Battle Over Constitutional Convention Rages in Texas

[Draggingtree]

The New American:

Friday, 20 March 2015

Battle Over Constitutional Convention Rages in Texas

Written by Alex Newman

The controversial national effort to have states call for an Article V Convention, which critics say could put the existing Constitution at risk, is hard at work in Texas, where the battle over a possible constitutional convention has been raging in recent weeks. With multiple bills currently being considered in the Texas legislature that could put the state on record as calling for a con-con, conservative and constitutionalist activists have also been working hard to educate lawmakers on the dangers — as well as viable solutions to rein in the increasingly lawless federal government in a manner that would not jeopardize the Constitution.

 

The pro-con-con side, led by the group Convention of the States, in addition to furiously lobbying the legislature, has been demonizing opponents of the plan.

 

When not verbally disparaging opponents, many supporters of a con-con suggested that amending the Constitution was urgent, possibly the only remaining hope for reining in a federal government that has grown completely out of control and now threatens the nation itself. Critics, meanwhile,

 

[Draggingtree]

October 26, 2015

Planning for a Convention of the States for Proposing Constitutional Amendments

 

By Rob Natelson

Advocates of a federal balanced budget amendment are closing in on the 34 states necessary to require Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. Other groups, such as the Convention of States project, are working assiduously toward the same goal. If they succeed, it will be a constitutional milestone, and a tribute to the dedication of millions of Americans who recognize that the federal government is sorely in need of reform.

 

Because a convention seems increasingly likely, some state lawmakers have been engaged in advance planning, which is very wise.

 

Less well considered are suggestions to modify traditional voting rules with an unprecedented system that would make it extremely difficult for the convention to actually propose any amendments.

You can learn more about the fruitlessness of manipulating suffrage rules from an analysis by Article V expert David Guldenschuh. @ http://constitution.i2i.org/2015/02/06/trying-to-abolishing-the-convention%e2%80%99s-one-stateone-vote-rule-not-only-would-be-unconstitutional%e2%80%94it-wouldn%e2%80%99t-be-worth-trying/ http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/planning_for_a_convention_for_proposing_constitutional_amendments.html

[Draggingtree]

October 26, 2015

Planning for a Convention of the States for Proposing Constitutional Amendments

By Rob Natelson

Advocates of a federal balanced budget amendment are closing in on the 34 states necessary to require Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. Other groups, such as the Convention of States project, are working assiduously toward the same goal. If they succeed, it will be a constitutional milestone, and a tribute to the dedication of millions of Americans who recognize that the federal government is sorely in need of reform.

 

Because a convention seems increasingly likely, some state lawmakers have been engaged in advance planning, which is very wise.

Less well considered are suggestions to modify traditional voting rules with an unprecedented system that would make it extremely difficult for the convention to actually propose any amendments.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/planning_for_a_convention_for_proposing_constitutional_amendments.html

[Draggingtree]

October 31, 2015

Voting Rules at a Convention of the States

By Rob Natelson

In a recent post, I examined suggestions that a convention of the states for proposing amendments adopt a supermajority rule for proposing any amendment. Most commonly suggested is that the convention replace the traditional “majority of states decides” standard with a two-thirds requirement.

 

I explained that this departure from history was politically unnecessary, would make it very difficult for the convention to propose anything, and likely would destroy the convention’s popular support.

 

This post answers other questions about the issue -- including the possibility of a convention that fails to propose because it chokes on its own rules. No statesman will want to be part of such a convention.

 

In this Q&A I assume the supermajority is two thirds rule?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/voting_rules_at_a_convention_of_the_states_.html