The Irony – A Con Con Could Suspend Rules Too?

Last Thursday House Rep. Briscoe Cain, a freshman, objected to a House floor motion to suspend the Rules that notice be posted for 5 days prior to a bill being heard in a committee hearing (HJR 56).

The irony!

I bet Rep. Cain is starting to understand how politics is conducted – notwithstanding the “rules”.  Rep. Cain is author and coauthor of no less than 3 bills that support an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  One of those bills, HB 506 proposes to place limitations on Texas delegates to a convention called under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.  Perhaps now Rep. Cain can see why opponents to the Article V convention don’t buy the lie that Texas can control delegates to such a convention.  A modern day constitutional convention has the same inherent ability as the 1787 constitutional convention to suspend rules, throw out the press, meet in secret, and work with George Soros-supported-delegates to propose an entirely new constitution. Continue reading “The Irony – A Con Con Could Suspend Rules Too?”

Texas CAN Protect the Constitution, Like Montana Did

The broad and vague wording of the “Convention of States Project” application for an Article V convention to propose amendments has the power to amend one word or all words.  That is the reason the bill’s author in Montana withdrew his bill from consideration on Feb 15, 2017.

TEXAS NEEDS TO DO THE SAME

Texas legislators should follow and find comfort in the principled actions of Montana…
Here’s the official audio from that committee hearing, with time stamps of the compelling arguments:

Montana – HJ 8 – COS application http://montanalegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=21870&meta_id=192240

Rep. Brad Tschida (R) Bill sponsor’s opening remarks 15:00 – 18:20
Rep. Brad Tschida (R) Bill sponsor’s closing remarks 1:05:20 – 1:09:25

Compelling Testimony AGAINST Art. V Convention
Constitutional scholar, Robert Brown’s testimony 31:45 – 37:22
Follow-up questions for constitutional scholar Robert Brown 56:30 – 1:05:16

Article V is not the tool to reign in a rogue federal body.
Article VI is the correct and peaceful tool to reign in a rogue federal body.
See how the “Simulated” Art. V convention produced UN-intended consequences using the COS application: https://tinyurl.com/joujps6 and accidentally EXPANDED federal powers through proposed amendments.

AMENDMENTS “CHANGE” THE CONSTITUTION…

The Convention of States Project followers have been misinformed.

First, COS followers think that…

“Convention of States is NOT changing the Constitution, it IS adding Amendments to the Constitution, just like the 27 Amendments that were added by Congress over the past 200+ years.”

Fact is, the original constitution has already been “changed” nine (9) times through amendments…

Article I: amended four times –
Jul 9, 1868 (XIV Am.)
Feb 3, 1913 (XVI Am.)
Apr 8, 1913 (XVII Am.)
Jan 23, 1933 (XX Am.)

Article II: amended three times –
Jun 15, 1804 (XII Am.)
Jan 23, 1933 (XX Am.)
Feb. 10, 1967 (XXV Am.)

Article III: amended once:
Feb 7, 1795 (XI Am.)

Article IV: amended once
Dec 6, 1865 (XIII Am.)

Then there are the Amendments that “changed” Amendments –
12th Amendment – Jan 23, 1933 (XX Am.)
18th Amendment – Dec 5, 1933 (XXI Am.)

Second, COS followers have been led to believe that a “convention of states” is different from a constitutional convention.   Article V is 143 words.  Only 2 bodies are sanctioned to “propose” amendments;
1. Congress
2. A constitutional convention (aka Article V convention)

These are the facts.

As Thomas Jefferson said:
…if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
…“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.”

Why does one suppose that the COS organizers teach such deception?

Gov. Abbott’s Mission to Write a New Manifesto for These united states

On Friday January 8, 2016, Texas Governor Greg Abbott released his call for a new manifesto for these United States. His new manifest is titled: “The Texas Plan”. Abbott admits the problem is not with the U.S. Constitution by stating; “The Constitution itself is not broken. What is broken is our Nation’s willingness to obey the Constitution and to hold our leaders accountable to it.”

If the Constitution is not broken, then why would the highest ranking Republican of Texas promote a constitutional convention with representation from George Soros?  Why would Gov. Abbott support a con con with delegates representing brand new manifestos (constitutions)? Here are a few manifestos just waiting for the right crisis:
1.) Constitution for the New Socialist Republic of North America (Soros)
2.) Constitution 2020 Movement (Soros)
3.) Constitution for the New States of America (Ford and Rockefeller Foundations)

Most reading this have some understanding of the ideology of George Soros. But the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations aren’t that bad – right? The Ford & Rockefeller Foundations were behind 2 of the worst amendments we have today – the 16th Amendment (federal income tax), and the 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. Senators). Continue reading “Gov. Abbott’s Mission to Write a New Manifesto for These united states”

OUTSTANDING Calls for Constitutional Convention, from 1899 forward (in Texas)

Statue at Capitol
Statue at Texas Capitol

If it’s true that an Article V convention can be limited by the several sovereign states as the con con proponents claim, then why won’t these same confident voters and legislators remove the possibility of a Texas delegate to go rogue in a con con? Continue reading “OUTSTANDING Calls for Constitutional Convention, from 1899 forward (in Texas)”

A Con Con; Texas Lacks Effective Sovereign Leadership & Integrity

If Gov. Abbott wants Texas to participate in a con con as he has stated in his Texas Plan, let’s examine those Texans 1787 Constitutional Conventionother than the governor, who would be a delegate to represent Texas at such a con con.

Rep. Phil King, chair of the House committee on State & Federal Power & Responsibility- Select, authored a bill in 2015 which proposed how Texas would select her con con delegates.  As is often times the case, it’s not so much what the bill says as it is what the bill doesn’t say in the obvious sense. Continue reading “A Con Con; Texas Lacks Effective Sovereign Leadership & Integrity”

Gov. Abbott Wants a Con Con, part II

The Article V convention is a Constitutional Convention [Part II]

In Governor Abbott’s own words, his Texas Plan calls for a “constitutional convention”, a.k.a con con. He calls for a constitutional convention no less than 5 times (pages 67 & 68). This flies in the face of those who support his Article V Convention (from the right and the left). The Convention of States supporters have vehemently denied this “amending” convention could have the authority to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, and they come out swinging when constitutionalists describe their “amending convention” as a con con. Well, it seems that the governor has slung mud on the faces of his supporters, or the governor didn’t author the Texas Plan and lacks knowledge of its contents. Either is no excusable matter. Continue reading “Gov. Abbott Wants a Con Con, part II”

What is a State Ratifying Convention?

The 21st Amendment – and Ratifying Conventions

Only once in U.S. history has Congress used the state ratifying conventions mentioned in Article V to amend the U.S. Constitution. This occurred in 1933 for the 21st Amendment.  What is a state ratifying convention? Continue reading “What is a State Ratifying Convention?”

Gov. Abbott Wants a Con Con, part I

The Article V convention is a Constitutional Convention
[Part I]

Governor Abbott unveiled his Texas Plan on January 8, 2016 with his wish list of amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This is interesting because the governor has no legislative powers.

Texas Constitution, Article II:. The powers of the Government of the State

1875 Texas Constitutional Convention
1875 Texas Constitutional Convention

of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are Legislative to one; those which are Executive to another, and those which are Judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.

Only the Texas legislature can propose a “request” (through a resolution) to Congress, for an Article V convention, a.k.a. constitutional convention (con con), yet Gov. Abbott released his 92 page “Texas Plan” to re-write the U.S. Constitution (con con). And, no less than 5 times the governor calls for a “constitutional convention”, under the Texas Plan (pages 67 & 68). Continue reading “Gov. Abbott Wants a Con Con, part I”

QUESTIONS for the Pro Article V convention advocates

This is the first of several postings intended to encourage civil, thoughtful debate regarding the idea of an Article V convention to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The Texas 84th legislature defeated the A5 (Article V) convention effort to re-write the U.S. Constitution this year. But those pushing the effort will return next session with even more paid lobbyists from outside of Texas pressing our legislators to join the scheme.

Texas should refrain from participating in a re-write of our form of government.

Pro Article V convention lobbyists have instructed Texans to challenge the accusation that an Article V convention could be a constitutional convention (con con) but they refuse to answer pertinent questions with reliable facts. Here are the first in a series of questions for Texans to ponder:
QUESTION #1 that the pro con-con effort won’t answer:

1.)  When was the 1899 Texas call for a constitutional convention rescinded?
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/sessionLaws/26-0/SCR_4.pdf
A5 convention lobbyists are sure that a convention can be limited, yet there is an un-limited call outstanding from Texas.

If the Texas legislature supports a “limited” A5 convention, why didn’t ¹HJR 144 pass in the 84th Legislature?  HJR 144 was killed in the House Committee on State & Federal Power & Responsibility, Select, chaired by Representatives Phil King and Paul Workman, who also happen to have authored bills advocating for a “limited” A5 convention.

¹ [HJR 144 by Rep. Elkins, proposed to rescind the unlimited call for a constitutional convention, dated June 1899]