TABOR Comparison Data and Projections: Appendices A, B, C, D
- February 3, 2000

We have everything to gain from a convention of states and nothing to lose. . . We have a moral and legal obligation to employ that constitutional tool before splitting up the country.
READ MORE
These objections are not real. They are excuses made by lazy and cowardly people avoiding their civic responsibility.
READ MORE
Frantic claims that it’s a “constitutional convention” … or that it can issue a new document or “radically re-write” the existing one … or change the ratification procedure—none of these have any legal or historical basis.
READ MORE
The Constitution tells us that the president’s most important tasks are enforcing federal laws, nominating and appointing federal officers and judges, signing and vetoing bills, recommending measures to Congress, commanding the military, and . . . conducting foreign affairs. There is nothing in the job description about health care or pandemics, ending pollution, or fighting “institutional racism.”
READ MORE
“[A]nother mistake is that because an amendments convention executes a federal function, Congress can control it. But . . . the rules and protocols for carrying out federal functions come from the Constitution, not from Congress.”
READ MORE
The new article “marshals a massive amount of historical evidence to show that a convention for proposing amendments is simply a ‘convention of the states,’ a frequent kind of gathering in U.S. history, and one whose make-up and procedures is well known.
READ MORE