Gov. Abbott Calls for Constitutional Convention of States

a reply to: Masterjaden

You still did not tell me what 34 states would call for such a convention, it take more than a single governor. And there would be the fact that any amendment they wished to ratify would need 38 states vote of approval, that's four more states than are needed to call for the convention.

I quoted Article V section 2 of the Constitution, which explains how the Constitution is to be amended.

My point is that what Governer Abbott is calling for is possible, but not likely in all probablity. I just do not see 33 other states agree with Abbott on this issue.

jaden - once they convene, there are all kinds of controls over the direction it takes, and what is pursued / done.

At least as onerous as the 34 states required to actually get it going at all.

What's with the fabulous, fictitious stories of the govt being obliterated if this ever is allowed to even get off the ground ?

It's a tool in the constitution that was very seriously and soberly offered, to deal with anti-constitutional efforts of a sitting govt should they ever come to pass.

We've had a lot of those in the past 7 years. Separation of powers and checks and balances have been completely abandoned, by Obama and Republican congress leaders, as well as the supreme court. State's rights have been lampooned by all involved. The convention was invented by the founders to have a last-ditch chance to stop things like this if they ever came to pass.

Describing it as some sort of anarchy is just dishonest and annoying. Anything to give propaganda for the big govt and welfare state, and undermine individual rights, I suppose.

It's been ongoing since marx, and the US has always been the big stumbling block, as well as the plum prize to be destroyed.

All Abbott is trying to do is to push back against the folks who are wearing themselves out to dismantle the constitution, and get rid of America as an alternative to marxism.

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.

Going to any of those states listed literally doesn't affect your 2nd amendment rights. It's still a right that exists very much so in every state.

Try driving through NY / NYC with a permitted gun / another state's permit. You will go to jail, never see the gun again. Happens all the time.

It's funny, this reminds me of the truism that LGBTQQPPXYZ are always allowed to marry the opposite gender, in every scenario ever offered by traditional marriage proponrents. They aren't being deprived of anything or any fairness / equity. Except maybe legal approval and praise for a psychological illness.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

texas tried that already, it was on ats awhile back, texas got what they needed to put it to the white house but the white house refused to let them secede, this looks like their plan B.

Actually they didn't try. I live in Texas and all they did was pander to the conservative base about it. They never submitted any formal request. Also, Texas is the only state in the union that can secede legally; due to the treaty they signed when joining the union. However, if Texas secedes, then it must be broken into 5 separate states; giving each new "state" an option to rejoin the union. Texas didn't do it because they know it would be disastrous to the economy and the Texas government would be exposed as being more corrupt than the federal government ever was.

actually, they did try, sorry you didnt know about it. and as i said the white house rejected them.

after 2012, bumper stickers and signs saying "secede" began appearing in Texas. also there was a wave of petitions on the White House "We the People" website. the Texas petition overtook other petitions with over 125,000 signatures, well above the 25,000 to trigger a response. The White House issued a 476-word response rejecting the idea

en.wikipedia.org...