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

What will we fight for...?

The Texas legislative session begins on January 11, 2011.

I want to start a discussion about which issues the Rowlett TEA Party should get involved by lobbying our state reps, our state senator, and by educating our neighbors.

The key issues I believe we should focus our energy on include:

• School choice. Whether through an expanded charter school program or through educational vouchers, parents should have a choice in where and how their children are educated. And since it is critical to the democratic process for the citizens to be educated, we cannot continue to try and fix a system that is built on achieving mediocrity.
• Voter ID. Although I believe this issue will be fast tracked through the Legislature, it is important for the Rowlett TEA Party to voice its support for Voter ID legislation in order to preserve the integrity of our election process. Nothing is more damaging to a democratic process than a compromised election system.
• Health care. The Texas legislature will consider legislation very similar to voter approved constitutional amendments in many states, including Missouri, Arizona, and Oklahoma that deny the federal government the power to mandate we purchase health insurance. This legislation will be Texas' way to say, "Not in our state!" If there is a more important issue than this to keep the authority of the federal government at bay, I am not aware of it.

Other key issues we should lend our support to include:

• Immigration enforcement. 
• Opting out of Medicaid (through a statewide block grant)
• Redistricting
• Reforming laws that govern municipal pensions to allow cities greater flexibility.

What else? Post your thoughts in the comments. 

The Rowlett TEA Party endorses Rep. Joe Driver for Texas House District 113

The Rowlett Tea Party proudly endorses Joe Driver for the Texas House of Representatives, District 113. We this endorsement very carefully, considering the recent allegation levied against Mr. Driver over his campaign finances, but ultimately, we believe he will represent the interests of Rowlett far better than his opponent.

The 2011 legislative session is vitally important for Rowlett and Garland as it is likely that a two new Congressional seats will be formed in North Texas. Rowlett will have a unique opportunity to be represented by a single representative in Washington, potentially a representative that is more familiar with the unique needs, concerns and interests of our city, rather than three Congressmen, each with only marginal interest in our city. Redistricting is a very important and very difficult process for a freshman representative to navigate successfully, so on this point Mr. Driver's experience will be invaluable.

Also in this session, the Texas legislature will have to take on mandates from Washington to create the necessary infrastructure to support health care reform legislation. We believe that Mr. Driver will be better positioned to help Texas stand up to the federal government's mandates to protect the freedoms of all Texans from an overreaching federal government.

The Rowlett Tea Party includes members and board members familiar with campaign finance law and after thoroughly reviewing the campaign finance irregularities Mr. Driver has been accused of, we have concluded that Mr. Driver's only sin was little more than a bookkeeping error and that he did not "double dip" from state monies, as his opponent and the Dallas Morning News has falsely accused him.

Finally, Mr. Driver is largely in agreement with our core principles both in his rhetoric and his voting record. Ms. Dorris is clearly not.