It seems Texas isn’t necessarily on board with the federal government, as the Lone Star state’s republican-heavy lawmakers initiated a Convention of States Resolution—the eleventh state to do so.
Resolution supporter and Texas State Representative Rick Miller (R-Sugar Land) said 12, additional states were awaiting Texas next play and would be acting in accordance with cowboy country’s move—North Carolina is amid the dozen. Upon Texas’s House decision, Governor Greg Abbott chimed in on social media:
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) May 4, 2017
[Source: Twitter/Greg Abbott]
Breitbart Texas caught up with Representative Miller. “This passage of SJR 2 (HJR 39) culminated over three years of hard work by 125,000, Texas patriots. I am honored to have carried the House version. This passed resolution now puts Texas on the list of states approving this Article V effort to reign in the federal government. As the framers of the Constitution envisioned, the time is now to send this message to Congress. Many, other states have been waiting on Texas to take the lead in getting this passed. It is a great day for Texas, for Texans and for the United States of America,” Miller proudly explained.
It was February 28th that the Texas Senate enacted the Senate Joint Resolution. Upon Representative Miller throwing in an amendment, Texas’s House and Senate stand in agreement on the resolution. It will move to the Texas Secretary of State and eventually into the lap of President Trump—as well as Congress. While the governor’s John Hancock isn’t mandatory, it’ll go through the motions this very shortly.
Governor Abbott’s official statement: “Today marks an important step toward restraining a runaway, federal government and returning power back to the states and their respective citizens as our Founders intended. The Texas Legislature has heard and responded to the voices of those they represent, and I applaud the efforts of the Texas House to pass this important resolution. A call for a Convention of States reinforces Texas’ status as a champion of limited government and individual freedom, and I want to thank Reps. Rick Miller, Phil King, Drew Darby, Andy Murr, Chris Paddie, Larry Gonzales and Ken King for their work and commitment in passing this resolution.”
[Video: courtesy of Austin American-Statesman]
Governor Abbott’s Convention of States decision stemmed from an assessment that federal government isn’t where it should be. In Abbott’s State of the State address, he determined the legislation backing Article V Convention of States as a crucial move. Law makers and others were present for his words. “For decades, the federal government has grown out of control. It has increasingly abandoned the Constitution, stiff-armed the states and ignored its citizens.”
Convention of States Project Co-Director Tamara Colbert shared her thoughts on the matter. “The passing of the Convention of States resolution, SJR2 is a testament to the power of American citizens armed with the Constitution and a determination. That if we stand together, we can restore the Constitution and state sovereignty. Thank you, Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, for your support and believing that our states are best when the power rests with the people. Passing the COS Resolution is a great day for Texas, as we became the eleventh state to pass.”
Blogger and Texan (Temple) said, “It is appropriate that we passed the resolution on the National Day of prayer.”
Even conservative activists jumped for joy upon their efforts figuratively paying off:
BREAKING NEWS! Moments ago, Texas successfully adopted our Article V legislation! Congratulations, COS Texas warriors!!! pic.twitter.com/N1h8W087Fc
— Convention of States (@COSProject) May 4, 2017
[Source: Twitter/Convention of States]
It was only January 2016 that Governor Abbott was pushing Texas to jump on the Article V Convention train. Abbott’s 100-page “Texas Plan” entails ways to “fix this government run amok” and “returns lawmaking to the process enshrined in the Constitution.” The governor structured the process gradually so “We the People” are enabled to work toward amending the US Constitution—a total of nine amendments in the proposed addendum.
Upon his decree of pushing for the Convention of States, Governor Abbott stressed, “Our government was founded on the rule of law rather than the caprice of man. That rule of law flows from our Constitution. … That Constitutional foundations is now so often ignored that the founders would hardly recognize it. … Until we fix that foundation by restoring the rule of law, all the repairs we seek through the policies you propose will never lead to lasting solutions.” Immediately following his bold words, he went further with accusing the US Supreme Court of dismissing the Constitution.
His “Texas Plan” also proactively pontificates on the possibility of a “runaway convention” with measures in place. As per Governor Abbott’s plan:
“The Constitution also leaves it to the States to limit the scope of the convention itself. In fact, four States already have applied for constitutional conventions that include some portion of the Texas Plan, and all of them limit their applications to specific issues. Likewise, the Texas Legislature can limit its application for a convention—or its participation in a convention—to the specific issues included in the Texas Plan and discussed above. To the extent the convention strayed from those issues, Texas’s consent to the convention’s activities would automatically dissolve. State legislatures could even command in their laws authorizing participation in a convention that the state must vote against any constitutional convention provision not authorized by the state (pg. 67).
Some nonetheless argue that the Constitution does not allow state legislatures to limit the scope of a convention. The critics seize on this argument to raise the specter of a ‘runaway convention,’ in which the States propose a convention to debate limited amendments, but in which the delegates end up throwing the entire Constitution in the trashcan. Even if that happened, none of the delegates’ efforts would become law without approval from three-fourths of the States. But even on its own terms, the criticism lacks merit (p. 67).
It is true that Article V does not expressly authorize States to limit conventions to particular issues—but the problem for would-be critics of the Texas Plan is that Article V also does not require general and open-ended conventions. Indeed, that is by design (pg. 68).”
Presently, two-thirds of the country is needed to assemble a Convention of States—38 states to solidify the effort.