See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states’ rights
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews. ... -take-back-states-rights.html/
Published: Jan 8, 2016
Author: Brandi Grissom
Post Date: 2016-01-08 22:19:07 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 182
Comments: 28
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states’ rights Brandi Grissom Follow @brandigrissom Email bgrissom@dallasnews.com Published: January 8, 2016 1:09 pm Facebook Twitter Email Comments Print Gov. Greg Abbott called Friday for a convention of states to amend the U.S. Constitution. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP) Gov. Greg Abbott called Friday for a convention of states to amend the U.S. Constitution. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP) Updated at 3:45: Revised to include response to Gov. Abbott’s speech and add reference to the Convention of States. Updated at 1:54: Revised to include comments from Gov. Abbott’s speech. Related Obama rips into NRA at televised town hall on gun safety Texas Republicans take aim at Obama over executive order on guns Armed group not ready to end wildlife refuge occupation Floyd: No handouts for anti-government militia zealots Jesse Walker: No, the Oregon occupiers are not ‘terrorists’ Gov. Greg Abbott, aiming to spark a national conversation about states’ rights, said Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run amok.” “If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience. He said he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States. Along with the speech, Abbott released a nearly 70-page plan – part American civics lesson, part anti-Obama diatribe – detailing nine proposed constitutional amendments that he said would unravel the federal government’s decades-long power grab and restore authority over economic regulation and other matters to the states. “The irony for our generation is that the threat to our Republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes, in part, from our very own leaders,” Abbott said in a speech that took aim at President Obama, Congress and the judicial branch. The proposal for a convention, which has been gaining traction among some among conservative Republicans, comes just as the GOP presidential candidates begin to make forays into Texas ahead of the March primary election. The state, with 155 delegates up for grabs, will certainly be a key player in the party’s nominating process. Abbott hasn’t endorsed a candidate, though the field includes Sen. Ted Cruz, who was one of Abbott’s top employees when the governor was attorney general. Abbott is likely hoping to boost his national profile within the GOP as eyes turn to the state. This week, presidential contender U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., published a piece in USA Today endorsing the idea of a convention to amend the Constitution and restore limited government. In April, 27 active petitions had been filed with Congress seeking a convention to amend the constitution to require that Congress adopt a balanced budget. Congress would be forced to act once 34 states joined the effort. So far, Cruz hasn’t endorsed the idea. By this point, you may be wondering just what a constitutional convention or Convention of the States is and why it would be a big deal. A convention is one of two ways that the U.S. Constitution can be amended, and it’s described in Article V. One way is that Congress can propose amendments approved by two-thirds of the members of both chambers. The other method allows two-thirds of the state legislatures to call for a convention to propose amendments. Republicans backing the idea are confident that because they control state government in a majority of states, their ideas would prevail. In both cases, the amendments become effective only if ratified by three-fourths of the states. So far, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. None of those were amendments generated by a constitutional convention. Critics say there’s a good reason. In an editorial lambasting Rubio’s plan, USA Today‘s editorial board warned that such a process could invite mayhem and further poison the nation’s vitriolic political scene. It would also raise unresolved questions about the years-long process of ratification. And some conservatives who otherwise agree with Abbott and Rubio on many issues fear a convention could lead to greater restrictions on guns and money in politics and greater overall power for the federal government. Abbott, in his plan, dismisses many of those criticisms, saying that he would call for a limited scope to the convention. The plan lays out nine specific proposed amendments that would: Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state. Require Congress to balance its budget. Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law. Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law. Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation. A convention, Abbott wrote, would force the federal government to “take the Constitution seriously again.” “The only true downside comes from doing nothing and allowing the federal government to continue ignoring the very document that created it,” Abbott wrote. James Henson, director of UT’s Texas Politics Project, said Abbott’s posture aligns well with the prominent stream of thought in the Republican Party that it is time to resuscitate state power as a check to the federal government. “I would find it fairly unlikely that this would get traction on the national level,” Henson said. “On the other hand, it’s not the first we’ve heard of this.” Democrats were quick to denounce Abbott’s plan Friday, saying the governor has misplaced priorities. “America added 292,000 new jobs in December. But under Abbott, Texas fell to sixth in job creation, remains the uninsured capitol of the nation, wages and incomes remain far too low for hardworking families, our neighborhood schools are still underfunded, and college education is slipping out of reach,” Texas Democratic Party Deputy Executive Director Manny Garcia said in a statement. “Texas families deserve serious solutions, not Tea Party nonsense.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas issued a statement with similar sentiment. “Governor Abbott, as Texans, we prefer the Framers’ plan. Don’t mess with the Constitution,” said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas. But Democrats haven’t been the only ones to chide the idea of fiddling with the Constitution. Last year, House legislators filed measures calling for such a convention. State Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, unleashed a screed against the proposal when it came before the Senate State Affairs Committee in May. He compared the idea to “a petulant teenager who’s lost a few basketball games and plans to burn down the gymnasium.” “The constitution has served us well for over 200 years. The problem is not the constitution,” Estes said, adding that the solution is to elect more conservative lawmakers. “Slap a bumper sticker for Ted Cruz on your car and get after it and knock yourself out.” Estes went on to promise a filibuster if the measure came to the Senate floor. Poster Comment: If a Con Con were convened, there are no rules as to what it can take up. It can even change our form of government. Gov. Abbott is a looney tune.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Abolishing the 17th Amendment and having US Senators chosen by State legislatures would be the best solution.
"We need more H-1B visas, because source code is rotting in the fields." - Countenance Blog
abbott is a degenerate perv who is not only crippled & deformed physically, but morally also. he is no friend to the constitution or to the rights of the people. he is a police state worshipper and a real POS. trust me i actually know. anyone who actually follows this creep's history in depth at all knows who he is and does not fall for his newfound 'tea party' rhetoric crap. it is phony as a 3 dollar bill. "Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
You're right about this, Dak. Having Senators chosen by the States was one of the checks and balances that the founders built into the Constitution. Abolishing the 17th Amendment and restoring this is critical to restoring our Liberty's. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
What good does the Electoral College ever do for that matter?
It tends to keep the masses from electing a President. This way if the minorities ever gain a population that exceeds whites, they can NEVER elect a President. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Well, it's good to know it's not entirely worthless. Not entirely.
According to wikid, in 2000 Gore got more chads punched than Bush, but Bush won the election.
??? What does that mean? How do you figure?
Showing all over again that everything's relative. As evil and unthinkable as these Bushes and other top GOPers are, they're still 10% better than Demdums on a good day.
Ever since the 17th amendment was ratified, US senators can easily be bought by monied special interest groups. When appointed by state legislatures, a corrupt US senator working against the interests of his state could be recalled relatively easily. But now it's practically impossible to recall one.
That has always been the fear. However, the Bill of Rights has almost been abolished anyway, so it might be time for a new Constitution.
I'm not so sure.
You would be playing with fire in this regard. There is no guarantee what kind of government we would get if a Con Con were convened. BTW, the Republic Ben Franklin spoke of is long gone. The Act of 1871 formed the corporate UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA. If you think the Bill of Rights has been abolished, you are sadly mistaken. You must actively claim your rights. And this means you would have to sue the bastards. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Correct. Now the big moneyed interests can easily bribe a U.S. Senator to introduce Bills or do other things with their votes to get around all the political games. This does not have to be paid in cash. There are loads of perks available to do this. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
What we need is a government that will effectively protect the rights of the people. IOW a new Constitution would have to have an enforcing mechanism. To claim your rights in court you are going up against the government and the judiciary almost always sides with the government; because, after all, it is the government.
The rationale for the 17th amendment was state legislature corruption. State legislatures are still corrupt.
Elucidate, if you would please. "If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
If it comes to that, I would like to see a parliamentary system, rather than the "winner take all" single party system we have now. John Howard says: There are 4 schools of economics: How to End the Refugee Flood Trouble is that I don't see the rights of the people being protected in countries that use the parliamentary system. True, change can come quicker if the people are troubled.
The rationale for the 17th amendment was state legislature corruption. Yes, that was a big part of it. Reading more about that just now... Thanks. State legislatures are still corrupt. Yes, sadly. And I live in one of the worst.
Ya got trouble, right here in River City.... LOL "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
In Illinois? Poor devil. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
I said one of the worst, not the worst!
he's the one as TX Attorney general defended cops who are sued. even when the officers own employer admitted wrongdoing in writing, punished both officers on record, and forced them to undergo retraining, insane abbott still argues that they did nothing wrong, changes their stories numerous times, defends whatever they do. in other words he is not for the actual law or constitution at all, which the cops both admitted violated according to their own employer, who punished them! his department gives the most contorted, twisted defenses of everything that is wrong with this country. he is for the establishment, not the people or their God given rights. That is why for example that pervert txs troopers literally RAPE WOMEN on the roadside, were not prosecuted by abbot, and then hired back by TX DPS. Illegals searches, detainment, and demand for id are also standard procedure, in TX, which were protected and endorsed by abbott as AG. This stuff is way, way over the top., and this crippled pervert is an arch criminal. "Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
Proportional Representation is a much more democratic process, and works well in geographically smaller countries. I've tried imagining how it would work in the US, but the configuration of Congress and the US in general, with all members (supposedly) representing States, there is no room for coalition partners and all that. Would we get our own House of Lords? That would be awesome! "We need more H-1B visas, because source code is rotting in the fields." - Countenance Blog
What would be Lord Dakmar's first proclamation? ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Maybe we need Batman and Robin to do the dirty work and bring this crook to justice. Sounds like we could use some super heroes out there. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Do you understand how the electoral college works? All of the electors are chosen by the parties. Their responsibility is to cast their vote for President, and they usually do this with little fanfare. Occasionally, there is an uprising among the electors and they vote for a candidate that is not endorsed by the party, or who does not receive the majority of votes. That is the main threat. As long as the electors are put up by the party, there is little chance of them revolting and voting for the wrong one. I guess you don't know about politics in Chicago. I grew up there, and believe me when I tell you, it is a shooting match all the way down the line. Why do you think they call it the "Windy City"? ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#2. To: BTP Holdings, randge, neoconsnailed, x-15, christine, titorite, all (#0)
Abbott is a looney tune.
#3. To: Dakmar, ALL (#1)
Abolishing the 17th Amendment and having US Senators chosen by State legislatures would be the best solution.
#4. To: BTP Holdings (#3)
#5. To: NeoconsNailed (#4)
What good does the Electoral College ever do for that matter?
#6. To: BTP Holdings (#5)
#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#4)
#8. To: BTP Holdings (#5)
It tends to keep the masses from electing a President. This way if the minorities ever gain a population that exceeds whites, they can NEVER elect a President.
#9. To: StraitGate (#7)
#10. To: BTP Holdings (#3)
#11. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
If a Con Con were convened, there are no rules as to what it can take up.
#12. To: NeoconsNailed (#9)
#13. To: Ada (#11)
it might be time for a new Constitution.
#14. To: StraitGate (#10)
When appointed by state legislatures, a corrupt US senator working against the interests of his state could be recalled relatively easily. But now it's practically impossible to recall one.
#15. To: BTP Holdings (#13)
#16. To: StraitGate (#10)
#17. To: Artisan (#2)
abbott is a degenerate perv
#18. To: Ada (#11)
However, the Bill of Rights has almost been abolished anyway, so it might be time for a new Constitution.
Marxism: steal everything
Keynesianism: steal by counterfeiting whenever needed
Chicago school (Milton Friedman): steal by counterfeiting at a steady, predictable rate
Austrians: don't steal
'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century
#19. To: PnbC (#18)
If it comes to that, I would like to see a parliamentary system, rather than the "winner take all" single party system we have now
#20. To: Ada (#16)
#21. To: PnbC (#18)
(Edited)
I would like to see a parliamentary system
#22. To: StraitGate (#20)
Yes, sadly. And I live in one of the worst.
#23. To: BTP Holdings (#22)
In Illinois? Poor devil. ;)
#24. To: randge (#17)
Elucidate, if you would please.
#25. To: PnbC (#18)
(Edited)
I would like to see a parliamentary system, rather than the "winner take all" single party system we have now.
#26. To: Dakmar (#25)
Would we get our own House of Lords? That would be awesome!
#27. To: Artisan (#24)
this crippled pervert is an arch criminal.
#28. To: StraitGate (#8)
(Edited)
??? What does that mean? How do you figure?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest