Thread: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joins dark side, calls for constitutional convention

SEE: Abbott Calls on States to Amend U.S. Constitution

”But Abbott is not the first Republican to endorse a constitutional convention. GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida, called for a constitutional convention in an op-ed published Wednesday in USA Today”

Abbott, in promoting a constitutional convention falsely asserts our Constitution "leaves it to the states to limit the scope of the convention." And even if additional amendments were offered, he writes, "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states."

The truth is, our Constitution nowhere declares the States can limit the scope of a convention once it is called. In fact, when the Articles of Confederation were in effect and the States agreed to call a convention for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“, that limitation was ignored and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government with a number of specific powers being ceded to it, and the event turned out to not be a simple revision of the Articles of Confederation as originally called for!

In regard to Abbott’s attempt to alleviate the arguments of those who oppose the calling of a convention by saying "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states." that comment is also very much in dispute.

The historical fact is, the Delegates in the 1787 Convention ignored that the Articles of Confederation could not be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead, they decided that the new constitution would become effective if a mere nine States ratified it.

Additionally, who would be in charge should disputes arise concerning the Convention? Would it not be the very Court which has repeatedly defied our Constitution, and a majority of its members recently handed down its stunning Obamacare opinion in which it acted as a “super legislative body” to change our law as admitted by Abbott?

The fact is, an Article V Convention is a very dangerous idea because:

1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;

2) that Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

3) that every snake on earth with self-interests such as ACORN would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

7) and, we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention would adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

There are many unanswered questions concerning an Article V convention, and yet, Mr. Abbott has decided to jump on the Article V bandwagon which Madison warned us against!

”3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.” ___ Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville, dated November 2, 1788


The bottom line is, calling a convention would allow our Washington Establishment to make constitutional, that which is now unconstitutional. Our existing sufferings are not from defects in our Constitution. They are the result of our Constitution not being enforced and those who violate it are not being impeached and punished for their disloyalty to its commands.



JWK

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “__ Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, 1988

See: Texas House approves Abbott-backed call for convention of states

May 4, 2017


”The Texas House Thursday adopted a resolution calling for a convention of states to amend the U.S. Constitution — one of Gov. Greg Abbott’s emergency items this legislative session.”

If a Constitutional Convention were ever to be called, almost every special interest group would find its way into the convention to control it, our Fake News/Fake Smoke Crowd would manipulate the minds of the public in nefarious ways to accomplish its socialist/progressive agenda, and our open border/Global Governance Crowd would be handed “the opportunity of sapping the very foundations of” our Constitution as warned by James Madison.

The dark-side never sleeps!

JWK




At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

.

Keep in mind, one of the selling points to get our existing Constitution ratified was the federal government would assume state debts suffered during the Revolutionary War.


Almost every state pension fund is in trouble, and that is in addition to city pension funds, e.g.,
See Billions in pension shortfalls threatening Texas cities' budgets

”A recent report identified Dallas and Houston as having among the highest pension shortfalls among local governments in the country.”




JWK

No, no constitutional convention. What is Abbott and Texas thinking? What are they trying to accomplish?!

This is just fear mongering as well as incorrect information. For example, "In regard to Abbott’s attempt to alleviate the arguments of those who oppose the calling of a convention by saying "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states." that comment is also very much in dispute." No, it is not in dispute. It is literally written in the constitution (article v) that 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify an amendment.

All a convention of states does is propose amendments. In order for an amendment to become ratified it has to pass 38 state legislators (which is 3/4 of the states legislators). Yes, that means all 38 legislators are going to have to agree on the wording, etc. Good luck with that. It is never going to happen.

They have been trying to get the Convention of States going since near the beginning of Obama and they have only gotten 12 legislators to call for it out of the 34 they need.

Again, all the Convention of States does is propose and then try to ratify amendments by passing 3/4 of the states (38 states needed). Congress can do this (ratify amendments) by passing with 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate. Why aren't you freaking out about them?

Personally I think that the Convention of States is a waste of time because it would be a miracle for 38 different state legislators to agree on anything.

Originally Posted by JoJ

This is just fear mongering as well as incorrect information. For example, "In regard to Abbott’s attempt to alleviate the arguments of those who oppose the calling of a convention by saying "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states." that comment is also very much in dispute." No, it is not in dispute. It is literally written in the constitution (article v) that 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify an amendment.

All a convention of states does is propose amendments. In order for an amendment to become ratified it has to pass 38 state legislators (which is 3/4 of the states legislators). Yes, that means all 38 legislators are going to have to agree on the wording, etc. Good luck with that. It is never going to happen.

They have been trying to get the Convention of States going since near the beginning of Obama and they have only gotten 12 legislators to call for it out of the 34 they need.

Again, all the Convention of States does is propose and then try to ratify amendments by passing 3/4 of the states (38 states needed). Congress can do this (ratify amendments) by passing with 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate. Why aren't you freaking out about them?

Personally I think that the Convention of States is a waste of time because it would be a miracle for 38 different state legislators to agree on anything.

Fear mongering? Who is "fear mongering" and how?


JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

We don't need a Constitutional Amendment to fix our country. We don't even need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the income tax. What we need and have now is a President who will enforce our laws and stand up for our country. It would be nice to have a Congress that will help him do that, but there's nothing a Constitutional Convention can do to address that problem. That problem is addressed with lobbying during their terms or voting them out during elections. That's our system. The best system ever created.

Originally Posted by JoJ

This is just fear mongering as well as incorrect information. For example, "In regard to Abbott’s attempt to alleviate the arguments of those who oppose the calling of a convention by saying "none of the delegates' efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the states." that comment is also very much in dispute." No, it is not in dispute. It is literally written in the constitution (article v) that 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify an amendment.

All a convention of states does is propose amendments. In order for an amendment to become ratified it has to pass 38 state legislators (which is 3/4 of the states legislators). Yes, that means all 38 legislators are going to have to agree on the wording, etc. Good luck with that. It is never going to happen.

They have been trying to get the Convention of States going since near the beginning of Obama and they have only gotten 12 legislators to call for it out of the 34 they need.

Again, all the Convention of States does is propose and then try to ratify amendments by passing 3/4 of the states (38 states needed). Congress can do this (ratify amendments) by passing with 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate. Why aren't you freaking out about them?

Personally I think that the Convention of States is a waste of time because it would be a miracle for 38 different state legislators to agree on anything.

I do think there is one Amendment that could be ratified by the states if it was ever proposed by Congress and that is the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

"I believe"!! FairTax Now!!!

Originally Posted by Judy

We don't need a Constitutional Amendment to fix our country. We don't even need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the income tax. What we need and have now is a President who will enforce our laws and stand up for our country. It would be nice to have a Congress that will help him do that, but there's nothing a Constitutional Convention can do to address that problem. That problem is addressed with lobbying during their terms or voting them out during elections. That's our system. The best system ever created.

Exactly!



If the text of our existing Constitution were enforced, as limited by its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text, we would not be suffering as we are today. We would have a fair system of taxes on consumption and “direct taxes” would only be laid by the rule of apportionment; annual deficits would be extinguished annually; and our federal government would be limited in its actions to its defined and enumerated powers as summarized in Federalist No. 45:



“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”



JWK

”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”___ Tenth Amendment

One clue that calling a convention under Article V is a very dangerous idea is that Bill Clinton, who gave us the NAFTA, has been a big fan of it for years.

Aside from that I suggest those interested in the subject study: THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CON

” In 1980, the committee on the constitutional System (the CCS) came together in D.C. It was comprised of globalists, internationalists and career politicians. The CCS was founded by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission (TC) and funded by Ford, Rockefeller, American Express and Hewlett Foundations Their directors were nearly all CFR and TC members. Those involved included former Attorney General Thornburgh, former Secretary of the Treasury Brady, sitting Senators like Kassebaum, Moynihan and Hollings, and the wealthy and influential Robert McNamara, William Fulbright and Douglas Dillon, among others.”

Indeed, to support the call for a convention under Article V is not only to support the Clintons’, it is also giving support to our Global Governance Crowd and their Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA,Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal and the PARIS AGREEMENT ___ all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s international corporate giant donors who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

JWK


At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.