Rescinding the 1899 application of the 26th Texas Legislature to the United States Congress to call an unrestricted convention under Article V of the United States Constitution.
If enacted, HJR123 would formally negate Texas's earlier request to convene a constitutional convention, thus preventing Congress from acting on this application. The implications of this change highlight a significant departure from historical legislative actions and may influence how subsequent discussions evolve regarding constitutional amendments at both the state and national levels. This resolution reflects a shift in view concerning the necessity and risks associated with holding such a convention.
HJR123 is a joint resolution that seeks to rescind the application made over a century ago by the 26th Texas Legislature, which called for an unrestricted convention under Article V of the United States Constitution. This application, originating in 1899, did not impose any limitations on the subject matter of amendments that could be discussed or proposed at such a convention. By this resolution, the current Texas Legislature aims to establish a clear stance against the calling of a general and unlimited Article V convention.
The sentiment surrounding HJR123 appears to align with a cautious approach to constitutional amendments. Proponents of the resolution likely support a more conservative interpretation of the powers afforded by Article V, expressing concerns that an unrestricted convention could lead to unintended consequences. As such, supporters advocate for the security of existing constitutional provisions and the avoidance of potential changes that could arise from a broadly defined convention.
Notable points of contention surrounding HJR123 include differing opinions on the appropriateness of rescinding the initial request for a convention. Some may argue that the historical application retains relevance and that the ability to propose amendments should remain open. Conversely, opponents of an unrestricted convention could highlight the risks involving a lack of control over the topics that such a convention might address, emphasizing the need for a cautious legislative strategy regarding constitutional processes.