Constitutional Convention Obtusely Misses The Point

Sometimes another post pushes a button for a further discussion. Shirley Spellerberg is 100% right about avoiding a constitutional convention. That interest raises a broader question. Do we mistakenly think new federal laws pose solutions and that our Constitution was inadequate, and not just our custodianship of it? Consider that, though I think the border and the integrity of our law must be meticulously tended, I don’t take so simple a posture as to only advocate for an actual or virtual border wall and mass-deportation, and have taken arrows for it on this forum. I think America needs integrity in our law. But I also think that to survive, America desperately needs immigrants who can embrace fading American ideals; and Hispanics are the nearest possible source, both culturally and geographically.

But I opposed the immigration bill posed by G.W. Bush and John McCain among others, precisely BECAUSE it contained the sort of frivolous idea that a ConCon does: Though it became identified as an “amnesty” bill, that proposal actually proposed to control the border. But in doing so, it essentially said, “We haven’t enforced the law up to now, but we will if you pass THIS law…” Yeah right: Pull the other one. And a Constitutional Convention says, “Let’s throw open and change The Constitution for the sake of politicians in Washington who HAVE NEVER BEEN RESTRAINED By THE CONSTITUTION!” DUUUHH! Exibit A (though there are far more than 26 cases of federal defiance of The Constitution): ObamaCare.

We should enforce the law as it is, and there is provision for amending The Constitution. But we should respect The Constitution AS IT IS, and that means getting off our tails and taking action, not merely changing the documentation. And that may and does require that the people and other government agencies INSIST on respect for The Constitution, whether Washington D.C. does or not. Federal constitutional misbehavior must be nullified and ignored by anyone who has sworn an oath to The Constitution. There are no legislative shortcuts.



I keep wondering one particular point about the discussion regarding an Article V Convention. How can one urge the Constitution be supported, then urge it not be? This is the position that is urged by opponents to a convention. Of course, people like Mrs. Spellerberg always fails to mention one key, critical piece of information--that enough states have submitted enough applications TO REQUIRE an Article V Convention call. She would still have people believe the convention is still open to debate as to whether it is called. In this respect, she does not tell the truth. For to withhold the truth is no different than not telling it in the first place. You can read the over 700 applications from 49 states at

Now, put this fact into your equations and justifications for not holding a convention. The states have applied. The Constitution states there must be a convention. Therefore, by the argument of those against it, WE MUST VETO THE CONSTITUTION AND REFUSE TO OBEY IT. Thus, we help preserve it and obey it "as is" by not doing what it says? Isn't that the exact same thing the conservatives are saying the government is already doing. So, in fact, isn't the argument made such opponents that those who support the Constitution should join those who do not?

Gives one something to think about when all the facts are in place. Also, you might want to read the FAQ pages on the FOAVC website. Much of Mrs. Spellerberg's other information and basis of argument is incorrect. 

Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.


© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy