Texas Governor Calls For Constitutional Convention To "Wrest Power" From Obama

Tyler Durden's picture

When it comes to Texas' relationship with the Federal government, the word "rocky" comes to mind. And nobody embodies said rockiness better than Texas governor Greg Abbott, who recently made headlines after announcing that irrelevant of D.C.'s demands, Texas would refuse to accept any Syrian refugees.

This followed his announcement earlier this summer 2015 when fears over nebulous Federal intentions with operation "Jade Helm" were running high, that "to address concerns that Texas citizens and to ensure that Texas communities remain safe, secure, and informed about military procedures occurring in their vicinity, I am directing the state guard to monitor Operation Jade Helm 15."

Prior to this, Abbott was again in the news back in June when he signed a bill into law that would allow Texas to build a gold and silver bullion depository, which would allow Texas to repatriate $1 billion worth of bullion from the New York Fed to the new facility once completed.

In short: the Federal government and the state of Texas have been on collision course of many months, one which culminated on Friday when Abbott called for a Constitutional Convention of states, spearheaded by Texas, and which would amend the U.S. Constitution to wrest power from a federal government "run amok."

To achieve that, Abbott proposed nine amendments to "restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose."

“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said, cited by the Dallas News, during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience. He said he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States.

According to the Hill, Abbott said that "the increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” said Abbott in a statement. We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way.”

Along with the speech, Abbott released a nearly 70-page plan – part American civics lesson, part anti-Obama diatribe – detailing nine proposed constitutional amendments that he said "would unravel the federal government’s decades-long power grab and restore authority over economic regulation and other matters to the states."

"The irony for our generation is that the threat to our Republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes, in part, from our very own leaders," Abbott said in a speech that took aim at President Obama, Congress and the judicial branch.

Abbott's nine proposed amendments are:

  • Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
  • Require Congress to balance its budget.
  • Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
  • Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
  • Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
  • Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
  • Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.

For those unfamiliar, a Constitutional Convention is one of two ways that the U.S. Constitution can be amended, and it’s described in Article V. One way is that Congress can propose amendments approved by two-thirds of the members of both chambers. The other method allows two-thirds of the state legislatures to call for a convention to propose amendments. Republicans backing the idea are confident that because they control state government in a majority of states, their ideas would prevail.

In both cases, the amendments become effective only if ratified by three-fourths of the states. Indicatively, of the 27 times the Constitution has been amended, none was generated by a constitutional convention.

Abbott is not the first to propose a convention: the idea has been gaining traction among some among conservative Republicans, comes just as the GOP presidential candidates begin to make forays into Texas ahead of the March primary election. The state, with 155 delegates up for grabs, will certainly be a key player in the party’s nominating process.

Earlier this week presidential contender Marco Rubio published a piece in USA Today endorsing the idea of a convention to amend the Constitution and restore limited government. In April, 27 active petitions had been filed with Congress seeking a convention to amend the constitution to require that Congress adopt a balanced budget.

Congress would be forced to act once 34 states joined the effort. So far, Cruz hasn’t endorsed the idea.

A convention, Abbott wrote, would force the federal government to “take the Constitution seriously again... The only true downside comes from doing nothing and allowing the federal government to continue ignoring the very document that created it,” Abbott wrote.

To be sure many conservatives agree with Abbott's posture that the only way to limit the powers of the Federal government is to resuscitate state power .

Of course, whereas Republicans are seeking to limit the role and power of government, Democrats demand just the opposite, and were quick to denounce Abbott’s plan Friday, saying the governor has misplaced priorities.

“America added 292,000 new jobs in December. But under Abbott, Texas fell to sixth in job creation, remains the uninsured capitol of the nation, wages and incomes remain far too low for hardworking families, our neighborhood schools are still underfunded, and college education is slipping out of reach,” Texas Democratic Party Deputy Executive Director Manny Garcia said in a statement. “Texas families deserve serious solutions, not Tea Party nonsense.”

What Manny Garcia did not add is that while oil was above $100, Texas was the state that had generated the most jobs under the Obama administration, and if it hadn't been for the Kerry-Saudi Arabia secret meetings which put into play the collapse in the price of oil, meant to cripple Russia but crushing US shale instead, Texas would continue to create record numbers of jobs.

However, since this is high politics, facts be damned, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas issued a statement with similar sentiment. “Governor Abbott, as Texans, we prefer the Framers’ plan. Don’t mess with the Constitution,” said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas.

A small but vocal Republican minority has also opined against the idea of a constitutional convention: last year, House legislators filed measures calling for such a convention. Texas senator Craig Estes unleashed a screed against the proposal when it came before the Senate State Affairs Committee in May. He compared the idea to “a petulant teenager who’s lost a few basketball games and plans to burn down the gymnasium.”

“The constitution has served us well for over 200 years. The problem is not the constitution,” Estes said, adding that the solution is to elect more conservative lawmakers. “Slap a bumper sticker for Ted Cruz on your car and get after it and knock yourself out.”

Estes went on to promise a filibuster if the measure came to the Senate floor.

Whether Abbott's proposal will gain steam and ultimately succeed is unknown, but it is virtually certain that the more the Obama administration governs via executive orders and other means to bypass the Legislative and short circuit the US government, the more powerful the grass-roots response at the state level will be, until eventually there is enough anger at the dysfunctional U.S. government at the 34 required states to do precisely as the Texan wants... that, or Trump is voted into the Oval Office as a protest against everything that is broken with the current political status quo.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
besnook's picture

does this mean jade helm is about to go live?

bamawatson's picture

i saw them live at the ampitheater in mid 60's

Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Did they open for Mott The Hoople?

stacking12321's picture

this all sounds well and good, but what does balancing the budget really mean?

the us is a bankrupt nation - is the gentleman from texas suggesting that the usa be honest and openly declare bankruptcy?

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Those amendments are a good start, but fail to address corruption. Swap out elections for sortition. One year terms. Make bribery of a public official a capital offense for both parties.

Chupacabra-322's picture


Could you please STOP using the word "Corruption?" It's beyond that. It's open in your face Criminality. Period.

Atlas_shrugging's picture

"A small but vocal Republican minority has also opined against the idea of a constitutional convention".   Tough shit boys!   The beautiful thing about Article V is the Convention of States bypasses the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches completely.  Congress can (and will) hate it all they want... we can only hope it passes enough State legislatures to become reality. http://www.conventionofstates.com

WordSmith2013's picture
The Lone Star state has plotted a course and there's no looking back as the headline says.

!   !   !

Texas Rebels Against Federal Tyranny, Set to Leave the Reservation, Secession Now a Forgone Decision



Wulfkind's picture

Texas Rebels Against Federal Tyranny, Set to Leave the Reservation, Secession Now a Forgone Decision




juangrande's picture

Where was this fucker when W. ( and his overlords) was doing his satanic dance on the Constitution??? "The nigga did it!!!!"

Wulfkind's picture

Exact-a-mundo !!

Not giving the Magic Negro any kind of pass here.....but for fuck's sake.....can a Republican anytime, anywhere, bring up a Constitutional Convention when there is a REPUBLICAN in office ?   It's like overlooking the fact that your wife is getting laid by a couple of hundred Republicans a night and suddenly the NEGRO comes along and ****SHAZAM**** you realize NOW she's got an issue.

wee-weed up's picture



A Constutional Convention will NEVER happen...

The US Shadow Gov't would feel MUCH too threatened...

And would undermine any possibility of it ever happening....

Unfortunately, the country as it currently exists, is lost...

It will take "other solutions" to save it.

August's picture

The prevalent ZH attitude seems to be either:  1) it's a bad idea, or 2) it will never be allowed to happen.

I won't be putting tons of money or time into supporting such a convention, but it may well be the last shot the USA has at significant, but non-violent, change.

So, yeah, what the Hell... could a covention really lead to anything worse than what we have now?

conscious being's picture

Better late than never. How about a sound money ammendment? Oh, that's already in the original document?

CheapBastard's picture

Guv Abbott is The Man! He was great as Texas' AG and when he was on the Texas Surpeme Court. He is making a very good strong guvnor who refuses to take shit from Barry or the feds in Congress who want to usurp States' rights.

conscious being's picture

Maybe he should revoke amendments that were never ratified. Bankster initiated amendments like the 16th that started the IRS.

WakeUpPeeeeeople's picture

Would a convention of sort have saved the Roman empire? I suspect not. Too bad it wasn't the Roman people that grew a pair and invented the guillotine instead of the French. That might have changed history.

Element's picture

"What would Trump do?"  VP running mate maybe?

mkkby's picture

He left out the most important one, THE RIGHT TO SECEDE PEACEFULLY.

I call bullshit.  He is just attacking the kenyan nigger.  If the red team was in the WH he would WANT MORE federal power, not less.

Amendment X's picture

Exactly, as long as there are humans, no system will be free of corruption one way or another. Any direction we go will be rife with risks, just as the American revolution of the 1770's was an enormous risk. Continuing down this path electing a few new representatives with an "R" after their name is not the answer. Washington cannot be fixed from the inside. We must go far beyond that. Why do we need 50 states? Eliminate HI,WA,OR,CA,ME,NH,VT,MA,CT,RI,NY,NJ,PA,MD,DE,DC. Yes we can fix places like Detroit, Chicago, S.FL once we eliminate a majority of the idiots controlled from DC. Perhaps we have a shot at adopting a better constitution as our governor is recommending. Need to add: Any paid lobbying activity will be prohibited.  

macholatte's picture

and what sorts of things will be taken into consideration at the convention:

Amendment #28 - Gay Rights are superior to the right of others

Amendment #29 - Anybody can get an abortion at any time

Amendment #30 - Sharia Law can be imposed when there is a majority vote for it.

Amendment #31 - Amendment #2 is repealed

Amendment #32 - Presiedent can crown himself King and never have to run for election if he's a Progressive.

Amendment #33 - Senators and Congressmen never have to run for reelection again and can take bribes and never pay any taxes

Amendment #34 -  Freedom of the Press means whatever Mark Zuckerberg wants it to mean.

Amendment #35 - Michael Savage and Alex Jones are banned fom planet earth.

Amendment #36 - Minimum wage is zero.

Amendment #37 - Amendment 10 is repealed


etc. etc.

FreeMoney's picture

No kidding.  There no knowing what sort of shit would come up.

conscious being's picture

The track we're on blows donkeys. Time to take different path. Any fork will do.

The Wizard's picture

I would do a bit more research on the dangers of a Constitutional Convention.

Constitutional conventions in the Union states are only required when the proposal is to delete an existing provision (like the repeal of prohibition). Of course a
state convention can be convened at any time for any reason. State conventions can call for a new national convention to rewrite the entire constitution.
Congress and the requisite number of state legislatures can add any damn thing they want to the constitution but they can't repeal any existing provision.
This can and has led to conflicting provisions but the supreme count has come down on the side of the most recently enacted provision is the stronger.
This is most unfortunate because it gives congress and the state legislatures the power to nullify any existing provision without the need for state
conventions to ratify changes.
The good thing is NO public officer who has taken an oath to support and preserve the constitution (pursuant
to Art. VI, Clause 3) can serve as a delegate to either a state or national convention (i.e. NO politicians allowed).

http://targetfreedo m.typepad. com/targetfreedo m/2009/02/ constitutional- convention. html

The Constitutional convention is a conspiracy to destroy our republic: nothing more and nothing less.

The real question about Constitutional Convention is this:

Do we need to give the power to write a new constitution to the very people who have been ignoring, usurping, and trying to destroy the constitution that we have now?

The video below is made specifically for state legislators, by a state legislator.

Constitutional Convention is explained.  

Beware Article V

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=za8_pdJ1dPo&feature=channel_ page

Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)

http://youtube. com:80/watch? v=za8_pdJ1dPo 

Beware Article V (part 2 of 4)

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=flHJrcdfbBg&feature=related

Beware Article V (part 3 of 4)

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=ly1Lh3bqtYM&feature=related

Beware Article V (part 4 of 4)

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=Z5jKAlgvCgg&feature=related 

A Constitutional Convention is not a procedure for making a small change.

A Constitutional Convention is not a procedure for enforcing an existing law.

A Constitutional Convention is a procedure for giving us an ENTIRELY NEW Constitution.

THERE IS NO WAY TO "LIMIT" a Constitutional Convention TO ONE ISSUE.

If you want one amendment, then you present an amendment.

You do not put the ENTIRE Constitution at risk for one amendment.

The only reason that Constitutional Convention is being promoted as the solution TO JUST ONE problem, is that the hidden agenda would be considered to be outrageous.

If government ignores the constitution and usurps power now, what would we have if they could write a new constitution? 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "for a balanced budget". THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to return power to the states."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to stop illegal aliens."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to restore the right to keep and bear arms".

THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a Constitutional Convention "to limit terms".


greenskeeper carl's picture

This is a fucking terrible idea. No way in hell the government wouldn't end up granting itself more power at our expense. These people routinely sell us out, a constitutional convention would be no different. This would result in less freedom and a bigger government.

And what fucking good would more amendments do? The idea that this would change anything is laughable and I'm surprised so many on here are so naive. They don't follow the bill of rights now, and the wording could not be more clear. Even if this guy got his way and went about it honestly, why won't these new ones just be ignored like the current ones are now?

crossroaddemon's picture

This is why any revolution is doomed to fail. The entrenched interets are simply too powerful, and they will coopt anything you try. Revolution? Fuck that... the leaders will be bought and if they can't be they'll be killed and replaced with those who can. Any constitutional convention will be subverted by the big money, guaranteed. 

Worse, the governor of Texas knows all this. He's just playing ot his base.

Besides, who wants a constition? It's a document legitimizing power. Into the fire with it.

Wulfkind's picture

That's exactly right.  Burn the Constitution.  It was Federalist piece of toilet paper anyway.

Bring back the Articles of Confederation.

crossroaddemon's picture

Nope. A state is still way too big. Big systems == tyranny. 

The Wizard's picture

1000 +. Most of the people on this board don't know the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1789 which subverted state's rights with the commerce clause.

Spaceman Spiff's picture

I'm all for these amendments and more, but this process is arduous.  Second way to amend the constitution has never happened before.  Only thing a convention of the states should address is a third way to amend the constitution and a second way to impeach federal officials.

1)  Third way to amend constitution amendment:  3/4's of governors agree on language for future amendments at a yearly convention, 3/5's of States have to ratify

2)  3/4's of governors can impeach and remove ANY federal official for any constitutional violation they deem worthy


Convention of the states process is like herding cats.  Getting the governors to bang out the language would expedite things just enough to make it a viable alternative.

yrad's picture

Fuck it. HH for President.

And God Bless Texas. We have sposered some seriously deranged mother fuckers but we are the best friend you will ever have.

All you liberal ZH trolls drop to you knees and confusingly beg for forgiveness for the Liberty you so undeservingly receive.

You're welcome.


Davilis's picture

It's a pretty simple concept: don't spend more than you make. The debt would still be there, but it wouldn't get worse.

I would appreciate a simple step like an audit and proper accounting at the DoD. Can you believe these guys can't even tell us how the money is spent? I say 20% yearly budget reductions until they figure it out!

cheeseheader's picture

With ya bud.   Trump should slash 20% the first fiscal year, then 10% in each of the next three years. 


Short DC real estate...AND ex congresscritters now employed as lobbyists.


Throw the bums out!

nmewn's picture

The debt "requires" interest payments...from either random printing of currency (the devaluation of currency & labor) or increased taxation.

The odious debt must be eliminated and the criminals who still draw their salaries & pensions who ran up the national credit card held in jail awaiting their first court appearance.

THEN (and only then) can we get back to being something resembling a Republic and respecting "the rule of law".

Or...we can legalize check kiting and credit card fraud, either way, I just sorta gotta know which way we're goin here ;-)

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

2.3 trillion that Rabbi Dov Zakheim was responsible for (just before 911) and another 5.2 trillion that noone seems to want to talk about.

It's all odious debt anyhow and should just be repudiated.

Wulfkind's picture

Did they open for Mott The Hoople?


(snap fingers)......Right.   Now I remember.  Jade Helm.  LOooove those guys.  What an epic song they did.  "In-A-Godda-Da-Vida".   Righteous man.....and.....and......hmmmm.......

......you know what......I may be wrong about that one.  I was so stoned at the time.

Wulfkind's picture

*** ahem *** .......   I know.

Sorry......should have used this at the end of my post.       /sarc

I keep forgetting the reading skills by many on ZeroHedge are lacking.  Bless their little hearts....they can't help the fact that their parents sent them to Government Schools.

Buster Cherry's picture

And yet we find you here......

NOTW777's picture

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

SWRichmond's picture


Anyone who has honestly read any signigifcant amount of Constitutional history knows that the Constitution already expressly prohibits most of what current fed dot gov does.  No paper can restrain the sociopaths, they must be forcibly purged periodically.

A convention, once called, cannot be restrained.  Ask Patrick Henry, who refused to attend the Phildelphia Convention becuase he said he "smelt a rat".  That Convention was called only to modify the Articles of Confederation, and soon they found themselves writing an entirely new document.  You weren't taught that in history class, I know.

When Virginia debated the state's ratification of the Constitution, George Mason had this to say (4 June)

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments.

chubbar's picture

Exactly the problem. Open the door to a complete constitutional rewrite and I think we get screwed.

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

Total agreement with you and SW.

Question: If the Fed Govt. doesn't follow the constitution now, only an IDIOT would expect it to follow another one!

JLee2027's picture

Of course. A Convention of the States would be forced to form an entirely new Government and start a civil war to enforce it.

August's picture

You're already screwed.

nmewn's picture

"A convention, once called, cannot be restrained."

That is the great danger.

How would everyone feel if "the product" of the convention went something like "A well armed military being necessary for..." or "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects unless a Presidential appointee says...."

It could be quite different ;-)

JLee2027's picture

The whole purpose of Article V is a failsafe against a runaway Federal Government. And now there is nervousness at using this solution?

How worse can it possibly get people? We have the Government spying, murdering, stealing with impunity. The next step is re-education camps.