Texas governor calls for constitutional convention

The Hill ^ | January 8, 2016 | Harper Neidig

[make no mistake]

Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Friday called for a constitutional convention of states to offer nine amendments in order to “restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose.”

“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” said Abbott in a statement.

“We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way.”

[Publius]

Here is the boilerplate I usually post to these threads. It has some links you might find useful.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments.

Reference works:

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

We’ve only used this twice? With everything that has happened in the last 100+ years, the only other time we convened was to get our booze back?

#priorities

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

Excellent post btw. I like how straightforward it is.

[Publius]

Don't confuse a Convention of the States with State Ratifying Conventions. They are two very different things.

A Convention of the States is where states send delegates to propose amendments.

State Ratifying Conventions are where voters elect delegates to ratify amendments. Congress decides whether states will ratify via legislatures or via conventions.

Please re-read my boilerplate.

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

Gotcha. Okay it makes sense now.

[disndat]

I admit my UNDERSTANDING of the CONSTITUTION is limited...by tyranny...so where in the Seven Hells do you abot???

[Publius]

The reason that Congress opted for ratification via state ratifying conventions to repeal Prohibition was because the bootlegging industry had its tentacles into state, county and local governments at all levels. Congress feared that state legislatures wouldn't ratify within the seven year window because envelopes of cash delivered to state legislators by gangsters would wreck the process.

So Congress told the voters of the states to elect ratifying conventions. The model followed by most states was to elect one delegate from each district of the lower house of that state's legislature. Delegates would run pledged to vote to ratify or not ratify. When the ratifying convention met, there was a brief debate and then an up-or-down vote to ratify. Once the vote was tabulated, the delegates went home.

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

So much history isn’t taught in school. I never knew this.

It’s fascinating to see just how these events transpired.

[Rusty0604]

Ok I don’t know all the legal terms. But I bet I could argue my constitutional rights pretty well, taking out post constitution laws and legal decisions. We’ve come a long way, not necessarily for the good.

[Publius]

The purpose of the pubic skrewels is to make serfs, not free citizens.

[musicman]

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[Publius]

I have a feeling that Sen. Cruz, a long time constitutional scholar, was on the phone to his governor saying, “Dammit, Greg, use the correct nomenclature!”

[Nextrush]

Talk is cheap even if sounds sweet and syrupy.

I distrust 95 percent of Republicans who in the end are Establishment flunkies who will never get my vote.

I perceive Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who endorses Ted Cruz for President, as the more conservative leader in TX.

Who will Gov. Abbott endorse for President ahead of the primary in March?

[Jacquerie]

Article V does no more than recognize a societal right to frame government. Can it be abused? Sure, just any God-given or societal right can be abused doesn't mean the rights don't exist or should be suppressed

Second, no sovereign people in history ever met to do themselves harm.

If you wish to compare a state amendment convention to an existing institution, look toward the electoral college. Both the EC and a state convention are federal. Just as we've never had a runaway EC, we'll not have a runaway convention either.

[trebb]

An Article V Convention of States is not a constitutional convention.

Then what is it, especially when we see the Constitution being trampled on today, the long-term erosion of the 10th Amendment (which also makes attacks on the 1st and 2nd more likely to be successful, how can a Constitutional provision to address the Constitution, not be Constitutional?

The Constitution is what it is - no "Noble Cause" clauses and no "My Personal Opinion In This Area Differs" clauses.

[SC_Pete]

Thank you for your advocacy-— and patience. Our future is at stake. You are doing God’s work.

[X-spurt]

Second, no sovereign people in history ever met to do themselves harm.

That is why there should be an Article V Convention. All the stupid, silly and harmful results since the first Constitutional Convention have been from our “elected representatives” being somewhat immune to societal scrutiny on a timely basis (the next election is often years away).

Is there a Governor or two that could try to wreck Art. V convention, sure, but right now at least those that have some identity as conservative are in the majority.

If State’s Convention somehow goes off the tracks, there is the 2nd Amendment as a fall-back position and every politician recognizes that at minimum we have the arsenal ability if not yet the desire for such sovereignty reclaim exercise.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

There are other people who have actually studied this and written books about it, people like Mark Levin, who has been advocating an Article V convention of the states for years.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Mark-Levin/dp/145160632X

Levin says it is NOT a Constitutional Convention, which would be hijacked by the Left.

How many years have you studied it and advocated for it?

How many books have you written about it?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

A constitutional convention would rewrite the constitution.

An Article V convention would begin the process of the STATES adding amendments to the existing constitution.

You’re not advocating getting a bunch of Washington DC swells getting together to rewrite the constitution for their benefit, are you?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Article V does no more than recognize a societal right to frame government.

Uhhhh... no, it doesn't.

It is a process by which the STATES can initiate the addition of AMENDMENTS to the constitution, and the feral government has no say in their creation and must obey any ratified amendments.

It's a way of returning powers not enumerated in the constitution to the states and their citizens and wresting them from the feral government.