Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states’ rights

[anygunanywhere]

http://www.conventionofstates.com

More information at the link.

[DevilDawg]

Just going to toss this out there as the "Tinfoil Advocate"..

On the face of it, a Convention of States sounds all well and good. We might be able to get our Federal thugs back in control. However, once a Convention is called, ALL of the Constitution and Entire Bill of Rights are up for grabs.

Think about that.

1.) Criminals do not care about laws now, and won't care about any new ones.

2.) Elected Criminals do not care about laws now, and won't care about new ones.

We do not need to risk our Republic and the very Rights we have fought for. We need to force our leadership to enforce the laws on the books. They already have too much power and control as it is.

[anygunanywhere]

The majority of governors and legiatures are republican, and not of the same GOP cut as the Nationals. The state's want change. We want change.

What is the alternative? Wallow in our present muck or change it another way. Please suggest what the other way is, and don't say vote the criminals out because they were all voted into office in the first place.

[wil]

The majority of governors and legiatures are republican, and not of the same GOP cut as the Nationals. The state's want change. We want change.

What is the alternative? Wallow in our present muck or change it another way. Please suggest what the other way is, and don't say vote the criminals out because they were all voted into office in the first place.

Instead of adding more laws, identify where current law has failed or has been perverted away from it's purpose and fix those issues first.

For example: Regulations issued by unelected bureaucracies. These carry the full authority of law yet have not been subject to any constitutional examination via court case, lawsuit, legislative action, anything. They are, unless they are particularly politically noteworthy, simply implemented and an individual is forced to abide by them regardles of the immediate consequences to the individual. Neither are the bureaucrats themselves subject to any public accountability that is within the real ability of the average individual. They are not subject to a public election, attempting to bring them into a courtroom to hold them accountable while in theory may exist. The reality of it is such a thing is beyond the means of the average individual.
The net effect of this is it gives government the power, not the legitimate authority, to change the law literally at whim and to whatever it wants as law without any legal consequence and almost entirely circumvents the appropriate civic institutions and procedures which the public does have access to and impact on, those being primarily legislative bodies subject to public elections and votes.
This situation is causing major problems and is one of the issues which needs to be addressed. What can be done instead of the risks associated with what is being proposed? First it can be done within our current civic institutions without changing them.
Several things: First no regulation will carry any legal effect or carry any authority of any kind unless or until that regulation has been subject to full constitutional examination either by court case, lawsuit, and/or effect on the individual within the constitutional requirements demanded in regards to the rights of the individual.

Secondly unless or until any regulation, current and/or proposed, has undergone this examination no regulation has any authority consequently no individal has any legal obligation to obey or abide by any regulation and no action will be taken against any individual by any means unless or until that regulation has been determined to be proper and appropriate in accordance with the previously mentioned standards.
THERE WILL BE NO ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL BY ANY MEANS, THIS MEANS NO SEIZURES OF ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY OF ANY KIND UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER, ESPECIALLY INCLUDING ANY MONEY OF ANY SORT HELD ANYWHERE BY ANY MEANS OF THAT INDIVIDUAL.

Thirdly any costs involved with any such legal review, courtcase, lawsuit, etc. Will be paid by the budget of the agency responsible for the regulations either current or proposed. THERE WILL BE NO MORE OF FORCING AN INDIVIDUAL TO PAY FOR HIS OWN PROSECUTION VIA TAX DOLLARS IN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT ATTORNIES AND THEN FORCING AN INDIVIDUAL TO PAY FOR HIS OWN DEFENSE OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET. And the individual will have the power to choose his own attorney and that attorney's costs will be paid for via the budget of that agency.
Neither will the deck be stacked against an individual even more so by seizing his bank accounts or otherwise laying seige against an individual economically in an effort to force the individual to capitulate simply because they don't have the means to stand up for thier rights.
It is a hard truth of our legal system nowadays, you really have only what rights and protections under the law you can afford to pay an attorney for. You don't have the means, you don't have the protections on a practical basis.
Try taking on a government agency over regulations and you'll find this to be the truth.

Fourthly institute a limit on government actions in regards to courtroom actions in terms of appeals and so forth.
It is too easy or there are too many, for a lack of a better term, loopholes within the law which allow a government agency to drag things along for years in the courtroom. "grind em down and wear em out" as the adage goes and there's examples galore of this going on. That needs to stop. There is an expressed right to a speedy trial called out for in the constitution. I don't see why not only does that apply to not being held indefinitely but also applies to the adage of 'grind em down and wear em out" in terms of using insanely long and/or delaying tactics in court as a weapon against the individual. I'm not an attorney so I don't know if the right to speedy trial would legally apply to the idea of making changes in regards to years in court could be changed, Mr Cotton would know about this. However approaching it from a standpoint of common-sense based on observations, it seems to fit and is a change which is sorely needed.

This is just regulations alone, all of the above can be accomplished right now through our civic institutions and civic procedures without a single change to any of those. And these changes would produce a very dramatic improvement in a great many area which are desperate for such improvements.

To shorten this up a bit, substitute the word "laws" for "regulations" and apply the rest the same way, that would also produce a very dramatic improvement in areas where it is sorely needed.

There's two areas which I'd offer as an alternative to what is being proposed and can be accomplished now with no changes within our current civic institutions. Along with that, even if this convention makes laws, how does that address the current issue? What is the enforcement mechanism? A major part of the problem is government flouting the law with no consequence or using the law almost literally as a weapon against the individual despite the fact there are consequences spelled out within the law and government not facing those consequences.
Current law is not being abided by at the hand of our civic institutions despite there being supposed mechanisms within the law to force government to do so. So how is more of the same going to accomplish what current law has failed to do, such as the examples I gave?

On a somewhat different note: I read some of Mark Levines proposals in regards to this and one of them I desperately wish could be implemented, making the day you pay your taxes be the day before election day. I personally would make it election day and no more witholding out of your check. You write the check for the entire amount at one time and no early paying it, you go down to your friendly tax office with that check, and then you get to go vote for the politician who is piously spouting off about "we need to do this, we need to do that" and your ass gets to write that check to pay for it.....We'll see how people vote under those circumstances.....
Again this change requires no immediate changes to our civic institions or basic law, it can be done through the current civic status-quo.

[DevilDawg]

The majority of governors and legiatures are republican, and not of the same GOP cut as the Nationals. The state's want change. We want change.

What is the alternative? Wallow in our present muck or change it another way. Please suggest what the other way is, and don't say vote the criminals out because they were all voted into office in the first place.

Because the left and the right are both wings of the same bird. Keep in mind bad decisions like the Hughes Ammendment/FOPA are the reason we simply cannot trust elected officials to gather with unlimited power over our rights. I will freely admit our Governor and several others have the best of intentions, but I don't trust them with my rights. If that means I need more tin foil then so be it. Change, one magazine at a time.

[karder]

I am certainly proud of Governor Abbott. A convention of the states is the only option that we have left at this point. Electing a conservative president, while very important, can do little to stop this behemoth of a federal government. Many of my friends worry that we will have a runaway convention, but the truth is that there is a constitutional convention going on right now, every time the Supreme Court meets. The Court has determined that there is a Constitutional right to abortion, and to gay marriage. If we get one more liberal justice on the Court they will decide that the 2nd amendment does not actually mean what it says. This was never the intention of our framers, to have so much power in the hands of so few.

Today we live in a post constitutional era. Instead of Congress writing law, they spend most of their time stuck in a quagmire, while we are subject to thousands of laws being written by the bureaucracy of government departments and the judiciary who are not accountable to the people. The only thing both parties can agree on is more spending which the taxpayer is on the hook for (the nation is bankrupt by the way).

The purpose of a convention of states, is not to "change" the Constitution, but to shift power away from the Federal Government, the bureaucracy and the courts, and put it in the hands of the states and local governments which are more directly accountable to their local voters. This should be a bi-partisan issue, but the power brokers of both parties are going to fight. If you have any doubts about the value of a convention, just look how angry liberals get over the notion. The only reason anyone, liberal or conservative, should be against a convention at this point is because they believe in the value of a big, centralized government.

I think that We the People are going to win on this. I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in this movement read "The Liberty Amendments" by Mark Levin. It lays out a powerful argument for the convention.