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:
- 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.
- 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
