A Texas call for a Constitutional Convention; Good Idea or Bad?

There are two proscribed ways for the U.S. Constitution to be amended. As Article V of the Constitution states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Everyone of the Amendments to the Constitution has been initiated by Congress, and all but one Amendment was ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States. 

However, there have been 12 instances in the history of this nation when the States called for a Constitutional Convention. In every case, the reason for the actions by the States was ultimately resolved by the Congress through legislation.

The Texas State Senate has already passed SJR 1 calling for a Constitutional Convention to propose a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. The Texas State House of Representatives is will now consider a resolution for a Constitutional Convention. The Texas House Committee is scheduled to hear testimony tomorrow, Thurs 3/4/11 at 10:30 AM on SJR 1.

Many conservatives and fellow Tea Party organizations are warning against a Constitutional Convention because of the danger of the Convention going beyond its original purpose and making wholesale changes to our Constitution, including the rewriting of the Bill of Rights.

I do not fear the possibility of a runaway Constitutional Convention for two reasons:

1. In order for any changes to the Constitution, 34 states must call for a CON Con for the same purpose. I cannot imagine that 34 States would agree to anything, but I do believe a movement to call a Constitutional Convention would spur Congress to act.
2. Even if a Constitutional Convention was convened, any changes to the U.S. Constitution would require 38 State Legislatures to agree to those changes.

Specifically, however, SJR 1 is a very loophole ridden piece of legislation. It is written in such a manner, that even if it was in force today, all Bush and Obama administration federal budget deficits would still be allowable. SJR 1 may have a good intention to limit the spending of the Federal Government, but it is an empty shell when it comes to any real impact.

So while I support the Constitutionally authorized Constitutional Convention, a CON Con based on SJR 1 is a bad idea. I would like to encourage you to contact your State Rep to express your opinion on this matter. For those of you in Rowlett, that person is either Joe Driver or Jodie Laubenberg

Rowlett City Council to Discuss Employee Pensions Tonight!

The Rowlett TEA Party identified 5 issues we considered important for our group to be involved in. One of those issues is the unsustainability of the City of Rowlett's pension system for employees. Based on an analysis from the city, Rowlett will be required to nearly double the amount of money that it contributes to employee pension plans. The City Council is meeting tonight to discuss the issue. 

There is a specially called Work Session of the City Council on Monday night, February 28, at the Rowlett City Hall Conference Room, beginning at 6:30pm.   I urge you to attend.  The agenda and packet is attached.

The first agenda item is to consider City Employee Benefits.   The City Manager is offering to change the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) plan for Rowlett by reducing the retirement COLA from 70% to 50% and eliminating the supplemental death benefit.   This will save $129,736 on an annual basis.   It is a good beginning.

However, the proposed reductions do not make any significant impact on the issue of sustainability that is such a severe issue for the City.

These two changes will only reduce the operating budget by $700,000 and then only after five years!   The City CFO estimates a multi-million budget shortage in future years unless dramatic changes are made.  

Also at issue is the timing of approval and implementation of any change to TMRS.  The City Manager wants the City Council to approve changes on March 15.   The City Council agreed to meet on March 19 in an all-day Work Session to consider the operating budget in a comprehensive manner and for multiple years.   No piecemeal decision should be made until that comprehensive review is completed and communicated to the Rowlett taxpayers.  The earliest that an ordinance should be considered is April 5.   

Please plan to attend.   Bring your friends with you.  It is important that the City Council sees and understands citizen interest in this issue and that they will be held accountable for their votes.  This item should be completed by 7:30pm.

I hope you can attend. With 3 Councilmembers up for re-election this year, it is important to show them that the citizens of Rowlett care about the financial future of our city.

GOP opposition to the Patriot Act

Last night, the US Congress voted to extend several provisions of the Patriot Act. The final tally was 275-144. The main argument for renewal of these provisions is clearly a matter of protecting the US against a future terrorist attack. As is commonly said in support of renewal, "If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

Twenty-seven Republicans voted against the renewal of the Patriot Act provisions. One of those Republicans was Tom McClintock's (R-CA). Consider his position on the Patriot Act (beginning at the 1:15 mark):

Strange bedfellows, indeed!

What do Ralph Hall, Jeb Hensarling, and Sam Johnson (all Republican Congressional representatives with a Rowlett constituency) have in common with Barack H. Obama?

They ALL supported the renewal of three provisions of the Patriot Act that failed passage in the House of Representatives earlier this week. The provisions up for renewal give the federal government broad authority for warrantless searches and seizures, including:

• Roving, warrantless wiretaps of virtually EVERY form of electronic communication used by U.S. citizens.
• Secret federal searches without warrants OR knowledge of the resident.
• Blanket warrants for the search and seizure of all library records, without naming individual suspects or providing probable cause.
• Judicial warrants replaced with “National Security Letters” signed by unaccountable Obama Administration bureaucrats and gag orders for those served with these letters which make it illegal to tell anyone about it — including your spouse and your priest!
• Drastic expansion of the definition of “domestic terrorism,” which is sure to include gun owners.
• Expands asset seizure to permit the taking of assets from anyone “suspected” of terrorism, even if that person is NEVER charged or sent to trial.
• Lone wolf provisions which allow the government to spy on ANYONE even if they’re not associated with a terrorist organization or foreign national, without due process or notification. (H/T: National Association of Gun Rights)

Everyone of these provisions is an assault on rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

And then send an email by clicking here.