• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TX. Gov. Greg Abbott calls for convention to amend Constitution

Not going to happen.
 
if a convention were ever to be held

1..the place of the convention would have to be set, ..this would give even special interest groups time converge on that convention.
2 delegates would have to be chosen, and special interest groups would try to get people who would plead there cause chosen via elections.
3 before the convention those actually chosen would be heavily lobbied by special interest to put something in the constitution for them.

the constitution would end up instead of being a document mean to limit the powers of the federal government to one of redistribution of wealth, limiting the people, expanding the federal government more.
 
le bouffon said:
Texas is being stupid again. No surprise.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how any Brit can pretend to take the moral or intellectual high ground.

Brits think our entire Constitution needs to be trashed.
 
trollarc said:
Agreed. Vermont is open carry and permitless concealed carry therefore all states should be. Texas gun laws are too strict.
Click to expand...

Yup...remember the Guns & Ammo article on states gun laws? Texas came in 12th, meaning there are 11 other states with BETTER (less restrictive) gun laws than Texas. And you are very correct. VERMONT is one of them.
 
trollarc said:
Wyoming is doing the same thing as Vermont. Wyoming sales taxes are better than Texas.
Also at least people in Vermont aren't interested in reestablishing slavery. I assume when you say Yankees you are talking about the south rising again. If it happens the south will burn again.
Click to expand...

him calling people "Yankees" has nothing to do with slavery. We call everyone from up north "Yankees" here in Texas.

PS...TEXAS WON the Civil War and DID NOT burn. The rest of the blessed South can do what they wish, but us Texans did just fine, and will do just fine in the future.

My apologies, ttwtt...I did not mean to speak FOR you, but instead am speaking WITH you.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
him calling people "Yankees" has nothing to do with slavery. We call everyone from up north "Yankees" here in Texas.

PS...TEXAS WON the Civil War and DID NOT burn. The rest of the blessed South can do what they wish, but us Texans did just fine, and will do just fine in the future.

My apologies, ttwtt...I did not mean to speak FOR you, but instead am speaking WITH you.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is why slavery was abolished in Texas.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
I fail to see how any Brit can pretend to take the moral or intellectual high ground.

Brits think our entire Constitution needs to be trashed.
Click to expand...

1. Not a Brit
2. Sources, please.
 
Has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, but will energize the rabid right at the presidential convention.

First there is precious little that occurs wholly within a state these days.

Second a confederacy was tried twice with dismal results. The fledgling Republic almost floundered as a Confederacy, the South was greatly hindered by a weak central government.

I'm not real sure just who will represent the states at a constitutional convention, who will vote when attempting to over ride federal laws.

Finally Congress isn't a separate nation- it's members are REPRESENTATIVES of the very states whining about Congress... :doh

I see this as a last desperate gasp of the rabid right to isolate themselves from reality... :peace
 
I agree that Texas didn't burn. That still doesn't mean it won the civil war. If Texas had won the civil war, New Mexico would be west Texas (actually as far west as Arizona would be a part of Texas).
 
notquiteright said:
Has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, but will energize the rabid right at the presidential convention.

First there is precious little that occurs wholly within a state these days.

Second a confederacy was tried twice with dismal results. The fledgling Republic almost floundered as a Confederacy, the South was greatly hindered by a weak central government.

I'm not real sure just who will represent the states at a constitutional convention, who will vote when attempting to over ride federal laws.

Finally Congress isn't a separate nation- it's members are REPRESENTATIVES of the very states whining about Congress... :doh

I see this as a last desperate gasp of the rabid right to isolate themselves from reality... :peace
Click to expand...

A convention to amend the Constitution is hardly a liberal vs conservative issue.

Lawrence Lessig provided a good explanation on a article V convention:

 
Bucky said:
A convention to amend the Constitution is hardly a liberal vs conservative issue.

Lawrence Lessig provided a good explanation on a article V convention:

Click to expand...


It is not the convention itself That is a issue, it is the changes that would be proposed at the convention that would draw controversy.
 
trollarc said:
Wyoming is doing the same thing as Vermont. Wyoming sales taxes are better than Texas.
Also at least people in Vermont aren't interested in reestablishing slavery. I assume when you say Yankees you are talking about the south rising again. If it happens the south will burn again.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm misreading your post. Are you suggesting that Texas wants to reestablish slavery?

As for the term "Yankees," there are several meanings. One is how the Brits sometimes refer to Americans, as in all of us. And then there are those whose intended meaning is upper East Coast. And then there are others who mean "anybody above the Mason-Dixon line." ;)
 
le bouffon said:
Texas is being stupid again. No surprise.
Click to expand...

I mean I guess right... When you probably don't even know what the tenth amendment is or what the whole nature of the federal system America employs is...

You live under a unitary state, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You don't live with the same mindset as many Americans do.

That's why we kicked the King's little ass in 1776 so that we can live how we wish.
 
CriticalThought said:
I am not a gun control advocate.

But I imagine some states could have theoretically very strong gun control laws if they were democratically enacted under such proposed changes to the Constitution. That could cut both ways.
Click to expand...

That's good. That's how it was supposed to be.

People within their states should be allowed to choose such things.

Instead we're stuck with a federal government wanting to do this nationwide against the will of many people within many states when it doesnt have the power to do so.
 
Luftwaffe said:
That's good. That's how it was supposed to be.

People within their states should be allowed to choose such things.

Instead we're stuck with a federal government wanting to do this nationwide against the will of many people within many states when it doesnt have the power to do so.
Click to expand...

Populism only has as much appeal as wanting to leave my rights up to a vote by my neighbors. Remember, the will of the people in our country is not a democratic vote, but the Constitution. That is the power.
 
OrphanSlug said:
A clear mistake, the article has the proposals in simple form...

  • Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
  • Require Congress to balance the federal 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 supermajority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
  • Limit federal powers to those expressly delegated 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.

... and there is no chance for any of this to become so. Just not that simple, nor would any one of them be passed as such.
Click to expand...

And that's a terrible shame. It's tantamount to saying that the laws of the United States are never going to work as they should work or were intended to work. We're on a downward slope to the authoritarian state of nightmares in which the State as a class interest claims more and more of the privileges and resources of the nation to the detriment of all others. The only people who imagine this to be a good thing are those who think that they will be among the privileged of the State Class and who care nothing of their fellow, ordinary citizens.
 
LowDown said:
And that's a terrible shame. It's tantamount to saying that the laws of the United States are never going to work as they should work or were intended to work. We're on a downward slope to the authoritarian state of nightmares in which the State as a class interest claims more and more of the privileges and resources of the nation to the detriment of all others. The only people who imagine this to be a good thing are those who think that they will be among the privileged of the State Class and who care nothing of their fellow, ordinary citizens.
Click to expand...

No it is not, it is indicative of the debate we always have on whom is supreme. The Federal government or the States. These efforts want to tip the balance towards the States. In principle I agree with the idea but we have some practical complications with States deciding which Federal Laws they want to follow, and the implied consequence is the States deciding which aspects of the Federal Constitution are irrelevant within their borders. We have no reason to believe the States will abide by Constitutional principles anymore than the Federal Government has not over the years.
 
OrphanSlug said:
No it is not, it is indicative of the debate we always have on whom is supreme. The Federal government or the States. These efforts want to tip the balance towards the States. In principle I agree with the idea but we have some practical complications with States deciding which Federal Laws they want to follow, and the implied consequence is the States deciding which aspects of the Federal Constitution are irrelevant within their borders. We have no reason to believe the States will abide by Constitutional principles anymore than the Federal Government has not over the years.
Click to expand...

You write "tip the balance toward the States" as if it were a bad thing, when in fact that's exactly what was intended by those who wrote the Constitution in the first place. The Federal government was intended to have only certain enumerated powers which they long ago exceeded through judicial fiat. It was only the State and local governments that were intended to have plenary powers.

The proposal for states over-riding Federal laws, as I understand it, was that two thirds of all of them together vote to quash such laws. It wasn't that individual states decide which federal laws they'd follow. Since the states acting in concert is pretty much the same criteria set down in the Constitution for amending the Constitution itself I see no problem with that idea.
 
CriticalThought said:
Populism only has as much appeal as wanting to leave my rights up to a vote by my neighbors. Remember, the will of the people in our country is not a democratic vote, but the Constitution. That is the power.
Click to expand...

Yes, and before the 14A came into existence, the founding fathers, those who wrote and oversaw the early days of the very constitution itself, wrote the second amendment with the mindset that it only stopped the federal government.

With the 14A in existence, it is true that states can no longer infringe upon that right either. However, it was not inaccurate for me to note that the original way things worked was that the states had a lot more leeway to do things like that so long as it had the majority consent of the people within that state.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I mostly agree with Abbott's state's rights dream, but do we really want even the remote possibility of "slave" states and nonsense like requiring a CHL to openly carry a handgun (like Texas now "enjoys"?). Majority rule looks good on paper but once we rid ourselves of states having to comply with the 14A and 2A we are entering into a dangerous state (pun intended) of affairs. Let Abbott first explain why Texas lacks constitutional carry and has sanctuary cities and maybe then I would take him a bit more seriously. My thoughts are clean up your own backyard and lead by example of restoring rights to the people (even the gay and poor people). The home of "affluenza boy" is hardly a fine example of equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...

Where does TX require CHL holders to open carry?
 
WCH said:
Where does TX require CHL holders to open carry?
Click to expand...

Reading is for the mental... I mean fundamental. Open carry (in most places) of a handgun in Texas is now legal only by CHL holders. Texas CHL holders now have the option of open carry - I never said that open carry was mandated for CHL holders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom