Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States

[BDKJMU]

"Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states’ rights

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......


.....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.....

...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.
.........."
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... ghts.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

I agree with all 9 proposals..

[Ivytalk]

We don't need a motherfvcking convention of the states. Political grandstanding at its worst. It would be a runaway train. People should understand the Constitution they have before they seek a gathering of illiterate jamokes to fuck it up.

[CAA Flagship]

I need a little more detail with some of these. I'm not sure about several of them.

[Ivytalk]

I need a little more detail with some of these. I'm not sure about several of them.

Go long on winter wheat.

[CAA Flagship]

I need a little more detail with some of these. I'm not sure about several of them.

Go long on winter wheat.

PORK BELLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ivytalk]

Go long on winter wheat.

PORK BELLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kalm]

*Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law

I thought conks hated democracy?

And they left out the single most important reason for CC...corporate personhood.

Dumbshits...

[kalm]

Go long on winter wheat.

PORK BELLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ivytalk went to Harvard with the Dukes. And trust me, Flaggy, you ain't no Mortimer Duke!

[AZGrizFan]

Go long on winter wheat.

PORK BELLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's all about the orange juice futures.

[Chizzang]

A Convention of States = Send in the Clowns

[Ivytalk]

A Convention of States = Send in the Clowns

That about sums it up. There should be a literacy test for it.

[Pwns]

Can you imagine what a concon would be like today?

"And in other news, we enter the fortieth month of the constitutional convention and no ratification in sight. Democrats attempt to reconcile four different versions of the constitution and seven different versions of the abortion amendment. Republicans vow to not approve any of the democrat versions but only want to change the wording of the old constitution. "

[Chizzang]

There is so much a state can do all on its own - almost endless
and most of them do it very badly

For States to be focused on the Federal Government is ridiculous
when most of them can't even manage the most basic functions of governance

[JohnStOnge]

People should understand the Constitution they have before they seek a gathering of illiterate jamokes to **** it up.

What the hell are you talking about, Ivy? The people don't have a Constitution right now. It's been stolen from them. And I know you know that because you're smart enough to have been accepted to an Ivy League institution. You know damned well we're not proceeding according the the Constitution right now. And it's WAY past time something like this happened. The People need to take control back from the Judiciary. And doing it tomorrow will be more than a century later than it should have been.

[CAA Flagship]

PORK BELLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ivytalk went to Harvard with the Dukes. And trust me, Flaggy, you ain't no Mortimer Duke!

I'm a crooner. Tennis anyone?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP9ZU_zgFuY[/youtube]

[kalm]

People should understand the Constitution they have before they seek a gathering of illiterate jamokes to **** it up.

What the hell are you talking about, Ivy? The people don't have a Constitution right now. It's been stolen from them. And I know you know that because you're smart enough to have been accepted to an Ivy League institution. You know damned well we're not proceeding according to my understanding of the Constitution right now. And it's WAY past time something like this happened. The People need to take control back from the Judiciary. And doing it tomorrow will be more than a century later than it should have been.

[CitadelGrad]

We don't need a motherfvcking convention of the states. Political grandstanding at its worst. It would be a runaway train. People should understand the Constitution they have before they seek a gathering of illiterate jamokes to fuck it up.

The problem is that highly literate jamokes in black robes with Ivy law degrees have been fucking up the Constitution for the sake of political expediency for decades. Maybe a bunch of illiterate jamokes could do no worse.

[Ibanez]

People should understand the Constitution they have before they seek a gathering of illiterate jamokes to **** it up.

What the hell are you talking about, Ivy? The people don't have a Constitution right now. It's been stolen from them. And I know you know that because you're smart enough to have been accepted to an Ivy League institution. You know damned well we're not proceeding according the the Constitution right now. And it's WAY past time something like this happened. The People need to take control back from the Judiciary. And doing it tomorrow will be more than a century later than it should have been.

Who has more insight:
Ivy League lawyer or Creole Biologist ( or whatever you are)?

Hmmmmmmmm

[JohnStOnge]

Who has more insight:
Ivy League lawyer or Creole Biologist ( or whatever you are)?

Hmmmmmmmm

He (or she) knows I'm right. He (or she) knows damned well we're not following the Constitution according to the original understanding of any particular portion of it. In other words according to what those who crafted and/or ratified language understood the intended effects to be. And I think he (or she) will say so then give some reason for why that's the right way to do it.

[JohnStOnge]

Who has more insight:
Ivy League lawyer or Creole Biologist ( or whatever you are)?

And BTW, IB, that kind of attitude is part of the problem. People just lay down and accept the crap that comes out of the Judiciary because it's the Judiciary or because something like Ivy League Lawyers say so. Like for instance just laying down and accepting something like the idea that the Constitution says there can't be prayer in public schools. It may be a small thing but it's a clear example. No WAY it says that. It's a bunch of crap. And there's no way the idea of some kind of ban against government being associated religion is credible when the friggin Congress was holding Christian Church services in the House chamber shortly after the first Amendment was ratified.

It's way past time people quit suspending their own critical thinking in order to just lay down and accept whatever those associated with the Judiciary in this country tell them because the Judiciary in this country is so full of crap that it's oozing out of the diaper.

What we have is an oligarchy making crap up as it goes along. Oh, it may refer back to earlier crap spewed by the same oligarchy. but it's still crap and it's still making stuff up.

[Skjellyfetti]

*Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Uh.

This already exists.

I thought Conks were always about redundant proposals and amendments?

[Ivytalk]

People should understand the Constitution they have before they seek a gathering of illiterate jamokes to **** it up.

What the hell are you talking about, Ivy? The people don't have a Constitution right now. It's been stolen from them. And I know you know that because you're smart enough to have been accepted to an Ivy League institution. You know damned well we're not proceeding according the the Constitution right now. And it's WAY past time something like this happened. The People need to take control back from the Judiciary. And doing it tomorrow will be more than a century later than it should have been.

Your post is telling: you contend that we need one of these unprecedented gatherings, with theoretically unlimited agendas, simply because certain judicial rulings don't comport with YOUR understanding of the Constitution. If you think we have a "runaway" judiciary, then amend the current Constitution to rein them in, such as by establishing term limits for justices. I stand by what I said: I don't want a bunch of fools tampering with a document that has served us well (with a couple dozen scattered amendments, including the Bill of Rights) for over 200 years. Do you realize that random polls of Americans show that many of them would repeal the Bill of Rights if they could? I rest my case.

[Ivytalk]

Who has more insight:
Ivy League lawyer or Creole Biologist ( or whatever you are)?

Hmmmmmmmm

He (or she) knows I'm right. He (or she) knows damned well we're not following the Constitution according to the original understanding of any particular portion of it. In other words according to what those who crafted and/or ratified language understood the intended effects to be. And I think he (or she) will say so then give some reason for why that's the right way to do it.

Ah, so you've now craftily edited your last post to say that you are now an "originalist" , just like Bob Bork, in order to provide yourself with some intellectual cover. Shame on me: I quoted the wrong JSO post above. OK, so the solution lies in electing originalist Presidents who will appoint originalist judges for confirmation by originalist Senators. There is a political solution to your problem that can be accomplished far short of convening a "convention of the states" that likely won't provide the result you claim to want.

[kalm]

Who has more insight:
Ivy League lawyer or Creole Biologist ( or whatever you are)?

And BTW, IB, that kind of attitude is part of the problem. People just lay down and accept the crap that comes out of the Judiciary because it's the Judiciary or because something like Ivy League Lawyers say so. Like for instance just laying down and accepting something like the idea that the Constitution says there can't be prayer in public schools. It may be a small thing but it's a clear example. No WAY it says that. It's a bunch of crap. And there's no way the idea of some kind of ban against government being associated religion is credible when the friggin Congress was holding Christian Church services in the House chamber shortly after the first Amendment was ratified.

It's way past time people quit suspending their own critical thinking in order to just lay down and accept whatever those associated with the Judiciary in this country tell them because the Judiciary in this country is so full of crap that it's oozing out of the diaper.

What we have is an oligarchy making crap up as it goes along. Oh, it may refer back to earlier crap spewed by the same oligarchy. but it's still crap and it's still making stuff up.

Nobody has claimed there cant be prayer in schools, John.