Gov. Abbott Calls for Constitutional Convention of States

Texas Governor Greg Abbot is calling for the first Constitutional convention in 200-years.

Source

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why amend the US constitution to take power away from the federal government? Why not just secede?

However, it appears as though he may face an uphill battle on this one.

The idea isn't new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a longshot. Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.

I'm all for amending the constitution, but in no way support any of this nonsense.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Abbott has proposed 9 amendments in all. They can be found in the PDF at the bottom of the source above.

Here are those 9 proposals:

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I'm all for a constitutional convention, but that support would depend on the agenda of the convention. There should be better priorities than to override the supreme court or usurp congress. Two main priorities of a constitutional convention should be a balanced budget amendment and term limits for congress.

Come to think of it, 34 states in 2014 already called for a constitutional convention and for some reason, nothing ever came of it.

Texas would likely be better off secedeing.

They are one of tge few states with a healthy vibrant economy.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

This topic always seems to pop up from time to time. If it is ever seriously considered, the rammifications would be too much for us to overcome and you might as well start speaking mandarin. There is no good that can ever come out of a convention.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Source

It can be done, but I doubt 34 states try and take on the federal government.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

As a staunch Libertarian I am 100% OPPOSED to a Constitutional convention at this time! Once that genie is out of the bottle, everything goes onto the table for discussion. This is exactly the way Americans could see the Second Amendment legally removed from our list of inalienable rights.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz
Things have gotten out of hand, what with both "sides" running roughshod over the constitution. As the law of the land, it needs to be upheld. It was originally supposed to keep federal powers in check. I support whatever needs to be done to put things back the way they're supposed to be. However, one should be very very careful on the wording of articles and amendments. The wrong choice of words could open up one nasty can of worms.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I'm all for a constitutional convention, but that support would depend on the agenda of the convention. There should be better priorities than to override the supreme court or usurp congress. Two main priorities of a constitutional convention should be a balanced budget amendment and term limits for congress.

Come to think of it, 34 states in 2014 already called for a constitutional convention and for some reason, nothing ever came of it.

I think states should be free from all federal regulations laws and SCOTUS rulings.

I applaud this intention.

My state, The Great State of Indiana, should not be bound by the idiots that inhabit both coasts.

They can create their BS in their own lands without forcing it on mine.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

As a staunch Libertarian I am 100% OPPOSED to a Constitutional convention at this time! Once that genie is out of the bottle, everything goes onto the table for discussion. This is exactly the way Americans could see the Second Amendment legally removed from our list of inalienable rights.

I didn't think of that angle. That is a scary thought, but I'm somewhat skeptical of 38 states ratifying the removal of the 2nd amendment or even altering it.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I'm all for a constitutional convention, but that support would depend on the agenda of the convention. There should be better priorities than to override the supreme court or usurp congress. Two main priorities of a constitutional convention should be a balanced budget amendment and term limits for congress.

Come to think of it, 34 states in 2014 already called for a constitutional convention and for some reason, nothing ever came of it.

I think states should be free from all federal regulations laws and SCOTUS rulings.

I don't. It's very easy for one state to effectively strip someone of another state of their rights. You can see that with the 2nd amendment. If I travel to California, New York, or Illinois, I'm effectively stripped of my 2nd amendment rights. That's just one example, but it serves to show why the SCOTUS and federal law is important.

A lot of this probably stems from the gay marriage ruling and probably even Roe v. Wade.

At any rate, I agree with the O.P., if you are going to pass a resolution that a state doesn't have to listen to supreme court rulings, you might as well secede.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I'm all for a constitutional convention, but that support would depend on the agenda of the convention. There should be better priorities than to override the supreme court or usurp congress. Two main priorities of a constitutional convention should be a balanced budget amendment and term limits for congress.

Come to think of it, 34 states in 2014 already called for a constitutional convention and for some reason, nothing ever came of it.

I think states should be free from all federal regulations laws and SCOTUS rulings.

I don't. It's very easy for one state to effectively strip someone of another state of their rights. You can see that with the 2nd amendment. If I travel to California, New York, or Illinois, I'm effectively stripped of my 2nd amendment rights. That's just one example, but it serves to show why the SCOTUS and federal law is important.

And the federal law strips much more laws from you that are legal by the states than that.

Federal law should not exist except for very important issues, like slavery is illegal, women are equal etc....

Outside of basic rights, it should play no part.

Then we could all vote with our feet to go to more free lands with less idiotic BS to deal with.

Obamacare being one such issue.

The FED GOV cannot force me to purchase an item, and cannot fine me for not doing so.

I have not once filed taxes since the SCOTUS ruled it legal, and I wont ever again until it is fixed.

Let them come after me, I will just evaporate again, it isnt even hard in a country this large, even today.

I am on the books for the first time in a decade, I can go right back off them again like nothing.

a reply to: forkedtongue

And the federal law strips much more laws from you that are legal by the states than that.

That's true too and I can't argue that. Though if we had a properly functioning congress, it would effectively stop federal overreach. I'm with you on limiting the federal government plays in the country. But to be out from under it completely won't work either. It's a balancing act.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz

Why amend the US constitution to take power away from the federal government? Why not just secede?

You make it sound so easy, but that didn't work out too well last time it was tried, did it?

The thing is, having a Constitutional Convention would not be just for your pet project, but EVERYONE'S pet projects. It will attract every extremist crazy group in the country. ANYTHING could happen. Everything listed here so far has a good counter-argument.

You really do not want to go there.

a reply to: crazyewok

Well with some help from the gov. they are in the top half in assistance.
taxfoundation.org...

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Why do I have a feeling this is related to the gay marriage ruling from last summer?

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz

Why amend the US constitution to take power away from the federal government? Why not just secede?

You make it sound so easy, but that didn't work out too well last time it was tried, did it?

The thing is, having a Constitutional Convention would not be just for your pet project, but EVERYONE'S pet projects. It will attract every extremist crazy group in the country. ANYTHING could happen. Everything listed here so far has a good counter-argument.

You really do not want to go there.

I'd vote for every second Thursday every American has to go outside and stand on one leg while waving the flag between 1pm and 2pm on penalty of being killed and fed to the bald eagles as enemies of freedom.

I'd also make it so nukes are classed the same as a shotgun or other basic weaponry...nothing says 4th July like a 5KT explosion at the bottom of the garden.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Why do I have a feeling this is related to the gay marriage ruling from last summer?

Probably because you haven't read the source provided, 92 pages dealing with US Constitutional history, the Federalist Papers, and words from the founders--all heavily documented. There is not one mention of "gay rights" in the document. You assuming that is the issue is part of the problem. A convention would draw every extremist crazy in the country intent on addressing pet projects they want enfolded into the constitution while missing the real issue: an overwhelming out-of-control federal bureaucracy intruding into our lives in ways that were never intended by the framers of the Constitution.

Go RTFM, all 92 pages, all 350 footnotes, all the chapters, then come back here and proclaim it's all about gay rights. It isn't, and you won't be able to claim so.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Is a reason why Constitutional convention do not stick and has not been one in 200 years, this can destroy our constitution and our nation, the reason is because behind this conventions is always hidden agendas.

Looks like gov. Gregg is eyeing a possible VP slot. A little useless pandering to the base is always a good idea.