agreed that the most important thing to do first off, is to establish the rules that we conduct, under which we conduct a convention, should a convention would be conducted,” said Sen. Orr.

Orr said that this was an important step to keep smaller states from being overshadowed by states with large populations, like California. “We would say no, it needs to be one state, one vote, just like it was in the 1780s," said Sen. Orr.

Steve Johnson asks: "So how many states at this point, do you think legitimately have a chance of having their states be part of this?

The topic that keeps coming up at these gatherings of state representatives? Having a balanced budget.

“We don't have a balanced budget in Washington and we run these huge budget deficits year in and year out. That's a real concern about how are we ever going to pay for this. As you know, $17 trillion in unfunded budget debt, but also liabilities getting up over $80 trillion when you talk about obligations that the federal government has put upon itself, but has no way to pay for. So that's something that's creating a movement across the state to look at the idea of coming together for a convention to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution," said Sen. Orr.

Sen. Orr said a Constitutional Convention could be held in three to five years, but getting the rules prepared would take most of that time. He said the 2015-2016 year would be spent getting the carious states to sign resolutions calling for an Article Five Convention to be held.

As to who would be sent to represent Alabama, Sen. Orr said there are currently two bills in the Alabama legislature that would determine how delegates would be selected.


  • Skillpot

    Okay, Arthur, how about changing the number of US Senators in each State to One (1), on a part-time basis, and no State shall have less than two (2), an no more than Eight (8) US CongressMAN, on a part-time basis, all with term limits? After Four, Maybe Eight, Must Vacate!

    • Branko Pezdi

      How about just following the Constitution as originally written? It is obvious you STILL do not understand the concept of two DIFFERENT Houses of Congress and the reason they are structured the way they are.

      • Skillpot

        Sorry, about that, Branko, but you seem to keep missing the point, especially when it comes to the goings on with current events?

  • plowboysghost

    While I am FOR term limits and working within a structured budget, not mention adhereing to Constitutional limits designed to restrain government, I am AGAINST opening the floor of the Amendment process to the overwhelming number of Progressives in both parties……for obvious reasons.

    If these people were worthy of that responsibility, we wouldn’t be having to try to straighten THEM out.

    • Branko Pezdi

      Sorry, that don’t fly. A constitutional convention is for ALL Americans, not only those you agree with politically. What you are suggesting is exactly the Stalinism that liberals try to impose on us daily. Progressivism should and can be beaten with the right ideas; all that needs to be done is to do this in a forum, i.e., constitutional convention, where the progressives don’t hold the reins of power. Progressives are only 20% of the population and they hold much less power in the individual states than they do in the federal government, where they have managed to game the system to their advantage over the decades and centuries. The whole idea of a constitutional convention run by the states is to curb the power of the federal government and it is high time to turn halt the current federal train wreck in its tracks.

    • Skillpot

      Okay, Plowboy, you do make a good point. My understanding of keeping the ones in office on a repeat basis was to offset those in other States, like Rangel, and Schummer, BUT, that has resulted in a lot of PORK bringing our national debt to fast approaching $18-trillion.

Comments are closed.