Difference between revisions of "STOP ConCon"

From Phyllis Schlafly
Jump to: navigation, search
(fiscal note)
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 
The Texas House enacted Convention of States (HCR77) in 2015 by falsely pretending that there was no fiscal impact of the Con Con.  This is absurd and a fiscal note must be assigned to any Con Con proposal.  The convention itself will cost money for delegates from the state to attend, and if there is any restraint on the federal government as promoters promise, then that will have a fiscal impact also.
 
The Texas House enacted Convention of States (HCR77) in 2015 by falsely pretending that there was no fiscal impact of the Con Con.  This is absurd and a fiscal note must be assigned to any Con Con proposal.  The convention itself will cost money for delegates from the state to attend, and if there is any restraint on the federal government as promoters promise, then that will have a fiscal impact also.
 +
 +
== Applications need to be identical ==
 +
 +
The applications need to be identical to each other, and the Convention of States applications have not been.  A summary of their differences are below:
 +
 +
*Alaska
 +
*Alabama
 +
*Florida
 +
*Georgia
 +
*Indiana
 +
*Louisiana
 +
*Oklahoma
 +
*Tennessee
 +
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==

Revision as of 21:26, 4 June 2016

STOP ConCon is a grassroots movement first organized in May 2016 to stop the Convention of States and other variations on an Article V Convention to change the U.S. Constitution.

A successful constitutional convention would require what existed in 1787, which included:

(1) Framers who loved our country after risking their lives for it against tyranny
(2) secrecy from the media
(3) disinterest by liberals
(4) strong, selfless conservative leadership (George Washington)

None of those conditions exists at this time, when all of those conditions would be essential for success.

The provision in Article V of the Constitution for a constitutional convention is there for the same reason there is an emergency exit on an airplane. It is not to be used unless absolutely necessary to save everyone's life.

If it is simply a matter of people not obeying the current Constitution, then they are not going to abide by a new one either. Worse, a new constitutional convention would open the door to immense liberal mischief to change the quintessential conservative document, our current Constitution.

Helpful three part video summary by Phyllis here: [1]

Contents

Automatically fails when Congress is Democratic-controlled

Under Article V, only Congress can call the convention, after receiving applications from at least 34 states. But for most of the last century, Congress has been controlled by Democrats, which means they would control the call, pick the Chairman of the convention, and dictate its agenda. In other words, the Convention of States would utterly fail to meet its purported goals when fiscal restraint would be most needed, when Democrats are in control of Congress.

Needs a Fiscal Note

The Texas House enacted Convention of States (HCR77) in 2015 by falsely pretending that there was no fiscal impact of the Con Con. This is absurd and a fiscal note must be assigned to any Con Con proposal. The convention itself will cost money for delegates from the state to attend, and if there is any restraint on the federal government as promoters promise, then that will have a fiscal impact also.

Applications need to be identical

The applications need to be identical to each other, and the Convention of States applications have not been. A summary of their differences are below:

  • Alaska
  • Alabama
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Indiana
  • Louisiana
  • Oklahoma
  • Tennessee


See also

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox