Texans don’t like to be deceived and lied to. It is especially disappointing when that Texan has invested countless hours and resources behind a leader’s words, trusting that the leader has Texan’s best interests in mind.
Well, in politics just as in business, it is unwise to trust your resources to another without proper oversight and investigation.
Convention of States proponents have long been told by such deceivers as Michael Farris, Mark Meckler, Mark Levin, and Tom Colburn to name just a few, that the Article V convention is not a constitutional convention – it can’t be, and it won’t be. They further pretend that those naysayers claiming that it is a constitutional convention are ignorant or misleading, and refuse to do anything about our runaway federal government.
Well, we’re sorry to inform those Texans that have put their heart and soul into the COS project, that our Republican governor Greg Abbott has just announced to you that the Article V convention IS a constitutional convention. Not only that, Abbott supports and calls for a constitutional convention to rewrite our form of government in his “Texas Plan” released January 8, 2016.
Anyone can read the entire 70 pages (Texas Plan) .
Governor Abbott defines the Article V convention as a constitutional convention, and calls his Texas Plan a con con no less than 5 times on pages 67 & 68. Here’s a highlight of that: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5osUEitCWr0dDVheHdfT0ZSZ1k/view?pref=2&pli=1
The COS lawyers have lied to you.
The “naysayers” (as the COS people call us) have been trying to show where an Article V convention IS a con con for years. Black’s Law dictionary, (the one lawyers use) doesn’t hide this fact:
• http://thelawdictionary.org/constitutional-convention/ (Blacks Law Dictionary) Constitutional Convention – A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. [emphasis added]
We hope that those opposed to a con con within the COS project will put their efforts behind the enforcement of the constitution we have now, before supporting a wholesale rewrite of our form of government which an Article V convention has the power to do. We find it disappointing that the Texas governor has more respect for 5 un-elected lawyers in DC than he does for the Texas Constitution and Texas law (Family Code) in the Obergefell opinion. Now we are just as saddened that we have put trust into a man who supports a con con.
Right on, Barbara. Thank you for the good research.
I am kinda lost on your complaint. It sounds like he has good ideas, although balancing the budget part would never pass.
Complaint? The brief article highlights the lie being told by the Convention of States Project. I don’t know about you Mr. Pousson, but as an opponent to a con con for years I have been interrupted and vehemently reprimanded for calling the Article V convention a con con. I am speaking of Texans who follow the COS project and Rob Natelson, among others listed above. So, my article hopes to inspire Texans to take the time to read the 70 page “Texas Plan’ by Gov. Abbott because Abbott is calling for a con con, in his own words. Most won’t read the 30 page U.S. Constitution, so I don’t have a lot wagered on the 70 page Abbott manifesto either.
A balanced budget is already provided for in the current constitution – Article I.
Article V calls for a convention for proposing amendments.
It does not call for a constitutional convention.
To say it will be a convention to rewrite the constitution is inaccurate and disingenuous
Bill, do you live in Texas? Have you read the Texas Plan? Gov. Abbott is calling for a constitutional convention. And actually, as the brief article notes above, a constitutional convention is defined as a convention to amend. Did you know that Texas has an outstanding call for an un-restricted constitutional convention (dated 1899)?
Barbara no, no, and no to your questions. My point is a convention under Article V is not a constitutional convention as in the convention of 1787. The argument that we shouldn’t have an Article V convention because it would open up the constitution to be rewritten is not a valid argument and using this to instill fear is disingenuous .
A constitutional convention can rewrite the constitution Bill Bonifice. Especially if the delegates have authority from their state legislatures to do so, as would Texas delegates. And even if the state legislatures issue instructions specific to subject to be addressed, all state & federal bodies routinely vote to suspend rules. That’s a basic parliamentary procedure. There is absolutely nothing that states can do once that happens. I’ll be posting another article dealing with this area. The con con has so many unknowns, it is why there is so much debate occurring – which is very healthy!
Bill, what definition of “constitutional convention” are you using? Every credible source of such a definition, which I have ever seen, clearly defines it in a way that includes the Article V convention.
Don’t believe me? Look it up in any law dictionary!
Come on Bob the use of the phrase Constitutional convention or the derogatory term of con con is referring to the US Constitutional convention of 1787.
It’s a disingenuous argument that the Constitution was created illegally by a runaway convention and it has no application to the Convention of States project
If you want to save this country and restore our Constitution check out ConventionofStates.com
The Convention of States leadership in New Hampshire was caught in an outright lie accusing a state senator of taking a bribe to change his vote from The John Birch Society, Here is the story:
http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2016/02/05/elected-officials-beware-you-better-support-an-article-v-convention-or-you-may-be-accused-of-bribery/