Gov. Abbott Calls for Constitutional Convention of States

originally posted by: crazyewok
Texas would likely be better off secedeing.

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

It's not as vibrant as you think. If they were to leave the union within two years they would be begging to come back. Without federal money Texas would collapse.

If Texas seceded, then it's residents would no longer pay federal income tax. Texas assuredly would implement a state income tax (along with the existing sales tax) to make up the difference. They'd also likely to tell the poor, elderly and disabled to pick themselves up by the boot straps and earn their own way.

States proposing constitutional amendments is no different from congress proposing constitutional amendments. Regardless of who is making the propositions, it still has to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states (38 states). Even if 34 states still call for a convention, it still requires 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment. Not to mention that states can propose a predetermined agenda when initially calling for a convention.

All a constitutional convention does is allow the states to propose their own amendments outside of congress. It's not a threat to the Constitution. Some individual off the street will not be able to propose anything at all. It's up to the state's elected officials to offer up proposals.

This is one of the ways for the states to finally utilize the power they actually have over the federal government and force them back to accountability. Depending on the agenda of the constitutional convention, I can't help but support it and claim it long overdue.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Greg Abbott? The idiot who really sent people to keep an eye on Jade Helm? That Greg Abbott??? (Laughs a lot)
No. Man's an idiot.

a reply to: buster2010

Texas would do just fine, especially in absence of crushing federal regulations and considering their currency would almost certainly undercut the Dollar, making Texas very attractive to manufacturers.

That said, I'd hate to see it happen for the same reason I'd rejoice if California or New York seceded... America would lose one of the staunchest conservative electoral vote sources we have, effectively handing future national elections directly to the liberal bloc. In other words: my own personal hell.

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.

It is until SCOTUS and federal law strips us all of our rights. Who would have thought we'd be forced to buy something?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think if Texas went, it wouldn't be alone. I think some other states would follow.

originally posted by: ketsuko

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.

It is until SCOTUS and federal law strips us all of our rights. Who would have thought we'd be forced to buy something?

That's why I said in a later post it's a balancing act. Full federal control is just as dangerous as full state control. They've got to regulate one another.

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.

Agreed! Are not the State Governments just as corrupt as our Federal government? Just like building a border wall at this point sounds really good considering the fear pandering of terrorism, but as Ron Paul warned, "Any fence that can keep people out can also be used to keep people in."!

Enforce our current laws maybe?

I guess it always comes back to politicians honoring their oath to the Constitution instead of our current form of a Corporatocracy.

I am tired of the same criminals who created our problems in the first place, feeling they are the ones who should create more laws.......

a reply to: seeker1963
We'd need to repeal a lot of laws, too; ones that sprang from the Patriot Act, for instance, not to mention NDAA. There are a lot of others that were made that go against the Constitution.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I guess they don't know it but there are a lot of things the Federal Govt does that is not authorized in the constitution.

did you know that federal prisons are non-constitutional?

We need more conservation constitutional Lawyers to keep the one in the WH from skirting it every chance he gets

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: seeker1963
We'd need to repeal a lot of laws, too; ones that sprang from the Patriot Act, for instance, not to mention NDAA. There are a lot of others that were made that go against the Constitution.

It would give a whole new meaning to "Raising the Dead" won't it?

Here is what Abbott is purposing...taken from the OP's source

RESTORING THE RULE OF LAW

the People” can reign in the federal government and restore the balance of power
between the States and the United States. The Texas Plan accomplishes this by
offering nine constitutional amendments:
I.
II.

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one
State.

Require Congress to balance its budget.

III.

Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that
staff them—from creating federal law.

IV.

Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that
staff them—from preempting state law.

V.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme
Court decision.

VI.

Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court
decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

VII.

Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments
by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the
Constitution.

VIII.

Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials
overstep their bounds.

IX.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or
regulation.

-4-

Some of these are good in my opinion. Does anything say that all purposals have to be accepted or that none can be added or revised?

I didn't read the entire 92 pages.

Apologies this didn't come out as a proper list

a reply to: Cypress

There is no good that can ever come out of a convention.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

This will send a powerful message to government, one that must be said and heard. If not now, when?

No more implied consent.

a reply to: liveandlearn

He missed two of the most important ones:

Repealing the 16th and 17th.

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 agree, the only immediate constitutional amendments that need to be made are the complete repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments and only if we can conduct it as a plebiscite. An open convention would only allow the current crop of political professionals to further erode our constitutional rights.

If we make any adjustments to US law, they must only be repeals. To keep them busy and constructive in the meantime, I propose a moratorium on the making of new law until the reading aloud of all existing laws and an up/down congressional reaffirmation of each.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Cypress

There is no good that can ever come out of a convention.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

This will send a powerful message to government, one that must be said and heard. If not now, when?

No more implied consent.

Considering how divided we are by these "politicians" I truly believe any outrage or uproar that the population throws at them is and has already been prepared to battle against. We seem to always come at them by 1/4 or 1/8ths of the population at any given time giving them the power because the so called majority are cool as long as they have their Wi-Fi etc etc...

We are dealing with millions to come together to fight back and they are controlling all of us with thousands.......

Seems ridiculous that freedom has taken a second seat to tribalism, but it has.....

a reply to: EternalSolace

I agree. I don't agree with Abbott's proposals but I support a Constitutional Convention. It's time, it was built into the Constitution for a reason. I don't fear it.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz
So what is next?

We can never let them divide us.

Our power lies in our numbers and the fact that we are united.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz


Thoughts? Yes The Federalist Papers comes to mind here.


But anyway what does this mean the Governors call? It means that the Federal Government idea is becoming a burden by the fact that the Fed has become a burden. The Fed is trying to "Govern" the states, coerce the states and the rights of citizens.