Texas Constitutional Convention Updates

Summary of 6 July 1997 Meeting

Rough Notes from same meeting

The Texas constitutional convention was reconvened and called to order at 9:12 am on July 6, 1997; let the record show that the Chair noted a quorum was present. For the record, the following delegates were present: Mr. Lowe, Mr. Kesterson, Mrs. Lowe, Mr. Wanjura, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Angwin, Mr. Erickson, Mr. Childress, Mrs Childress, Mr. Holt, Mr. Burnett, Mr. Gamble, Mr. Sudbury, Mr. Benjiman Angwin, Mr. Falzitto, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Cloyce Williams, Mr. Doreck, Mr. Henson. Mr. Barnett and Mr. Sanders arrived late to the morning meeting, and Mr. Scales arrived in time for the afternoon meeting. Mr. Childress, Mrs. Childress, and Mr. Erickson were unable to remain for the afternoon meeting. Mr. Dick Williams, Mr. Pool, and Mrs. Pool had left the day previously.

The Chair stated that the minutes of the preceding session should be read at the beginning of each subsequent session, and that the Chair would prefer to dispense with that item for the present session, with the understanding that the minutes must be approved at the next regularly scheduled session of the convention.

Mrs. Childress presented the Treasurer's report, stating that she had received from Don Henson $153.50, which was the amount remaining from the treasury of the Texas Constitutional Convention Coordinating Committee, $60.00 in donations, and $3.50 from the cup downstairs, for a total of $217.00, less the rental on the Sherwood facilities for two days. Mr. Lowe suggested that the delegates should chip in and pay for the building rent, as they are each individually responsible and should contribute. Mr. Angwin mentioned that the convention would need a place to convene for the next session. The Chair stated that about $5 per delegate would be appropriate. Mr. Hamilton donated $100 to pay for the remaining rental on the facilities in Sherwood. Mr. Wanjura stated that one of the purposes of the treasurer's office is to handle the issue of collecting and disbursing funds. Mr. Cloyce Williams asked whether, if we have a continuing session, the policy toward absentees would change. Mr. Burnett expressed his preference for considering sequential meeting days as one session. Mr. Wanjura as parliamentarian stated that it would be in order to adjourn a session, while not adjourning a convention.

Mr. Wanjura asked to address the body, and stated that one of our visitors, Mr. Jimm Johnson, traveled many mile from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and had a lot of good ideas which would benefit the delegates in session. Mr. Wanjura requested that Mr. Johnson be allowed to speak, not as a delegate, but for purposes of his valuable input, and should further that this could be done by consensus rather than by motion. Mr. Burnett agreed that Mr. Johnson should be seated with the delegates, so that his voice could be heard. Mr. Sudbury disagreed, as he felt that during formal session the floor should only be open to delegates. Mr. Cloyce Williams felt that Mr. Johnson's thoughts should be heard, and that we were not above accepting any assistance. Mr. Hamilton stated that this convention was not sanctioned by any government. Mr. Holt asked whether a delegate could yield the floor to a non-delegate during formal discussion. Mr. Wanjura as parliamentarian answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Johnson was asked to address the assembly, and stated that he was 28 years of age, unmarried, had come from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and was very interested in the issue of freedom. He had learned about the efforts of the Republic of Texas to secure sovereignty for their people and wanted to be involved. Mr. Erickson said that since the convention could allow expert witnesses to share the floor through a delegate's yielding the floor, it seemed unnecessary to do anything special in Mr. Johnson's case, and he felt that setting this precedent could open the door to problems in other cases. Mr. Angwin expressed his support for Mr. Johnson's being allowed to speak but not to vote, as he had known Johnson via the Internet for some time; he felt that if problems arose in the future, the delegates could handle those situations. Mr. Kesterson stated that he saw no danger to having Mr. Johnson speak, and that the worst that could happen would be that he might slow the delegates down, and that did not appear to be an issue. Mr. Falzitto declared that Mr. Johnson's desire to assist the republic of Texas removed all objections. Mr. Cloyce Williams reminded the assembly that in 1836 the fledgling nation of Texas had been glad of the citizens from other countries who came and died for Texas independence. Mr. Duncan stated that the consensus seemed to be that we accept Mr. Johnson's input, to which the Chair agreed. Mr. Wanjura stated that as a matter of record, the convention should take a vote of consensus. Mr. Gamble agreed, stating that if Mr. Johnson came that far, he obviously had something good to say. Mr. Benjiman Angwin suggested that the delegates needed all the help they could get. A vote of consensus passed with one no vote, and Mr. Johnson was seated at the table as a non-voting contributor.

Mr. Lowe congratulated the delegates on having proceed to this point, having learned much about how to conduct convention business, but he expressed concern that some issues were still being overlooked, that courtesy was still necessary to conduct business in an orderly fashion, that the delegates needed to speak loudly and clearly and refrain from conducting private conversations in the convention hall while a delegate was speaking. Mr. Wanjura reminded the delegates that they had agreed Friday to wait until Sunday to close seating members of this body. He asked if it would now be proper on the record to seat those who had properly filed affidavits as delegates but were not present. The Chair stated that such action would not appropriate, due to the previous day's motion to have the secretary of the convention contact them and determine their intentions.

Mr. Hamilton moved to issue a public rebuttal concerning the constitutional committee's (sic) affiliation printed by the news media (re San Angelo Times, Sunday edition, 7/5/97). Mr. Wanjura stated that this would not be appropriate. Mr. Erickson said that would properly be the work of the public relations committee. Mr. Childress repeated that opinion. Mr. Hamilton expressed concern that the public view had been negative, and that the convention must not allow negative press to influence the thinking of those not present, but must address the issue up front, as he wanted the convention to have no apparent ties to the Fort Davis situation. Mr. Sudbury said that the delegates needed to concentrate on the issues before the convention and move forward. Mr. Wanjura said that Mr. Hamilton had many times repeated this concern to several people but those to whom he refers had some small experience with the media; while Mr. Wanjura understood his concerns, he felt that the convention had more important things with which to deal. Mr. Duncan stated that the proposal should not be considered just petty bickering, but that he thought it important in official documents and press releases that we hold to the high ground and clearly identify ourselves as an independent effort. Mr. Angwin talked about working at leaving a good impression as citizens of the Republic of Texas, not being argumentative but extraordinarily polite and friendly, so that we could make friends rather than enemies of people to gain their support for an independent nation. Mr. Falzitto suggested that we not sell ourselves short, as many people in San Angelo were in favor of the position taken by the Republic of Texas; while they may not attend meetings, they were still supportive, and he had begun a letter-writing campaign to support the republic. Mr. Hamilton stated that he supports the republic, but felt that this body must be separate of any governmental or political movement, that the convention was not political in nature and must be neutral. Mr. Childress asked whether this was a motion, since no second had been recorded. Mr. Wanjura stated that the delegates had chosen people to take care of public relations and wanted to know why we were discussing it further. Mr. Hamilton moved as recorded above, and Mr. Childress seconded the motion. Mrs. Lowe stated that it was incorrect to say that a constitutional convention was not political in nature. There was a friendly amendment offered to have the public relations committee handle the issue, which Mr. Hamilton accepted. Mr. Angwin called the question. Another friendly amendment by Mr. Duncan to change the word rebuttal to statement, was also accepted by Mr. Hamilton. After some discussion over the wording as written, the secretary read the motion as amended. The motion was defeated, with two yea votes recorded.

The Chair stated that he would proceed to deal with motions submitted on the previous day. Mr. Sudbury moved that 23 seats for delegates be left open on a first come, first serve basis, and after the 23rd seat is filled, delegation to the Texas constitutional convention be forever closed. The motion failed for lack of second. Mr. Hamilton proffered his resignation verbally, stating that he felt the effort was doomed to failure, and left the convention hall. The Chair for a vote as to whether to accept his resignation as given. After some discussion among the delegates, the vote passed, with two no votes recorded.

Mr. Wanjura as a point of order stated that when a delegate resigns, no reason is required, and the members of the body must accept the resignation before that seat can be filled according to the rules adopted. Mr. Angwin stated that he felt we had an obligation to be concerned about the feelings of others and should attempt to discover why Mr. Hamilton left. Mr. Lowe said that having his own motion defeated had not been sufficient reason for him to resign, and that he had resisted wearing his feelings on his sleeve and refused to give up at the first sign of disagreement; he felt that others should do the same. Mr. Sudbury said that the delegates needed to grow up, as this was a serious matter not meant for children who get their feelings hurt. Mr. Childress said that if feelings were hurt, the individuals involved must overcome their problems and go on. Mr. Falzitto stated that delegates must keep their vision as to what this convention and drive to freedom was all about, as we were all here to write a constitution. He felt that rejection over denied motions was inappropriate, as our goal was not to become part of a new world order. He encouraged delegates to get on with the business at hand. At the request of several delegates, the Chair suggested a short break. Mr. Duncan added that the purpose of the Texas Constitutional Convention Coordinating Committee was to bring this convention to pass, but until the issue of whether this constitution was being written for a state or nation had been addressed and settled, we would be unable to continue. He further stated that this was not a Republic of Texas convention, nor had it been a Republic of Texas committee, because the document was being written for a majority of the people of Texas, in order to create the kind of government that future Texans wanted. He suggested that after recess, we decide what form of constitution we were writing. Mr. Wanjura said that if that were a new motion, it should be handled as new business. The convention recessed for a short break at 10:12 AM.

The meeting reconvened at 10:30 AM. Mr. Benjiman Angwin made a statement that before the convention could write a constitution, the delegates must decide whether Texas is a nation or a state; he felt that Texas was neither but was in transition until the full support of the people was behind one or the other.

The Chair called for a report from the structure committee and passed the gavel to Mr. Angwin, committee chair. Mr. Angwin provided the secretary with a copy of the committee's proposal, which he proceeded to read for the record with explanations, and stated that he wished to allow each delegate to comment. Committee proposal is as follows:

[Preamble] Foundations of the Republic [Article 1 Declaration of Rights] [Article 2 The Congress] [Article 3 Limitations and Authorities] [Article 4 The Executive] [Article 5 The Judicial and the Courts] [Article 6 The People] [Article 7 Revenues] [Article 8 General Provisions] [Article 9 The Counties] [Article 10 The Rangers (Executive?)] [Article 11Amendment Process] [Article 12 Amendments (Future)] [Article 13 Articles of Transition]

Mr. Barnett said that he had no comments and considered the proposal an interesting start. Mr. Sanders felt that the Rangers should be under the Executive function, since Rangers should have the responsibility of watching government rather than the people. Mr. Doreck felt that the proposal was a good start. Mr. Cloyce Williams questioned why the Rangers should rank special treatment, and Mr. Angwin said that they were to be the peoples' watchdog over government. Mr. Falzitto expressed his dislike for thirteen articles in the constitution, and agreed that the Rangers should be under the Executive. Mr. Benjiman Angwin felt that the Rangers should be placed under Article 6. Mr. Sudbury believed that the Rangers should not constitute a separate article. Mr. Gamble had no comments. Mr. Burnett asked what influence the delegates might have on the order of this proposal, and Mr. Angwin said that the convention could alter the order in any way they agreed on. Mr. Burnett stated that he was strongly opposed to any national police force, and that law enforcement should function only at the county level; he was no need for an entire article for one portion of government, and certainly no need for national law enforcement. He also expressed opposition to any amendment process, believing that if the constitution was imperfect enough to require amending, the people should another in convention. He questioned the function of Article 6, which Mr. Angwin explained covered their responsibilities. Mr. Burnett recommended that perhaps Article 6 should be under General Provisions. Mr. Holt would like for Article 2 to disappear, did not believe that the Rangers should be a function of the Executive, and was opposed to a separate Article for Rangers at all, and felt that Article 8 should be elsewhere, but would reserve other comments. Mrs. Holt said that she would like to see the proposal fleshed out first. Mr. Childress was opposed to the idea of amendment, stating that if amendments were needed the constitution must be a defective document. He was also opposed to a national police force, and would like to see an Article related to the limits and duties of the Texas Defense Force, since those men and women will defend our liberty. Mrs. Childress had no comment. Mr. Erickson stated that it was too early in the proceedings for the committees to make cogent proposals and that the committee of which he is a member was still working and members needed time to concentrate on their work; he felt that it was premature to decide the issue of structure and that more time was needed for discussion. The Texas Rangers today, he stated, were not functioning as originally created or intended, as they were supposed to work under contract only when petitioned by a local sheriff to assist him, and during time of war the Rangers were under the military and always disbanded when not needed. He had done much personal research on the limitations and duties of military which he would be glad to share, and was opposed to giving the military more power than it should have, but in order to be effective the Texas military should be equal or superior to any armed force on earth. Mr. Johnson felt that Article 6 should be adjacent to Article 1, and that Article 12 was not necessary. Mr. Martinez agreed that there should be no national police force, and that the Texas Rangers should work for the people; he also wished to incorporate Article 6 into Article 1. Mr. Duncan questioned which items fell under Article 6, and Mr. Angwin said the committee envisioned issues of citizenship, referendum, responsibilities, and the impeachment process. Mr. Duncan also had questions about Article 3, which he felt should be incorporated into the appropriate Articles on the various branches of government. Mr. Wanjura felt that the proposal was too detailed, and that while the title implied nationhood, the convention had not stated for the record that they were working on a national constitution. He expressed serious concern that the delegates were acting prematurely. He thought that the enumeration of rights was potentially dangerous, as more words provided opportunities for more loopholes, that Article 1 could include rights and responsibilities, that people should be willing to accept being held accountable under common law. He was opposed to Article 2 since he believed that government should not make laws, and he disliked the word authorities in Article 3, as government should have no authority or power except as granted by the people. Mr. Angwin interrupted to remind Mr. Wanjura that the convention was only discussing the items, not the content of each. Mr. Wanjura stated that he disagreed with Article 6 as stated, disliked the word Revenue in Article 7, felt that Article 10 should be placed in another article, and would suggest an article dealing exclusively with the limits and functions of the military and militias. He added that amendments did not require a separate article, as they are merely addenda, and that Article 13 should be a self-terminating transition. Mr. Lowe noted that less was better, while more meant more opportunities for corruption. He felt that every portion of the document at every step of its construction needed to be read, understood, discussed, combined, sifted, boiled down, distilled, and then re-read and understood, discussed, combined, sifted, boiled down, and distilled again. He was opposed to an amendment process, believing that government has no duty to present to the people proposed amendments as that function is reserved for the people, and that previous governments have confused people in the past by negatively worded, vague amendments. Mr. Kesterson felt that the delegates did not know yet what the form of government would become, and needed to keep their minds open, as a three- branch government was not the only possibility. He felt that this discussion was premature. Mr. Angwin stated that the structure of the document could be altered in any manner the convention sees fit. He invited comments from Mr. Hamilton who stated that if we are to have a republican form of government, it must have three branches by definition. Mrs. Lowe questioned whether the proposed structure could be fleshed out in 2-3 pages and learned by heart by the average citizen, as she was opposed to any document which defines the law that purported to govern the people which could not be memorized or carried by an individual. Mr. Henson stated that since he was a member of the committee, he approved its proposal, and was surprised that there had been no discussion on the title, which was meant to be a short explanation on the basis for the constitution. He said that the proposal was intended to be a suggested starting place only. Mr. Angwin repeated that this was not a formal discussion and that he would entertain comments from any delegates who wished to speak. Mr. Falzitto stated that he felt the government must have a legislative body, must have an executive to see that laws were carried out, must have a judiciary to handle those who break the laws, and must have revenue for the government to function. He had rewritten the sequence of articles, and added an article to handle international relations and treaties; he also felt that the people should come first in the constitution. Mr. Gamble also submitted a written proposal. Mr. Sanders felt that in order to limit government properly, the convention probably would not be able to write a constitution that could be memorized. He believed that we needed to define penalties for violations by the government, and that any amendments should be done by the people in convention. He commented on Article 6 and ideas about rearranging the articles, but felt that rights should remain first. Mr. Cloyce Williams stated that he had come to the convention with a mandate from those he represented to protect the rights of the people in each county to remain independent as militias on both a local and individual basis. Mr. Burnett requested that the order and process be delayed until the form of government had been officially determined, specifically, whether we were writing a constitution for a nation or a state, as delegates would need time to discuss the functions of government before adopting an outline for the document. Mr. Kesterson, in answer to Mr. Hamilton's statements equating a republican form of government with three branches, referred to the dictionary definition of a republican form of govt as not specifically having three branches, and in fact had no requirement than that it be representative in form. Mr. Angwin suggested that other delegates who wished to contribute should submit comments for the record to the secretary. He then returned the gavel to the Chair, who suggested that the committee remain intact but take no further action until a future session, as its activities might be considered premature at this time.

Mr. Holt moved that Mr. Sam Hamilton be reinstated as a full delegate to this convention, which was seconded by Mr. Angwin. Mr. Lowe stated that Mr. Hamilton had not been in the room after the vote was taken to accept his resignation, and as there had been some discussion, he thought Mr. Hamilton should hear the comments made. He said that while some of his own ideas or motions were on the losing end, he as a delegate had not been offended but was determined to remain until the job was done. He pointed out that in debate we may chastise others without being abusive or vulgar and without offense given or taken. He wanted to know what was in Mr. Hamilton's heart, and whether this would happen again; he asked Mr. Hamilton whether when things got really tough and delegates were nose-to-nose, as would surely happen, he would have the courage and heart to stick this out with the rest. Mr. Hamilton replied that his reaction was the result of the possibility of this convention being tied to a political body or movement, that he wanted to write a document that would form a proper government for the people of Texas, and felt that if the convention allowed itself to be colored early it would lose the support of the people, even though he was supportive of the efforts of the Republic of Texas. Mr. Lowe said that Mr. Hamilton had avoided the question, and asked again what he would do the next time the delegates did something with which he did not agree. Mr. Hamilton said that he was fairly stable, but had learned that some efforts are fruitless, and he felt the convention would not survive without a plan, and he could see this eroding. Mr. Lowe stated that he had become involved politically 30 years ago and had worked for almost two years for the Republic of Texas; he knew his stand was not popular, but had chosen regardless of personal cost to do whatever it took for his nation. He knew that people would slander but we learned to live with it; we took the upper road and succeeded because we had learned not to fight each enemy. Mr. Childress stated that the President of the Republic of Texas was sitting in their midst, and that the people of the Republic of Texas are part of us and must be included and allowed to participate; he said that the efforts of the convention would always be painted by the media with that brush. Mr. Erickson stated that the convention must have a body politic to operate, and that it existed because of what the people and provisional government of the Republic of Texas have done to date to get us to this point. He believed that Mr. Hamilton did answer Mr. Lowe's question by avoiding it, and that many times he had wanted to resign his position with the General Council, but was still hanging on by a thread in order to support his nation. He stated that if Mr. Hamilton had returned to the convention hall and apologized for leaving and promised to continue working, he would have agreed with reinstatement, but Mr. Hamilton had only made excuses for his actions, and that Mr. Erickson was, therefore, against reinstating him. Mr. Angwin said that all the delegates were passionate people. Mr. Lowe objected to his use of profanity. Mr. Angwin reminded the delegates that patriots were a small group who needed each other and who could correct each other's errors as a group. He fully supported Mr. Hamilton's rejoining the body, and repeated his belief that the delegates must work together. Mr. Duncan stated that while we do in fact have members of the provisional government of Texas seated as delegates, they are here as individuals and followed the same procedure as every other delegate. He stated that George Bush could have been a delegate, as there was no restriction on which Texans could be delegates but that the convention was open to all Texans. Since Mr. Hamilton met those requirements, Mr. Duncan could not know if he would ever walk out again, as there were no guarantees, but Mr. Hamilton had contributed to the session he felt that he could continue to do so, and was supportive of his reinstatement. Mr. Falzitto had no objection to his comments, but did object to bending the rules to allow him to be reinstated, because he believed people should be responsible for their own actions, and since the delegates had accepted his resignation, he would agree to allowing him to stay in a non-voting capacity but Mr. Hamilton had resigned. Mr. Kesterson said that the body was not bending its rules as it had made no rules regarding the situation, but that he would like to hear a direct answer to Mr. Lowe's question. He said that if Mr. Hamilton stated that he was willing to stay and work no matter what happened, he would support his returning. Mr. Hamilton said that he thought this convention was the only chance Texas citizens had, and believed it would be a failure if it were seen to be connected with any political body, regardless of who is delegated. He stated that as long as the convention remained totally isolated from any political or governmental body, he would not walk out as long as the body was moving, that he had not been able to get his point across before, that there was no cost too great, but he felt that this must be an independent effort. Mr. Wanjura clarified that from a parliamentarian aspect, this was a special circumstance, and that while Mr. Hamilton met the criteria of a delegate, the motion was to reinstate, and this body had no provision for that situation. Mr. Burnett offered a friendly amendment to change the wording from 'reinstate' to 'accept', which was accepted. Mr. Wanjura said that in that case, the seat he left when he resigned remained open to be filled by this body. Mr. Barnett said that he believed in second chances for every man, but Mr. Hamilton had been given a second chance, had been asked several times and had not answered the question, and that he could not, therefore, support his application. Mr. Benjiman Angwin called the question. Mr. Cloyce Williams stated that this body could conceivable take on a decided national flavor, as most were supportive of Republic of Texas ideals; his concern was whether Mr. Hamilton would leave then. Mr. Sanders stated that the delegates had agreed to come as citizens of Texas while at this convention, and should work on the constitution no matter what takes place; he felt that Mr. Hamilton had refused to answer the question, and even though he had contributed to the session, he did not answer the question until Mr. Angwin had whispered in his ear, and wondered whether he had told Mr. Hamilton what he should say. He called the vote, and there was some discussion as to whether it required a two-thirds vote to pass. There was a point of order that the motion as stated did not require a two-thirds vote, although several expressed concern that the delegation was being deceitful and bypassing the issue. No further discussion was allowed. The motion was defeated with 14 opposed, 6 for. Mr. Angwin requested that he be allowed to attach written comments to the minutes. Mr. Wanjura as parliamentarian stated that there was no provision for such action. Mr. Childress stated that all discussion should be open, for all to hear, not secret, and that written comments not read into the record would not meet that criteria. Mr. Angwin offered to make his comments openly if allowed. Mr. Kesterson reminded the delegates that this was the last day of the session, and there were further committee reports to be heard. Mr. Angwin expressed strong objection. The Chair ruled that no unread written comments would be added to the record.

Referring to the agenda, the Chair asked the two remaining committees to make their comments. Mr. Burnett said that the chair for the declaration of rights committee, Mr. Scales, had asked that he inform the delegates that the committee did not have a report ready to present to the convention at this time, but would have their report ready for the next session. The secretary offered, if appropriate, to send the report to delegates when ready, if the Chair would forward it to her, and the Chair agreed. Mr. Wanjura, chair for the committee on limits and duties of government, read the committee's plan of action into the record as follows:

"Chair of the committee shall itemize limits and duties, separately, compiled from all submitted draft copies of the constitution. Chair shall then make available to the committee members the said list for comments. After sufficient comments have been returned, chair shall draft a proposal and submit it to the committee for comments. Thereafter, the Chair shall draft a proposal for submission to the entire body of the delegates assembled at the next regular meeting. Of the draft constitutions brought forth, the Chair has in his possession those of Ray Wanjura, Robert Kesterson, Greg Scales, Wes Burnett, and Don Henson, and has available those of Monty Barnett, Mike Angwin, and Charlie Duncan's suggestion of the united States constitution."

Mr. Wanjura reported that the committee had not completed its plan of action as written, and that it would be inappropriate to ask for comments since the delegates did not have the information before them.

The Chair proposed that the records of this convention be stored in the archives of Texas in Austin, and asked the secretary if she would contact the archivist in Austin and ask for permission to store the records there when completed. Mr. Kesterson stated that the list of delegates was completed and printed copies were available. The Chair asked who would be available after lunch, and counted approximately eighteen hands, which would constitute a quorum. Mr. Erickson offered to provide a place for the next session in Corsicana. Mr. Burnett moved that the next session be held in Abilene on Friday 25th July, 9 AM, location to be determined by those delegates living in Abilene, seconded by Mr. Duncan. Mr. Lowe asked how many delegates lived within 100 miles of Abilene; there were eight. Mr. Lowe expressed concern that the delegates from east Texas and from west Texas were always in for a long trip, and suggested that the most number of people be required to travel the least distance. Mr. Wanjura felt that July 25th would be too soon for some of the committees to have their reports prepared, and that proper groundwork was very important and the committees needed time; he suggested moving the next session to one month away. Mr. Angwin wanted to know whether the delegates could continue to convene in Sherwood. Mr. Erickson said he agreed that two weeks was not enough time for committees to develop their reports, and said that his building would not charge for its use, as he was trying to keep costs down for delegates who have limited funds. Mr. Sanders said that the meeting place in Abilene, probably Zentner's Daughter, was a restaurant. Mr. Barnett asked about sleeping arrangements in Corsicana. Mr. Sudbury agreed that the convention should meet in Corsicana, a different location. Mr. Angwin and others held a discussion concerning distances. A point of order was brought up that the time and place to reconvene was not subject to a vote. Mr. Burnett removed his motion. Mr. Wanjura stated that by consent, the body could agree to meet in Abilene on July 25th and let all the delegates know, and that they could change the time and place at any time as long as every delegate was informed. The Chair suggested that everyone consider the issue and make a determination after lunch, and then notify the other delegates. After lunch, the discussion would center around whether the constitution was being written for a nation or state. The convention recessed until 3:30 PM.

The Chair reconvened the session at 3:42 PM and brought up the next item on the agenda concerning whether to write a national or state constitution. Mr. Barnett moved that this convention write a constitution establishing Texas as a free and independent nation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burnett. Mr. Angwin suggested that we accept this motion by acclamation. Parliamentarian brought a point of order that such action was not appropriate. Mr. Duncan asked that the secretary reread the motion. Mr. Lowe asked whether this document would then declare Texas to be a nation, to which Mr. Barnett answered that this establishes Texas as nation, and does not declare it. Mr. Lowe asked the convention at large, whether the constitution establishes the nation or whether the nation establishes the constitution. Mr. Wanjura suggested the words 'further establish.' Mr. Scales felt that the foundational documents should be considered as part of this convention. Mr. Kesterson asked whether the convention was advertised as a convention to form a state or just as a convention to write a constitution, and Mr. Burnett replied that it was only to write a constitution for Texas. Mr. Kesterson stated that it then became important to clarify the issue and make this statement now. Mr. Falzitto reminded the delegates that the Republic of Texas was already in existence, but that the people were suffering under a de facto constitution and needed relief, and that he would not take part in any delegation that wrote a state constitution. Mr. Holt stated that in order to be a state Texas would have to be subservient to the united States, and that we were not so stating. Mr. Doreck said that the constitution was for people, not for the nation. Mr. Sanders said that if the convention wrote a state constitution, it would be overridden and overthrown by the united States and we would get nowhere, and felt that the convention must clarify for the record that this constitution was for a nation and not state. Mr. Johnson asked whether we were writing a constitution under the authority of the people, rather than under the authority of the state, as the manner in which it was advertised was confusing. Mrs. Lowe offered a friendly amendment to change 'establishing Texas as a free and independent nation' to 'establishing the free and independent nation of Texas.' Mr. Angwin repeated the question asked by Mr. Lowe. Mr. Kesterson responded to Mr. Johnson's question that advertising and the documents quoted had not given the delegates the authority to convene and write a constitution, because political power is inherent in the people. Mr. Duncan did not recall the exact wording, but the advertised document gave delegates full plenary powers once assembled, and that they were the sole arbiters of what comes from this convention, as no outside authority can dictate its efforts and results. Mr. Sudbury stated that the issue was a no-brainer, and suggested that the delegates proceed. Mr. Duncan called the question. The motion passed as amended with one no vote at 4 PM, Central Texas Time. Mr. Scales stated that he fully supported the decision of the convention, and his intention had been to use the custom and traditions of previous constitutions, where there had been two votes, one to ratify the constitution, and one to ratify independence.

The Chair reminded the delegates that the two existing committees would continue to work, and asked whether additional committees were needed between now and the next session. Mr. Lowe suggested a committee to work with the secretary on reviewing discrepancies, word usage, presentation and punctuation for the constitution as it progresses. Mr. Burnett asked whether he meant that as we proceeded, 3-4 people would be responsible for reviewing the draft, and whether it would be proper to move that we establish a committee to review the articles in the constitution prior to final adoption. Mr. Lowe agreed, and Mr. Burnett so moved, and was seconded by Mr. Sudbury. Motion was withdrawn, and the Chair requested that the secretary accept by consensus to ask for volunteers to assist with review of the documents before final adoption. She agreed to form a sub-committee for that purpose.

The next item on the agenda was a location for the next session. Mr. Sanders suggested Corsicana, and requested a straw poll. Results were 12 for Corsicana, 4 for Abilene, 2 for El Paso. The secretary agreed to contact Mr. Erickson to inform him of the delegates' decision. Mr. Lowe informed the body that Corsicana was established by Jose Antonio Navarro, who was involved with the writing of the Republic of Texas constitution of 1836, and that the county was named after him. Mr. Angwin desired that the delegates have an informal understanding that the sessions move around Texas. There was additional discussion on sites for future sessions. Mr. Burnett stated that he would personally prefer to meet in the same place all the time, as he felt that moving would be disruptive. Mr. Barnett suggested that August 2nd be set for the next session. Mr. Burnett expressed concern over the continuity of effort; he thought that two weeks would be better, and a three-day session would be best. Mr. Sanders agreed that three weeks should be the maximum amount of time between sessions. Mr. Kesterson preferred the 25th of July. Mr. Angwin suggested that the third day be Monday, not Friday, so that the convention could determine on Sunday whether a quorum would be available on Monday. Mr. Duncan suggested that since lunch none of the delegates were speaking clearly and loudly enough for the rest to hear. The Chair asked for a consensus as to starting the session on Friday or Saturday. There were 7 votes for Friday, 9 for Saturday, and the Chair stated that Saturday, July 26, would be the beginning of the next session, to be held in Corsicana.

The Chair asked the delegates whether they wished to begin debate on the type or form of government. Mr. Wanjura requested a straw poll of whether we could agree to forming a republic form of government, as defined in the dictionary adopted. The poll results were 14 for, 2 against. Mrs. Lowe reminded the delegates that the poll was not binding on the group, and that she would prefer not to finish the debate until those who not present could participate. Mr. Sanders stated that we must know what form the government is to take. Mr. Sudbury felt that since a quorum was present, the convention should move forward. The Chair had ruled that no formal action be taken until the next session, but that the delegates could discuss the issue. Mr. Duncan said that since we were writing a document for the future, the delegates should not decide the issue until have thought it through completely. Mr. Lowe said that there were some decisions he chose not to make on a full or empty stomach, and this was one of those, and he felt that we should not be too hasty to make such an important decision as there might be other options not considered, that we should do what is best for the people and place the issue on the agenda for July 26th, which would allow us to debate other forms of government. Mr. Wanjura asked for a straw poll for the sake of expediency, and stated that the convention should draft a constitution and let it take what form it may. Mr. Falzitto said that he had heard talk about not wanting a legislature by some of the delegates and that we should research the issue for the next session. Mr. Kesterson agreed that this was too complex an issue to decide in one day, believed that a republic was just a representative form of government which could take many forms, and that the convention would be better off to determine first, as otherwise, we would be like cooks in the kitchen who trying to make dinner without a menu. Mr. Martinez agreed with Mr. Wanjura. Mr. Wanjura moved to adjourn the session until 9 AM July 26th in Corsicana, seconded by several delegates. Motion carried with 12 for, 5 opposed. Session was adjourned.

Convention Update Index

Copyright at Common Law, West El Paso Information Network, 1997