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?
This responsible Texan spent many hours visiting with dozens of state legislators in Austin during the 84th session (2015), advocating “for” their support of a bill (HJR 144 by Elkins) which would have rescinded one of the ten outstanding calls; legislation giving Texas delegates complete authority to amend the entire U.S. Constitution.
UPDATE: Ask Rep Elkins to RE-submit his bill in the upcoming 85th Legislative session, calling for rescission of the 1899 call for the UNlimited con con.
HJR 144 would have rescinded the 1899 call for “amendments” (plural) without any limit on subject to be considered. However, the chair of the House Committee on State & Federal Power killed this bill. The Chair instead pushed out the con con bills. That chair is House Rep. Phil King. Rep. King himself authored two con con bills; one was a reincarnation of the outstanding 1955 bill – HB 1110. King repeatedly claimed that an Article V convention can be controlled and limited by the states. To back up his position he invited six PACs (political action committees) to present dramatic and emotional testimony to his committee on Feb. 26, 2015, yet only invited one PAC to testify against a con con.
During the 84th Texas legislative session, King killed numerous 10th Amendment bills in his committee. Note that King was strategically appointed to chair this committee by the Speaker Joe Straus. Straus sent the lion’s share of 10th Amendment bills to King as he could be counted on to do the dirty work. After all, King was the national chair of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) at the time. ALEC is one PAC pushing for a constitutional convention along with other fascist PACs. As of Jan. 8, 2016, the “R”epublican king of Texas (Gov. Greg Abbott) usurped his executive duties and proposes to legislate from the executive branch.
As one legislator said to me recently, Texas has no need to pass another call for a con con. Texas has ALL the authority she needs right now to amend any and everything in the U.S. Constitution. If true, then all the rhetoric in Austin over doing “something” about a rogue federal government is just campaign stumping and political theater for us 
useful idiots (voters). The con con effort provides new material for campaign letters & emails seeking hard-earned money from those same idiots.
ATTENTION TEXAS LEGISLATURE:
RESCIND all outstanding calls for a constitutional convention, Article V convention, convention of states, or conventions by any other name that propose to amend the U.S. Constitution. If the con con movement is successful, why would Texas put her blessing on an unlimited, rogue convention?
Here are ten such outstanding calls…
I. HCR 31, 65th R.S 1977 – Propose an amendment:
1.) Balanced Budget = in the absence of a national emergency, that the total of all federal appropriations made by the congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year.
II. HCR 4, 62nd 4th C.S.1971 – Abolish government school desegregation
III. SCR 12, 60th R.S. 1967 – Amend the IRS TAX CODE
1.) not less than 5% of total individual & corporate income taxes be returned to the states, without restrictions
2.) Returned income taxes to be apportioned to states based on population, not amounts paid be each state
IV. HCR 29, 58th R.S. 1963 Amend Article II, abolishing the Electoral College
V. HCR 22, 58th R.S. 1963
1.) Amend Article I, removing federal restrictions on apportionment of Congress representatives
2.) Removing SCOTUS power over apportionment of Congressional representatives
VI. HCR 5, 55th 2nd C.S. 1957 Reassert State Sovereignty, and delegates to a con con
1. Place definite limits upon the United States Government in order to preserve the individual states as states, rather than as political subdivisions of the United States Government
2. Asking permission for states to dictate delegate selection to a con con
3. Requesting that each state be allowed the same # of delegates as in the US Congress (for a con con)
4. Requesting that no US Government official be allowed as a delegate to a con con
VII. SCR 91, 55th R.S. 1957 An amendment granting the power to the several or individual states the right to conserve and regulate the exploration, production and distribution of their petroleum products, water, Sulphur and all other minerals and natural resources. Interposing the sovereignty of Texas against encroachment upon the reserved powers of this state.
VIII. SCR 15, 54th R.S. 1955 Amend Article V of the US Constitution –
1. Reduce the “2/3 of all states” threshold required to trigger a con con, to 12 states; 7 year limit on the 12 states concurring on proposals; 15 year limit for ¾ ratification threshold to be satisfied, or shorter period
2. Micro manage States, requiring 2/3 vote in both chambers for con con proposals
3. SCOTUS determines whether there is a sufficient “case or controversy” on proposed amendments
4. States may decide whether such convention be limited or general
5. Convention to be held in Philadelphia
6. All states, regardless of population, have equal voting strength
7. Three (3) delegates for each state
8. Micro-manage how each state must appoint their delegates [Governor to choose from the State House or State Senate], how delegate vacancies are filled, and how to count votes from absent delegates
9. Proposals subject only to those states present and voting, not majority of full membership
10. NO EXPIRATION OF THIS PASSED RESOLUTION “this application shall constitute a continuing application”
IX. HCR 17, 32nd R.S. 1911 – Outlaw the practice of polygamy and polygamous cohabitation
X. SCR 4, 26th R.S. 1899 – call a convention for proposing amendments
For all 10 calls, see list
THE REMEDY TO A FEDERAL TYRANT:
Texas Balance of Powers Act
(killed by Chairman Phil King in the House Committee on State & Federal Power)
For a better understanding of the history of a “limited” convention, see:
The Article V Convention: What are they not telling you?
you got them all and so right