Texas Governor Calling For Convention Of The States To Rein In Washington

[Revmitchell]

Texas Governor Greg Abbot is calling for a Constitutional Convention of the States to bring Washington politicians back in line with the rule of law, and the spirit of the Constitution.

If you are unfamiliar with what a Constitutional Convention is, it’s pretty simple. Article V of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress has the power to amend the Constitution by adding Amendments. Most people understand that it is Congress, and not the president, no matter how mighty his pen or phone may be, that writes the laws.

In addition, however, Article V also gives the same power to amend the Constitution to the states. The states can convene, propose an amendment, and as long as there is a 3/4 agreement from the states, that amendment shall be ratified.

The reason why this power of the states, although it has yet to be used, was added into the Constitution, was to prevent an out of control national government. Many of the Founding Fathers recognized the power that a centralized government could grant itself if left unchecked, and so provided an outlet for the states to d that power. Governor Abbot said,

“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built.”

http://www.uschronicle.com/happening-texas-governor-calling-convention-states-rein-washington/#

 

[TCassidy]

A Constitutional Convention is the worst idea ever! Politicians can't be trusted to keep their hands off a magnificent historical contract between we the people and the government.

They won't be able to just fix what's wrong. They will want to tinker with what isn't wrong!

And changing the constitution will have zero effect on politics and government. The government ignores the constitution now. What makes anyone think that changing the constitution will magically cause all the politicians to just fall in line and toe the mark? They will ignore the new changes just as they continue to ignore the old.

The problem is not the constitution, nor the politicians. The problem is that we, the voters, refuse to hold politicians and the government accountable. We keep reelecting the same old political prostitutes who are for sale to the highest bidder.

The American people have become apathetic and no longer care enough to get out of their easy chair and do something about it. Until the people rise up and take control of their government, the way it was intended, nothing will change.

 

[Ziggy]

See the book by Mark R. Levin, The Liberty Amendments.

Summary from Wikipedia:

The book debuted at #1 on The New York Times Best Seller list in all three categories for which it qualified. The eleven amendments proposed by Levin:

1. Impose Congressional term limits
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
8. Limit eminent domain powers
9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

Levin would have these amendments proposed to the states by a convention of the states as described in Article Five of the Constitution.

 

[Zaac]

He needs to call a convention to rein in the GOP Presidential candidate from all his Constitution trampling ideas. If that's not at the top of his list, then I'll figure that this is just more political nothing trying to make some noise and that he really ain't concerned about the Constitution.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

Ziggy, those are, for the most part, good ideas, but they don't require a constitutional convention to pass them. All that is required is to present them as an amendment, or a series of amendments, while leaving the rest of the constitution alone.

 

[InTheLight]

Ziggy, those are, for the most part, good ideas, but they don't require a constitutional convention to pass them. All that is required is to present them as an amendment, or a series of amendments, while leaving the rest of the constitution alone.

??

The purpose of a constitutional convention is to set forth amendments. The difference is that the states propose the amendments, not Congress.

 

[TCassidy]

The purpose of a constitutional convention is to set forth amendments. The difference is that the states propose the amendments, not Congress.

Yes, we all know that. What's your point?

 

[InTheLight]

Yes, we all know that. What's your point?

Your silly phrase, "present them as amendments and leave the rest of the constitution alone."

Presenting amendments is exactly what a constitutional convention would do. If Congress won't do it, then the states can do it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your silly phrase, "present them as amendments and leave the rest of the constitution alone."

Presenting amendments is exactly what a constitutional convention would do. If Congress won't do it, then the states can do it.

 

[TCassidy]

Your silly phrase, "present them as amendments and leave the rest of the constitution alone."

What is silly about it?

Presenting amendments is exactly what a constitutional convention would do.

That is one path to amending the constitution but it is not the only path.

If Congress won't do it, then the states can do it.

Why wouldn't congress do it? When faced with being kicked out of their plush offices you would be surprised what they will do. Self-interest is a powerful motivator.

 

[InTheLight]

What is silly about it?

You said they could amend the Constitution, but "leave the rest of it alone."

Besides amending the Constitution, what else would they be able to do to it?



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[TCassidy]

Besides amending the Constitution, what else would they be able to do to it?

Context is your friend.

I said,

Ziggy, those are, for the most part, good ideas,

Those items enumerated by Ziggy would be fine, but going further could very well result in disaster.

Clear now?

 

[HankD]

Texas Governor Greg Abbot is calling for a Constitutional Convention of the States to bring Washington politicians back in line with the rule of law, and the spirit of the Constitution.

If you are unfamiliar with what a Constitutional Convention is, it’s pretty simple. Article V of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress has the power to amend the Constitution by adding Amendments. Most people understand that it is Congress, and not the president, no matter how mighty his pen or phone may be, that writes the laws.

In addition, however, Article V also gives the same power to amend the Constitution to the states. The states can convene, propose an amendment, and as long as there is a 3/4 agreement from the states, that amendment shall be ratified.

The reason why this power of the states, although it has yet to be used, was added into the Constitution, was to prevent an out of control national government. Many of the Founding Fathers recognized the power that a centralized government could grant itself if left unchecked, and so provided an outlet for the states to d that power. Governor Abbot said,

“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built.”

http://www.uschronicle.com/happening-texas-governor-calling-convention-states-rein-washington/#

Wait. Did you mean "rein in Washington" or "rain on Washington"?

HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

Wait. Did you mean "rein in Washington" or "rain on Washington"?

HankD

Either one will do.

 

[HankD]

Either one will do.

Ya, I like rain, especially with THUNDER and LIGHTNING!

HankD

 

[Squire Robertsson]

A convention, once convened, could easily go beyond those issues enumerated above. Remember, the first constitutional convention was convened to simply amend the Articles of Confederation.

 

[InTheLight]

Context is your friend.

I said,Those items enumerated by Ziggy would be fine, but going further could very well result in disaster.

Clear now?

So, eleven amendments are fine but any more is too much.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Revmitchell]

So, eleven amendments are fine but any more is too much.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

Maybe its not the number but the nature of the amendments. There is a reasonable concern that during such a convention some might go too far.

 

[TCassidy]

So, eleven amendments are fine but any more is too much.

I didn't say that. And you know I didn't say that. You are being deliberately disingenuous.

A convention, once convened, could easily go beyond those issues enumerated above. Remember, the first constitutional convention was convened to simply amend the Articles of Confederation.

Squire gets it.

Maybe its not the number but the nature of the amendments. There is a reasonable concern that during such a convention some might go too far.

And so does Revmitchell.

Why can't you?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Why are you trusting in a convention with delegates from California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and the others deeply in the pockets of the very people you are trying make an end around?