Texas Governor Calls for Constitutional Convention to Assert State’s Rights

| |

greg abbott wikimedia

There’s no doubt that if the federal government actually followed the rules set by the US Constitution, their institutions would be far smaller (and in many cases, nonexistent) and their power would be minimal. But clearly those rules are no longer effective, if they ever were. The history of the United States has been an endless stream of federal overreach and growth. What started as a very small limited government, has ballooned into a bureaucratic, imperialistic, world spanning empire that violates the rights of everyone it touches, at home and abroad.

Which is why plenty of people, mainly on the conservative and libertarian side of the political spectrum, have called for a new constitutional convention. Under Article V of the US Constitution, the legislatures for two-thirds of the states can decide to call for a convention, and propose amendments to the Constitution that could be ratified by three-quarters of the states. It may be the only way that the states can reclaim some of the power that has been taken by the Federal Government.

The latest person to call for an Article V convention, is Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who announced his idea in a speech on Friday.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday revealed his plans for a “convention of the states,” the first in more than 200 years, as part of a larger effort to reshape the U.S. Constitution and expand states’ rights.

“We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape,” Abbott said in a statement followed by a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. “The cure to these problems will not come from Washington, D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way.”

He also released a 70 page document that outlined 9 proposed amendments, each of which is designed to severely curtail federal power.

Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.

Require Congress to balance its budget.

Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.

Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law

Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.

A convention, Abbott wrote, would force the federal government to “take the Constitution seriously again.”

“The only true downside comes from doing nothing and allowing the federal government to continue ignoring the very document that created it,” Abbott wrote.

If this were pulled off (and that’s a very big if) it would curtail the government to a degree that none of us could have ever imagined or hoped for. And honestly, some of these sound like they are merely reaffirmations of what has already been enshrined in the Constitution. The first of his amendment proposals sounds like it would reinstate the original intent of the Commerce Clause, which our government has manipulated and violated into oblivion.

And that brings up an interesting point that Greg Abbott hasn’t considered. What if these exact amendments were added to the Constitution, exactly how they’re presented here? What’s to stop our government from violating them again?

After all, the whole reason why our government is so screwed up in the first place, is because the people within it stopped caring about violating the rules. And they keep violating them because we the people have failed to stop them. Is that really going to stop happening if we pass these amendments, which are merely assertions of laws that have already been broken countless times before?

And in any case, Abbott must know how dangerous a constitutional convention really is. That’s probably why no amendment has ever been passed using Article V. It’s basically a nuclear option for our government’s legal code, and nothing is off the table. There’s no telling what the results could be.

Think about any piece of legislation you’ve ever wanted to see get passed in its original form. It’s extremely rare that it will ever become law without being edited and encumbered with horrible proposals. That’s how our government works, not only because it’s legal, but because the people within it are so thoroughly corrupt.

The people who do that sort of thing aren’t just in Washington DC. They’re present in state legislatures too. Does anyone doubt that if a constitutional convention were called, we would wind up with a government that is 10 times worse than the one we have now?

He has a quite a few good ideas in this latest proposal, but ultimately, a government is only as good as the people we put in it. No constitutional convention can solve that problem. The most obvious solution is to elect people who are ethical, but the American people have been trying to do that for years with no luck (or they’re to dumb and manipulated by the media to recognize real candidates who aren’t corrupt). Unfortunately, there’s a good chance that we have reached the point where our government is beyond repair.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Stewpedaso

    Add an amendment that gives the people a lemon law against elected officials

  • hadabellyfull

    HERE ?HERE GOV ABBOTT!!!!!!hes talkin right………

  • Another Thought Criminal

    A constitutional amendment to reign in a government that doesn’t care about the constitution? What’s the point?

    • There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that confers any power or authority for either a state to assert what already exists, nor for the federal government to override them.

  • Mike

    A constitutional convention will be used to further destroy our rights not help bring them back. There are far to many corporatocrats in office to do something like this.

    • Florencejprice3


      ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      3vbe…….
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOne/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

    • RobertFl

      How so? anything that comes of it still requires 3/4 of the States to ratify it.

      • Mike

        How so? The global elites who control the political class want that to happen because at a convention they can pretty much nullify certain rights like the 1st and 2nd amendment.

        • RobertFl

          Is that the official John Birch Society reply?
          I don’t believe your kabal has that much power. Let them try, it would lead to the revolution. Just because they remove the 2nd doesn’t mean guns disappear over night. And who do think will fight their fight? Not them, not the enlisted.

  • nathaniel haraden

    What good will it do to change laws the government refuses to obey anyway?! Do a little searching for “George Soros Article V Charade.” The con-con is a trojan horse. It breaks open the entire Constitution for revision. Many of the ideas suggested by Texas Gov are good, but none require a con-con.

    • RobertFl

      No it doesn’t. Soros is spreading fear to prevent it from happening.
      An Art5 requires a rather specific wording for the purpose of calling a convention, and the convention can not deviate from that.
      So, if the goal is balanced budget, you can’t later add repeal of the 2nd, doing so invalidates the petition for the convention.

  • doucyet

    I don’t get it………..although perhaps with good intentions writing some new laws that will make the feds follow the laws already written makes no sense, it’s a delay tactic. Take a short cut and enforce current laws!!!

  • NonYo Business

    Excellent. Very well done. Gives me hope.

    • WinstonSmithy

      You really trust any of these lawyer politicians to do the right thing here?

      • NonYo Business

        I trust that any conversation that begins like the one Texas is having will lead eventually to something better for us. At least acknowledging the fact that Washington is out of control is an amazing accomplishment.

    • Unfortunately, it eliminates any hope I had that you might actually have a vestige of a concept about what the Constitution does.

      • NonYo Business

        Lol… K kid. Troll on.

  • WinstonSmithy

    The Constitution is being ignored and “lawyered” out of any meaning. So, let’s have a Con-Con to amend the Constitution to make it clear it shouldn’t be ignored or lawyered out of meaning. Ludicrous.

    • A constitutional convention couldn’t be limited from eliminating all the rights the Constitution currently secures.

      • WinstonSmithy

        Yup, and that’s probably the goal of TPTB.

        • TPTB’s goal has always been to subjugate all of the eaters under its control, and exterminate the useless ones.

  • AllodialTitle

    Hey, Obongo and buddies are bringing in their slim bro’s,,,, now Obongo and pals will probably hand out suitcase nukes to distribute amongst the slims to use against the American infidels….plan on a bunch of major cities becoming burnt out hulls,,,and lots of infidels melting.

    • sunshine

      I’m almost positive this is exactly what’s going to happen. When I lived in Northern VA, we were going down Rt 7 (a major road) and the cops had traffic stopped…to allow HUNDREDS of Muslims to cross the street because their mosque had just gotten out. Also, the Islamic Saudi Academy is in Alexandria VA (I lived right behind it for years) and there’s another one now because the original was too overcrowded! When I worked in a restaurant, all the delivery drivers were Muslim. ALL of them, in all of the stores I worked with and were owned by the company (at least 5, probably more). They are literally infested and i would be astonished if that area doesn’t see a nuke eventually. I’m honestly surprised nothing has happened so far. I went back over the holidays and I saw MAYBE 10 white Americans in the whole area. We have been invaded and are being conquered and nobody seems to notice or care!

      • AllodialTitle

        it’s the ultimate nutjob’s plan all along: destroy as many people as possible, instill as much fear as possible, steal as much as it can : satan’s meat puppets are infesting the Earth for just a few more clicks of the clock

  • Right to the Point

    They “Codify” around the Constitution now. What would change?

  • SP_88

    Absolutely not. A constitutional convention is exactly what the globalists want so they can finish off the republic. They will destroy America anyway unless they are stopped, but to open up the constitution to be completely changed or abolished is just insane. Who knows what we could end up with after all these criminals get their grubby hands all over the constitution. They are all so completely corrupt that I would never ever allow them to have access to changing the constitution. That would be suicide. Our rights and freedoms would never survive a constitutional convention. The government would make a power grab and we would end up being the losers. No thanks.
    Leave the constitution alone. If we don’t have the balls to make the government abide by the constitution now, how will we ever convince them to do the right thing when it comes time to amend it, and how could we ever trust them to make the right amendments on our behalf when we can’t even trust them to pass good laws now? Look at what laws these people are passing now, such as the TTP, TTIP, Obamacare, NDAA, Patriot Act, no-fly no-buy gun control, etc, etc. If this is what kind of laws they are ramming down our throats now, how could we ever trust these criminals with the power to amend the constitution?
    A constitutional convention is not the solution to our problems. We can’t trust these people to make the right decisions now, and if and when the government becomes trustworthy enough to make such decisions, they will be trustworthy enough that we will no longer need to amend the constitution. So leave it alone.

    • AllodialTitle

      Just enforce the secession the South did back in the day when they told puke lawyer Lincoln to shove it

  • Tatiana Covington

    One word: entropy. Four words: second law of thermodynamics.

  • Abbott must be even stupider than Perry, something I would never have thought possible. A constitutional convention would give TPTB more of an opportunity to take away states rights entirely rather than give states a better way to assert them. All that would be required is to direct the sheriffs in the given state to assert the authority that the SCOTUS indicated that they have in their decision in Prinze, Mack v US. Former Arizona Graham county sheriff would be happy to assist any sheriff who would like to acquaint themselves with the powers of a CLEO. All they’d have to do is contact CSPOA.

  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    Since I don’t trust ANYONE in the government, I don’t trust that they’ll strengthen or in any way honor the Constitution. A con-con will leave the door wide open for the usurpers at the state level to finalize the destruction of the Republic.

  • RobertFl

    “It’s basically a nuclear option for our government’s legal code, and
    nothing is off the table. There’s no telling what the results could be.”

    That’s BS. It is not a nuclear option. Anything done at such a convention still requires 3/4 of the States to ratify it. Do you really think 3/4 of these states would ratify something crazy? NO.

  • RobertFl

    No, just repeal the 17th amendment – direct election of Senators. Restore it back to the state legislature and it will take care of itself.

  • Frank

    A Constitutional Convention is unnecessary, and all it would do is open the door for MORE abuse and betrayal of the Founding Fathers’ intentions. The states can assert their rights without a Convention, there are just interests that are pushing this in order to modify a few things to suit their individual wants (greed). Anything that they are saying needs a Convention to be enacted can be done through existing legislative processes – IF THEY WORKED PROPERLY and weren’t corrupted.
    As went the Roman empire, so will go America as a result of “idle mouths” (expansion of the welfare state), economic decline, government corruption, and concessions to the empire’s enemies (Iran, China, Russia).
    Assertion of State’s Rights is akin to what happened in the late Roman empire when states withdrew from central government when their taxes brought no benefit to those paying. Disintegration of the tax base exacerbated destructive social conditions (the number of payers/producers are exceeded by the number of payees/non-producers) and hastened the demise of the empire.