Texas Governor Leads The Charge

[OKTexas]

The governor is leading the charge from behind as a good number of other states have already called for a convention while Texas still hasn't.

You don't know what you're talking about, 49 States have already requested one.

 

[OKTexas]

Alabama joins coalition of states calling for convention to limit federal power

Alabama has become the fourth state to pass legislation calling for a constitutional convention of states to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

Last week’s move made Alabama the first state to pass such legislation this year after Georgia, Florida, and Alaska which passed the Convention of States resolution in 2014.

Images of Article V Applications

TABLE 02: 704 Applications by ALL 50 States and Total Applications Per Issue



Issue = Issue of amendment application

IssueTotal = total number of amendment applications of that single issue (e.g. 56 General Calls for an Article V Convention)

FirstYear = Year of first amendment application

LastYear = Year of last amendment application

Rescissions excluded



IssueTotal MinOfYear MaxOfYear Issue
1 1925 1925 Amend 18th Amendment
1 1965 1965 Anti-Communism Amendment
1 1911 1911 Anti-Monopoly
18 1901 1916 Anti-Polygamy
1 1970 1970 Anti-Subversion Amendment
78 1963 1970 Apportionment
20 1970 1976 Attendance at Public Schools
115 1955 1992 Balanced Budget
2 1959 1959 Constitutionality of 14th Amendment
8 1963 1963 Court of the Union
1 1861 1861 Direct Election of President and Other Proposals
1 1925 1925 Direct Election of President and Vice President
66 1893 1913 Direct Election of Senators
3 1907 1910 Direct Election of Senators ; over 2/3 of all states requirement already met
1 1957 1957 Election of Presidential Electors
12 1955 1965 Exclusive Power for States to Regulate and Operate State Schools
1 1931 1931 Federal Regulation of Labor Hours and Wages
4 1971 1972 Financial Aid to Private Schools
3 1991 1993 Flag Desecration
45 1789 1989 General Call for an Article V Convention
4 1909 1929 General Call for an Article V Convention ; over 2/3 of all states requirement already met
5 1911 1911 General Call for an Article V Convention, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall
2 1961 1961 General Call for an Article V Convention, State Legislative Review of Supreme Court Rulings
5 1963 1973 Limitation on Federal Indebtedness
25 1951 1994 Limited Federal Taxation
4 1952 1957 Limited Treaty Making Power
9 1943 1949 Limited World Federal Government
11 1977 1986 Line Item Veto
1 1913 1913 Manner of Determining Constitutionality of State Enactments
32 1953 1990 Mode of Amendment
1 1952 1952 Motor Vehicle Taxes Directed to States
3 1832 1833 Nullification
2 1863 1864 Peaceful Resolution to Civil War
2 1964 1964 Pensions for Citizens
2 1920 1920 Popular Ratification Vote
1 2008 2008 Posse Comitatus
22 1963 1965 Presidential Electors
2 1972 1972 Presiding Officer of Senate
3 1970 1970 Prohibition on Taxation of State or Municipal Bonds
2 1964 1964 Reading of Bible in School
1 1867 1867 Reducing Effects of Emancipation
3 1965 1965 Refund of Federal Taxes to States
26 1939 1957 Repeal of 16th Amendment
5 1959 1962 Repeal of 16th Amendment, Limitation on Federal Enterprises
4 1949 1952 Repeal of 16th Amendment, Limited Federal Taxation
6 1931 1931 Repeal of 18th Amendment
1 1911 1911 Repeal of Prohibition
25 1967 1972 Revenue Sharing
1 1969 1969 Revenue Sharing (passed by only one house of state legislature)
45 1975 1981 Right to Life
1 1977 1977 Right to Life; Reaffirming Application of 1973
7 1972 1973 School Prayer
3 1973 1973 Secular School Funding
1 1957 1957 Senate as Appellate Court for Supreme Court Rulings
12 1860 1861 Slavery
1 1863 1863 Slavery; Reaffirming Application of 1861
1 1961 1961 State Legislative Review of Supreme Court Rulings
1 1931 1931 Taxation of Government Securities
2 1958 1958 Taxation of Income of Resident of One State by Another State
2 1970 1970 Taxation of Interest Paid on Obligations
2 1970 1970 Taxation of Municipal Bonds
4 1987 1987 Taxation on Debts
3 1989 1996 Term-Limits; Congressional
3 1977 1981 Term-Limits; Judicial
1 1957 1957 Term-Limits; Judicial and Selection of Federal Judges
5 1943 1943 Term-Limits; Presidential
1 1939 1939 Townsend National Recovery Plan, General Welfare Act of 1937 (H.R.4199)
10 1943 1996 Unconditional Federal Funds
4 1994 2001 Unfunded Federal Mandates
3 1959 1959 Validity of State Statutes Not Expressly Declared Invalid in Federal Law
TOTAL=704

http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm

Nothing in the Constitution says these applications expire or says they must have the same subject in their request.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If enough states call for a convention, there will be a convention.

My avatar makes fun of the far right 'free shit' brigade, for sure. I am sure I pay several times more in taxes than you make in a year, maybe several years.

49 States already have dumb ass.

Sure they have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas, you are such a disgrace to Texas, but there it is.

If the states have met the requirement, then explain what should happen next.

 

[imawhosure]

Back on point-------------> look at electoral map on election day, then forget the outcome of the college, but instead, count how many states are red. (not scientific because it really is a matter of which party controls each state legislature, but you get my drift) Do you have 32? (yes you will) Then guess what, the left can't stop it, period!

The big hold up has been Arizona so far. 1 man in the state legislature, has put the kabosh on it there, and from my understanding, he is on his way out the door.

And the good thing is........................congress can NOT stop it. It would have already been in full swing if not for Arizona I believe; not because they can't get enough states on board to call for one, but because they NEED ARIZONA there to vote for the implementations they decide upon, or the blue states COULD block.

Being conservative/libertarian minded myself, I believe this is the best way to get Washington under control. Conservative republicans in congress do not have the votes to impose their will there, but the states do en mass. Remember, the population of the state has NO bearing on how much power they wield at an article 5 convention, they are equal; meaning...............the population centers that have imposed goofy leftism have no more sway than a Montana, Iowa, or Nebraska. This is why the left will do everything it can to derail this, and is why every citizen of a small state should be all for it. At that convention, California is no longer Goliath in political power, they will have no more power than you do!

It is the way our founders set it up to insure that an out of control federal government could be brought back into control by the states it heads, and that population centers could not dictate to smaller areas what they must do.

And yes, I am sure blue states will attend once it is apparent the article 5 will happen. Why? Because they must look after their interests do, and there is no way to over ride in the federal government what the article 5 group passes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ima does not understand this process, apparently.

keep studying it, little buddy.

 

[imawhosure]

ima does not understand this process, apparently.

keep studying it, little buddy.

lol, oh yes I do. I see clearly that you are afraid of it. Why am I not surprised!

 

[imawhosure]

Back on point-------------> look at electoral map on election day, then forget the outcome of the college, but instead, count how many states are red. (not scientific because it really is a matter of which party controls each state legislature, but you get my drift) Do you have 32? (yes you will) Then guess what, the left can't stop it, period!

The big hold up has been Arizona so far. 1 man in the state legislature, has put the kabosh on it there, and from my understanding, he is on his way out the door.

And the good thing is........................congress can NOT stop it. It would have already been in full swing if not for Arizona I believe; not because they can't get enough states on board to call for one, but because they NEED ARIZONA there to vote for the implementations they decide upon, or the blue states COULD block.

Being conservative/libertarian minded myself, I believe this is the best way to get Washington under control. Conservative republicans in congress do not have the votes to impose their will there, but the states do en mass. Remember, the population of the state has NO bearing on how much power they wield at an article 5 convention, they are equal; meaning...............the population centers that have imposed goofy leftism have no more sway than a Montana, Iowa, or Nebraska. This is why the left will do everything it can to derail this, and is why every citizen of a small state should be all for it. At that convention, California is no longer Goliath in political power, they will have no more power than you do!

It is the way our founders set it up to insure that an out of control federal government could be brought back into control by the states it heads, and that population centers could not dictate to smaller areas what they must do.

And yes, I am sure blue states will attend once it is apparent the article 5 will happen. Why? Because they must look after their interests do, and there is no way to over ride in the federal government what the article 5 group passes.

Let me clarify one thing.......after an article 5 meeting, the states must put up the agreed upon changes to the voters of its states. If enough states vote yes to the changes, then it becomes law, and the federal government MUST enforce that law.

This is why an article 5 can NOT get out of control, because the voters eventually decide the outcome, although it goes by state, 1 vote per state. It is also why it will work if not to sweeping of changes, because many of the blue states once there, will agree to changes that stop the federal government from imposing their will upon them too; especially if a repub gets elected in 16-)

 

[JakeStarkey]

ima does not understand this process, apparently.

keep studying it, little buddy.

lol, oh yes I do. I see clearly that you are afraid of it. Why am I not surprised!

Sure, you do little buddy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Back on point-------------> look at electoral map on election day, then forget the outcome of the college, but instead, count how many states are red. (not scientific because it really is a matter of which party controls each state legislature, but you get my drift) Do you have 32? (yes you will) Then guess what, the left can't stop it, period!

The big hold up has been Arizona so far. 1 man in the state legislature, has put the kabosh on it there, and from my understanding, he is on his way out the door.

And the good thing is........................congress can NOT stop it. It would have already been in full swing if not for Arizona I believe; not because they can't get enough states on board to call for one, but because they NEED ARIZONA there to vote for the implementations they decide upon, or the blue states COULD block.

Being conservative/libertarian minded myself, I believe this is the best way to get Washington under control. Conservative republicans in congress do not have the votes to impose their will there, but the states do en mass. Remember, the population of the state has NO bearing on how much power they wield at an article 5 convention, they are equal; meaning...............the population centers that have imposed goofy leftism have no more sway than a Montana, Iowa, or Nebraska. This is why the left will do everything it can to derail this, and is why every citizen of a small state should be all for it. At that convention, California is no longer Goliath in political power, they will have no more power than you do!

It is the way our founders set it up to insure that an out of control federal government could be brought back into control by the states it heads, and that population centers could not dictate to smaller areas what they must do.

And yes, I am sure blue states will attend once it is apparent the article 5 will happen. Why? Because they must look after their interests do, and there is no way to over ride in the federal government what the article 5 group passes.

Let me clarify one thing.......after an article 5 meeting, the states must put up the agreed upon changes to the voters of its states. If enough states vote yes to the changes, then it becomes law, and the federal government MUST enforce that law.

This is why an article 5 can NOT get out of control, because the voters eventually decide the outcome, although it goes by state, 1 vote per state. It is also why it will work if not to sweeping of changes, because many of the blue states once there, will agree to changes that stop the federal government from imposing their will upon them too; especially if a repub gets elected in 16-)

That's possible, yes.

 

[imawhosure]

As you can see, there are many avenues ALL of us can take to remove power from Soddam and Ghamora, AKA.....Washington DC. And I personally believe, many moderate Democrats would agree to this much faster than putting trust in one politicians promises. They can lie! But, if we the people get to vote on specific changes we can see and discuss, it removes the fear from BOTH sides of the aisle that it will go to far, because we are voting on these changes, and nothing else.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

YEEEHAAWWW! Welcome back, Jim Crow! We have a table for you right up front, sir.

Please pay no mind to the bloodstains on the floor. Some faggot thought he was special and could eat at the exact same places we do.

The only party that endorsed Jim Crow were Democrats.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Being conservative/libertarian minded myself, I believe this is the best way to get Washington under control. Conservative republicans in congress do not have the votes to impose their will there, but the states do en mass. Remember, the population of the state has NO bearing on how much power they wield at an article 5 convention, they are equal; meaning...............the population centers that have imposed goofy leftism have no more sway than a Montana, Iowa, or Nebraska.

Could you explain this in a little more detail providing some information on exactly how many delegates are authorized from each state? And in addition how those delegates are selected? Peferably not just an option, but citing the section of the Constitution or law which supports your postion.

**IF** delegates equal a fixed number per state, then what you say is "truer", on the other hand **IF** the number of delegates equals the number of representatives in Congress then your statement is less true since larger (more populous states) will have more votes.

If I remember correctly there were 13 colonies yet 55 delegates to the original Constitutional Convention meaning some colonies sent more, some less.

Let me clarify one thing.......after an article 5 meeting, the states must put up the agreed upon changes to the voters of its states. If enough states vote yes to the changes, then it becomes law, and the federal government MUST enforce that law.

This is why an article 5 can NOT get out of control, because the voters eventually decide the outcome, although it goes by state, 1 vote per state. It is also why it will work if not to sweeping of changes, because many of the blue states once there, will agree to changes that stop the federal government from imposing their will upon them too; especially if a repub gets elected in 16-)

And please cite the section of the Constitution where suggested amendments **MUST** be agreed to by the voters of the States. My reading of Article V is that proposed amendment must be approved by the Legislatures of the States. Now some states could put it on a ballot, but others could put it directly to the legislature.


>>>>

 

[imawhosure]

Being conservative/libertarian minded myself, I believe this is the best way to get Washington under control. Conservative republicans in congress do not have the votes to impose their will there, but the states do en mass. Remember, the population of the state has NO bearing on how much power they wield at an article 5 convention, they are equal; meaning...............the population centers that have imposed goofy leftism have no more sway than a Montana, Iowa, or Nebraska.

Could you explain this in a little more detail providing some information on exactly how many delegates are authorized from each state? And in addition how those delegates are selected? Peferably not just an option, but citing the section of the Constitution or law which supports your postion.

**IF** delegates equal a fixed number per state, then what you say is "truer", on the other hand **IF** the number of delegates equals the number of representatives in Congress then your statement is less true since larger (more populous states) will have more votes.

If I remember correctly there were 13 colonies yet 55 delegates to the original Constitutional Convention meaning some colonies sent more, some less.

Let me clarify one thing.......after an article 5 meeting, the states must put up the agreed upon changes to the voters of its states. If enough states vote yes to the changes, then it becomes law, and the federal government MUST enforce that law.

This is why an article 5 can NOT get out of control, because the voters eventually decide the outcome, although it goes by state, 1 vote per state. It is also why it will work if not to sweeping of changes, because many of the blue states once there, will agree to changes that stop the federal government from imposing their will upon them too; especially if a repub gets elected in 16-)

And please cite the section of the Constitution where suggested amendments **MUST** be agreed to by the voters of the States. My reading of Article V is that proposed amendment must be approved by the Legislatures of the States. Now some states could put it on a ballot, but others could put it directly to the legislature.


>>>>

Wow, you ask alot, but I will research it closely and get back with you. I am positive though that each state has 1 vote in the changes, and that no state has more votes regardless of size in the process.

As far as them being forced to put it to a ballot vote, I must admit I have to go into the constitutional scholars writings to get you an answer.

Give me some time, I am going to the pool in a few, but I promise I will find the answer later.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Being conservative/libertarian minded myself, I believe this is the best way to get Washington under control. Conservative republicans in congress do not have the votes to impose their will there, but the states do en mass. Remember, the population of the state has NO bearing on how much power they wield at an article 5 convention, they are equal; meaning...............the population centers that have imposed goofy leftism have no more sway than a Montana, Iowa, or Nebraska.

Could you explain this in a little more detail providing some information on exactly how many delegates are authorized from each state? And in addition how those delegates are selected? Peferably not just an option, but citing the section of the Constitution or law which supports your postion.

**IF** delegates equal a fixed number per state, then what you say is "truer", on the other hand **IF** the number of delegates equals the number of representatives in Congress then your statement is less true since larger (more populous states) will have more votes.

If I remember correctly there were 13 colonies yet 55 delegates to the original Constitutional Convention meaning some colonies sent more, some less.

Let me clarify one thing.......after an article 5 meeting, the states must put up the agreed upon changes to the voters of its states. If enough states vote yes to the changes, then it becomes law, and the federal government MUST enforce that law.

This is why an article 5 can NOT get out of control, because the voters eventually decide the outcome, although it goes by state, 1 vote per state. It is also why it will work if not to sweeping of changes, because many of the blue states once there, will agree to changes that stop the federal government from imposing their will upon them too; especially if a repub gets elected in 16-)

And please cite the section of the Constitution where suggested amendments **MUST** be agreed to by the voters of the States. My reading of Article V is that proposed amendment must be approved by the Legislatures of the States. Now some states could put it on a ballot, but others could put it directly to the legislature.


>>>>

Wow, you ask alot, but I will research it closely and get back with you. I am positive though that each state has 1 vote in the changes, and that no state has more votes regardless of size in the process.

As far as them being forced to put it to a ballot vote, I must admit I have to go into the constitutional scholars writings to get you an answer.

Give me some time, I am going to the pool in a few, but I promise I will find the answer later.

And just so ya now, that was not an attempt at a "gotcha" question - you sounded very definitive on it so I'm truly interested on how a new Constitutional Convention would be structured.

In some way I think a new convention is a good thing, in other ways I'm very leery about it.

For example:

1. For example the questions already asked about number of delegates, if the requirement is a fixed number per state. That is one thing. On the other if the number is based on either population or number of Congressional seats (currently 535) then states with larger populations (California, New York, Florida, etc) will have a bigger impact on outcomes.

2. Secondly there is a question on subject matter that can be addressed within such a convention. And there are two lines of reasoning with that. Which I'll refer to as "limited" and "general".

General - lets say that Texas wants to address overriding supreme court decision and submits a convention request, Kentucky wants a balanced budget amendment, New York wants to limit the 2nd Amendment, North Dakota wants to make all abortions illegal, New Hampshire wants an amendment to protect abortion, and Maine wants an amendment to protect same-sex marriage. Under the general convention concept it is simply the application of 34 States that triggers a convention and there is no limit on what the convention produces. This is the "watch what you ask for" scenario since the convention can produce any proposed amendment then it's up to the states to address each individually. When it goes to the states there is no weight by population or congressional representation - there is one outcome from the legislature. However the threshold to have a convention is easier since it requries 34 states to ask for one, regardless of the reason a state may want one.

Limited - on the other hand a limited convention would be under the idea that the subject of the convention is limited to the purpose called for. If different states call for a convention for different reasons, that doesn't count toward the 34 state total. You would need 34 states to call for a convention for the same subject and agree to limit the conventions deliberations to that subject. If there is no limit on the subject, you really just have a "general" convention anyway - and the outcomes might not be what you really want.​

>>>>

 

[Moonglow]

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Texas always is sensible. I've mentioned before how much I like Texas, having spent 6 months there....during that time I acquired a very lovely Texan boyfriend.

His opening words to me were "you talk a bit like Marlene Dietrich, let's have a beer"....I mean, what was a girl supposed to do, but just give in?

Wow, you date sexagenarians...

 

[g5000]

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

YEEEHAAWWW! Welcome back, Jim Crow! We have a table for you right up front, sir.

Please pay no mind to the bloodstains on the floor. Some faggot thought he was special and could eat at the exact same places we do.

The only party that endorsed Jim Crow were Democrats.

Oh, yes. You tards always have to mention they used to be Democrats long ago.

They were bible-thumping Christian conservatives. White supremacists were right wing Democrats then, and are right wing Republicans today. They hated big government, taxes, and commies. They were very vociferous about states rights and gun rights, and loved Jesus and America, too. You betcha.

We're Republicans now.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

YEEEHAAWWW! Welcome back, Jim Crow! We have a table for you right up front, sir.

Please pay no mind to the bloodstains on the floor. Some faggot thought he was special and could eat at the exact same places we do.

The only party that endorsed Jim Crow were Democrats.

Oh, yes. You tards always have to mention they used to be Democrats long ago.

They were bible-thumping Christian conservatives. White supremacists were right wing Democrats then, and are right wing Republicans today. They hated big government, taxes, and commies. They were very vociferous about states rights and gun rights, and loved Jesus and America, too. You betcha.

We're Republicans now.

Jesse Helms lead all the racial bigots out the front door of the Democratic party, promising them that the punch that they served in the Republican party was much better. We missed them for about 10 minutes....but got over it.

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas, you are such a disgrace to Texas, but there it is.

If the states have met the requirement, then explain what should happen next.

By Article 5, congress is required to call a convention, or the States may organize their own individual conventions and submit proposed Amendments to the other States. Congress has been ignoring this obligation for decades.

Why didn't you admit you were wrong?

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas, you are such a disgrace to Texas, but there it is.

If the states have met the requirement, then explain what should happen next.

Back on point-------------> look at electoral map on election day, then forget the outcome of the college, but instead, count how many states are red. (not scientific because it really is a matter of which party controls each state legislature, but you get my drift) Do you have 32? (yes you will) Then guess what, the left can't stop it, period!

The big hold up has been Arizona so far. 1 man in the state legislature, has put the kabosh on it there, and from my understanding, he is on his way out the door.

And the good thing is........................congress can NOT stop it. It would have already been in full swing if not for Arizona I believe; not because they can't get enough states on board to call for one, but because they NEED ARIZONA there to vote for the implementations they decide upon, or the blue states COULD block.

Being conservative/libertarian minded myself, I believe this is the best way to get Washington under control. Conservative republicans in congress do not have the votes to impose their will there, but the states do en mass. Remember, the population of the state has NO bearing on how much power they wield at an article 5 convention, they are equal; meaning...............the population centers that have imposed goofy leftism have no more sway than a Montana, Iowa, or Nebraska. This is why the left will do everything it can to derail this, and is why every citizen of a small state should be all for it. At that convention, California is no longer Goliath in political power, they will have no more power than you do!

It is the way our founders set it up to insure that an out of control federal government could be brought back into control by the states it heads, and that population centers could not dictate to smaller areas what they must do.

And yes, I am sure blue states will attend once it is apparent the article 5 will happen. Why? Because they must look after their interests do, and there is no way to over ride in the federal government what the article 5 group passes.

Let me clarify one thing.......after an article 5 meeting, the states must put up the agreed upon changes to the voters of its states. If enough states vote yes to the changes, then it becomes law, and the federal government MUST enforce that law.

This is why an article 5 can NOT get out of control, because the voters eventually decide the outcome, although it goes by state, 1 vote per state. It is also why it will work if not to sweeping of changes, because many of the blue states once there, will agree to changes that stop the federal government from imposing their will upon them too; especially if a repub gets elected in 16-)

No they don't, the State legislatures can approve or not, just like any other Amendment. Or if enough States agree to the same language in State conventions there is no need for legislatures to vote, it becomes part of the Constitution as if it were ratified by the State legislatures.