Neither Governor Abbott or a President Rubio have any article V authority to intervene in a convention process. How can either of them say they
support the Constitution when the are attempting to circumvent the convention process by putting undue pressure on State legislatures to do something
multiple State houses have opposed because of the inherent danger that a convention threatens. That threat is giving us a constitution that does not
recognize our unalienable rights. One such replacement constitution is, The Constitution for The NewStates of America.
A concern is that a convention can not be limited in its scope as it is Sovereign over and above all State legislatures and Congress. It has the
exclusive right to create any proposed amendments. This means that any alleged petitions with alleged amendments whether subject specific, general
subject matter, or convention restrictive are invalid.
Mr. Sowell would do America a great service should he do a lot more research of the history and opposing views on this all important subject and offer
a widely advertised retraction of his support for a constitutional convention.
Some of that research can be found below.
In considering amendments to the new constitution there was debate on what mode of amending it was more desirable, through Congress’ proposals, or
through a convention. In a letter to George Lee Turberville dated November 2, 1788, James Madison affirmed the general mood as he said, “Having
witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for
the result of a Second.” They wisely chose the through Congress mode.
At Farrand’s Records Volume 2, p. 632 - RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENVENTION, South Carolina delegate Charles Pinckney summed up perfectly the mood
of the convention on a properly applied for Article V Convention when he said, “Nothing but confusion & contrariety could spring from the
experiment. The States will never agree in their plans--- And the Deputies to a second Convention coming together under the discordant impressions of
their Constituents, will never agree.” Pinckney then said, “Conventions are serious things and ought not to be repeated.”
Convention delegates once convened are a Sovereign body superior to the legislatures from the States, and Congress, or any other gathering of the
same. Try as they will, State legislatures and Congress no matter how assembled, do not have any authority to impose rules on a body superior to
themselves by legislation or by a pseudo-superior pseudo-official organization such as the Assembly of State Legislatures (See article link below.).
By Constitutional Article V dictates or the lack there of, that purview is exclusively restricted to the convention itself.
Assembly of State Legislatures Changes Article V Text in Call for "Convention of States"
Article V Convention Used in Attempt to Change Our Constitution (1 of 2)
Article V Convention Used in Attempt to Change Our Constitution (2 of 2)
Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention
The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue
Throughout the Country, those of us who are warning of the dangers of an Article V convention are marginalized, ridiculed, smeared, shut out of
meetings, and barred from speaking in public forums. THIS short essay from the Principled Policy Blog describes what we face every day.