Texas State Senate Calls for Constitutional Convention (Con-Con)

[FrankRep]

http://www.kochsoft.com/tna/concon.jpg (http://www.jbs.org/stopacon-con)
Choose Freedom - Stop A Con-Con on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ChooseFreedom.STOPaConCon).



By a vote of 27 to 7, the Texas State Senate approved Senate Joint Resolution 1, which calls for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by way of a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con)


Texas State Senate Calls for Con-Con (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6474-texas-state-senate-calls-for-con-con)


Christian Gomez | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
28 February 2011


Background:

2011: Beware of Con-Cons: State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention (http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6611-beware-of-con-cons-a-warning-against-a-constitutional-convention)

The John Birch Society (JBS) has posted a new video on YouTube, Beware of Con-Cons: State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention, in which three Okla. state legislators warn their fellow legislators in all 50 states to preserve the Constitution by voting against any new Con-Con calls and to rescind all existing Con-Con calls in their state by passing rescission resolutions in 2011.

2010: Oppose Any New State Calls for a Constitutional Convention (http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/6515-oppose-any-new-state-calls-for-a-constitutional-convention)

We recommend that all citizens contact their state legislators to oppose any new resolutions to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention (Con-Con) in accordance with Article V of the Constitution because of the danger of setting in motion a runaway convention that could propose dangerous amendments that might get ratified; rather, the state legislators in those state that haven't already rescinded all previous con-con calls (AL, AZ, GA, ID, LA, ND, NV, NH, OK, SC, SD, TN, VA, UT, and WY have already rescinded all previous Con-Con calls.) should be asked to introduce and support a resolution to rescind all previous Con-Con calls.

2009: Dangers of a Constitutional Convention (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/1241)

A constitutional convention would be an ineffective and risky method for getting the federal government back under control. By Larry Greenley

[Vessol]

It was really annoying how hard they were pushing for this "Balanced Budget" Amendment at CPAC. Every other speaker was talking about it..

[Chester Copperpot]

We might need a concon of the states to get back power from the feds.. I know its fraught with pitfalls.. but Im starting to think no risk.. no change

[FrankRep]

It was really annoying how hard they were pushing for this "Balanced Budget" Amendment at CPAC. Every other speaker was talking about it..


BBA, it's a trap.


2010: States Should Enforce, Not Revise, the Constitution! (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5299-states-should-enforce-not-revise-the-constitution)

The states should rein in our out-of-control federal government by enforcing the Constitution through nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, rather than by revising the Constitution through an inherently risky constitutional convention process. By Larry Greenley

2010: Newly Elected Congressmen Lead Push for Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5160-newly-elected-congressmen-lead-push-for-bba)

Mike Lee, a Tea Party endorsee, is not planning on wasting any time in his position as Utah’s newly elected Republican Senator, and he is already working to gain support for a Balanced Budget Amendment. by Raven Clabough

[Sola_Fide]

BBA, it's a trap.


2010: States Should Enforce, Not Revise, the Constitution! (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5299-states-should-enforce-not-revise-the-constitution)

The states should rein in our out-of-control federal government by enforcing the Constitution through nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, rather than by revising the Constitution through an inherently risky constitutional convention process. By Larry Greenley

2010: Newly Elected Congressmen Lead Push for Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5160-newly-elected-congressmen-lead-push-for-bba)

Mike Lee, a Tea Party endorsee, is not planning on wasting any time in his position as Utah’s newly elected Republican Senator, and he is already working to gain support for a Balanced Budget Amendment. by Raven Clabough

YES.

The States should enforce the Constitution through nullification!

Don't add, REPEAL. Be true Goldwater conservatives and repeal legislation!!!

[ChaosControl]

What is the point? Even if there was a BBA, they'd find a way to ignore it.

[FrankRep]

What is the point? Even if there was a BBA, they'd find a way to ignore it.

Plus, the Government will have a Constitutional excuse to raise taxes to balance the budget.

[MaxPower]

What is the point? Even if there was a BBA, they'd find a way to ignore it.
I think it would certainly slow them down; do you think that Americans, at present, would have stronger or weaker gun rights, for example, with the Second Amendment in place or without it? To me, it seems extremely probable that if there were no Second Amendment, the federal government would long since have gone more or less all the way in destroying the individual right to gun ownership- with the Second Amendment in place, however, they've only really been able to nibble around the edges. The same goes for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.; they've still been compromised, but I daresay they've had a much stronger foundation with constitutional amendments protecting them than without.


Plus, the Government will have a Constitutional excuse to raise taxes to balance the budget.
Ah, but this will quickly sour the public's appetite for big government, in the same way that if your average compulsive eater or drug addict could see the rolls of fat, heart disease, etc. emerging directly in tandem with his bad habits, he would be far better-motivated to cast them off. It is the fact that we can have this illusion of something for nothing- government goodies without the commensurate taxation- that makes the appeal of big government so strong. A government the size of the one we have now simply could not stand if it actually had to balance its annual budget; they would never get away with the kind of pilfering they would need to commit in order to obtain nearly $4 trillion in revenue.

[Stary Hickory]

Hold your own instate con con, and then just tell the Federal Government how it is going to be. The federal government has no authority to act outside the confines of the Constitution no matter how much it tells itself it can.

[libertybrewcity]

The states can call for constitutional convention and then put certain amendments on the application. If Texas calls for a constitutional convention for a BBA, no other amendments can be ratified unless other states submit applications for them.

[nobody's_hero]

*sigh*

http://www.foavc.org/

That's all I'm going to say.

[Matt Collins]

Mike Church says to beware of "John Birch Propaganda" against Constitutional Convention:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2dtaIv_EhY

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMg_yGlcUX4&feature=player_embedded

[nobody's_hero]

One more thing, since I get so tired of that JBS "Beware blah blah blah" video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-R-2tZBE1Q

[FrankRep]

Matt Collins, RON PAUL is also AGAINST a Constitutional Convention.



Ron Paul On Constitutional Convention (http://targetfreedom.com/bills-in-congress/ron-paul-on-constitutional-convention/)


Dear Friend:

Thank you for expressing your concern that attempting to roll back the dangerous expansion of government power through constitutional amendment will bring about a constitutional convention. You are indeed correct that a modern constitutional convention, given today's political climate, would be dangerous to liberty by leaving us open to sudden, sweeping change in our government.
...

[matt0611]

We can add amendments without a constitutional convention. Why are people pushing for one?

I don't want our current politicians anywhere near our Constitution.

[FrankRep]

We can add amendments without a constitutional convention. Why are people pushing for one?

Very true. The Constitution can be amended without a Constitutional Convention. Why a Con Con? The Progressive Democrats and Neocon Republicans would love to get their hands on the Constitution and "Modernize" it.

The article below explains both methods. The First Method is the best way.


Amendment Ratification vs. Constitutional Convention (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?281092-Amendment-Ratification-vs.-Constitutional-Convention)



The Amendment Process (http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html)


There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

[payme_rick]

A ConCon would scare the shit out of me... I just don't trust the sobs... Hell, the fact that Perry-lover and tx state sen. Dan Patrick wants it so bad scares me even more... This is the guy who probably told Pat Gray (Gray being previously employed by Patrick at his Houston station) "Hey, hows about you and Glenn wipe out Medina for our ole pal Rick, eh? He told me he'd appreciate it..."

Then again, I should probably research it a bit more 'cos we've gotta do something... But right now I understand those both pro and con a ConCon ('nuff "cons" for you?)

[Paul Revered]

Considering that Texas has a 31% budget shortfall (of the highest nationally), perhaps it should get its' own house in order, before expanding to greater ambitions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/state-budget-crisis/index.html

[Texan4Life]

We can add amendments without a constitutional convention. Why are people pushing for one?

+1

I fear its a bait and switch. Call a convention under the guise of controlling gov and then have it get taken over and end up with who knows what.

[Zippyjuan]

+1

I fear its a bait and switch. Call a convention under the guise of controlling gov and then have it get taken over and end up with who knows what.

"Who know what" will still have to be aproved by three fourths (38) of the fifty states to take effect.