Hearing Testimony On Convention Of The State

When our Founders placed Art. V in our Constitution, they could not have envisioned the harmful changes in the moral, social, technological, demographic, economic, and public and higher education that have taken place beginning early in the 20th century and rapidly escalating since then.

Why should we believe that adding amendments is a solution when lack of enforcement is the problem?

Besides a Congress which will not enforce the Constitution, let’s look at the three-fold problem that new Amendments will not touch:

  1. Administrative law with all the unelected alphabet bureaucrats imposing punitive regulations on our public and private liberty—the EPA, IRS, ATF, FCC, et al;
  2. A president who ignores the Constitution and Congress and does not respect the Rule of Law; and,
  3. A liberal Judiciary which makes law rather than correctly interpreting the law as intended.

In regard to the Supreme Court, Michael Farris, leader in the Convention of State Project, testified before you on Feb. 26 in favor of a Convention of the States.

He did not share with you his proposal that the Supreme Court should be replaced by a system of “50 justices and have the states appoint the justices for a specific term (six or eight years) with no right of reappointment” that is modelled after the European Court of Human Rights.

Also, beware of the several hundred progressive left-wing organizations pushing for an Art V Convention; among them are:

Excerpts from the following articles of those supporting a COS from the Left Wing:

‘Let’s Give Up on the Constitution’ by Prof.Louis Michael Seidman,, Georgetown University, Published N YT Dec. 30, 2012

“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”

‘Our Imbecilic Constitution’ by Prof. Sanford Levinson, Uuniversity of Texas, Published Hoover Institution Journal June 5, 2012

His argument rests on his distaste for two principles that create gridlock: separation of powers and checks and balances. He writes—“The many obstacles toward legislation, in his view, make it well-nigh impossible to form a coherent national policy To find a cure, Levinson argues, “it is important to take a page from the progressive policies of Woodrow Wilson.”

And finally, How would amendments be ratified? Art. V tells us that ‘ratification may take place by Legislatures of ¾ of the several states, or by Conventions in ¾ thereof as one or other Mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.’

Do we want the Congress to decide that ratification may take place by a Convention rather than the state legislatures?

In light of all these unknowns, let us not blindly, but hopefully, call for a Convention of the States to later learn we made a big mistake. Once Pandora’s box has been opened it will be too late to reconsider.

I respectfully urge this Committee, to prevent Texas from making a big mistake, based on so many unknowns.. Please kill in this committee all legislation calling for an Art. V Convention of the States and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Issues: 
 

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy