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

Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday called for a convention to gather and adopt nine new amendments to the U.S. Constitution in what he is calling “the Texas plan,” an ambitious, if improbable, gambit to wrest power from the federal government for the states.

“Departures from the Constitution are not the aberration. Now they have become the norm,” said Abbott, speaking at an event by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank in Austin. “The irony is the threat to our republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes in part from our very own leader.”

His proposed amendments — which include allowing a two-thirds vote of the states to repeal any federal law and preventing Congress from regulating activity that takes place all within the borders of one state, such as marriage and gun ownership — would “put teeth in the 10th Amendment” and guarantee states’ rights, he said.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for 9 amendments to US Constitution | www.mystatesman.com


I applaud Gov. Abbott for this venture. It's been a long time coming.

WCH said:

Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday called for a convention to gather and adopt nine new amendments to the U.S. Constitution in what he is calling “the Texas plan,” an ambitious, if improbable, gambit to wrest power from the federal government for the states.

“Departures from the Constitution are not the aberration. Now they have become the norm,” said Abbott, speaking at an event by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank in Austin. “The irony is the threat to our republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes in part from our very own leader.”

His proposed amendments — which include allowing a two-thirds vote of the states to repeal any federal law and preventing Congress from regulating activity that takes place all within the borders of one state, such as marriage and gun ownership — would “put teeth in the 10th Amendment” and guarantee states’ rights, he said.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for 9 amendments to US Constitution | www.mystatesman.com


I applaud Gov. Abbott for this venture. It's been a long time coming.

Click to expand...

Texas is being stupid again. No surprise.

WCH said:

Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday called for a convention to gather and adopt nine new amendments to the U.S. Constitution in what he is calling “the Texas plan,” an ambitious, if improbable, gambit to wrest power from the federal government for the states.

“Departures from the Constitution are not the aberration. Now they have become the norm,” said Abbott, speaking at an event by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank in Austin. “The irony is the threat to our republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes in part from our very own leader.”

His proposed amendments — which include allowing a two-thirds vote of the states to repeal any federal law and preventing Congress from regulating activity that takes place all within the borders of one state, such as marriage and gun ownership — would “put teeth in the 10th Amendment” and guarantee states’ rights, he said.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for 9 amendments to US Constitution | www.mystatesman.com


I applaud Gov. Abbott for this venture. It's been a long time coming.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

le bouffon said:

Texas is being stupid again. No surprise.

Click to expand...

Having a few Texans of questionable intellect, even in high places, does not make Texas stupid. If we were to judge the entire US based on their congress critters alone then Texas is not even close to the stupidest state.

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...

The only two that are not crazy are the first, second, third and fourth in your list above.

However, the first is already a restriction placed on the federal government by the Constitution.

The second, while it sounds good on it's face, doesn't take into consideration the need to fund a future war or other such actions that the federal government must do that would create a budget deficit; nor does it take into account a budget surplus. To say a balanced budget must be accomplished each year by Congress must also address the nuances of not only spending power, but also the power to borrow money and what must be done with any surplus. Way too convoluted of an issue to put in an amendment to the Constitution.

The third and fourth are also restricted as well as empowered by the Constitution - 10th Amendment and Supremacy Clause. The way the feds exert power of the states now is with the power of the purse. If the states don't want federal agencies pre-empting state law, then don't take their money and the state can do whatever the hell they want, as long as the state law doesn't contradict the US Constitution, as those laws that infringe upon rights like Equal Protection and Due Process.

What most of this comes down to is "inclusion" as it relates to the US Constitution and whether states have the power to restrict the citizens of their state in regard to rights as defined by the US Constitution.

I am pro-inclusion. One reason I am, is because it would also force the Feds to comply with the 10th Amendment as well.

Hm...I wonder what laws have been democratically enacted in states and overturned by a simple majority of SCOTUS that would warrant conservatives wanting to amend the Constitution through convention. I wonder...

If the rule book does not allow you to discriminate against who you want then change the rule book. That seems to be the moral here.

WCH said:

Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday called for a convention to gather and adopt nine new amendments to the U.S. Constitution in what he is calling “the Texas plan,” an ambitious, if improbable, gambit to wrest power from the federal government for the states.

“Departures from the Constitution are not the aberration. Now they have become the norm,” said Abbott, speaking at an event by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank in Austin. “The irony is the threat to our republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes in part from our very own leader.”

His proposed amendments — which include allowing a two-thirds vote of the states to repeal any federal law and preventing Congress from regulating activity that takes place all within the borders of one state, such as marriage and gun ownership — would “put teeth in the 10th Amendment” and guarantee states’ rights, he said.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for 9 amendments to US Constitution | www.mystatesman.com


I applaud Gov. Abbott for this venture. It's been a long time coming.

Click to expand...

Bad idea.
Better idea would be electing people that respect the words & intent of the Constitution we have now.

bubbabgone said:

Bad idea.
Better idea would be electing people that respect the words & intent of the Constitution we have now.

Click to expand...

Translation: Electing people who agree with what I believe are the words & intent of the Constitution we have now.

It is funny but when people start talking about that document they suddenly seem to think their perspective is the absolute truth when in reality even the Founders didn't agree on how it should be interpreted and many went to court to argue their point of view. And of course much of it could not conceivably apply to the world of today with modern advances in technology and policy but we are willing to glaze over that in some areas with interpretation of intent alone and outright rejection for lack of explicit mention in others.

CriticalThought said:

Translation: Electing people who agree with what I believe are the words & intent of the Constitution we have now.

It is funny but when people start talking about that document they suddenly seem to think their perspective is the absolute truth when in reality even the Founders didn't agree on how it should be interpreted and many went to court to argue their point of view.

And of course much of it could not conceivably apply to the world of today with modern advances in technology

Click to expand...

and policy but we are willing to glaze over that in some areas with interpretation of intent alone and outright rejection for

lack of explicit mention in others.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You're making it more complicated than it is. A Constitutional Convention would be a nightmare and THAT would be complicated.

Lack of mention is what Legislators are there to remedy and why they should know and respect the words and intent of the Constitution.

Silly move. There is a better solution. Call for a convention to insist the government actually FOLLOW the Constitution.

CriticalThought said:

Hm...I wonder what laws have been democratically enacted in states and overturned by a simple majority of SCOTUS that would warrant conservatives wanting to amend the Constitution through convention. I wonder...

If the rule book does not allow you to discriminate against who you want then change the rule book. That seems to be the moral here.

Click to expand...

Slow down there, Skippy. If marriage, a mere state issued privilege, laws must be "equal" (least restrictive?) among the many states then 2A constitutional rights rental agreements, such as CCW permits and CHLs must be "equal" (least restrictive?) as well. To my knowledge nobody was being arrested, fined and/or jailed for not having a marriage license while engaged in "married" behavior - the same cannot be said for those engaged in the behavior of keeping and bearing arms without securing prior express permission from the state.

wch said:

gov. Greg abbott on friday called for a convention to gather and adopt nine new amendments to the u.s. Constitution in what he is calling “the texas plan,” an ambitious, if improbable, gambit to wrest power from the federal government for the states.

“departures from the constitution are not the aberration. Now they have become the norm,” said abbott, speaking at an event by the texas public policy foundation, a conservative think tank in austin. “the irony is the threat to our republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes in part from our very own leader.”

his proposed amendments — which include allowing a two-thirds vote of the states to repeal any federal law and preventing congress from regulating activity that takes place all within the borders of one state, such as marriage and gun ownership — would “put teeth in the 10th amendment” and guarantee states’ rights, he said.

texas gov. Greg abbott calls for 9 amendments to us constitution | www.mystatesman.com


i applaud gov. Abbott for this venture. It's been a long time coming.

Click to expand...

he is an idiot!

Translation:

It is easy to manipulate government at state level with massive gerrymandering.. so this is the way the GOP will want to remain relevant in the future.. No wonder this suggestion comes from a state where the GOP have massively gerrymandered districts in such a way that they will not lose power any time soon. Pathetic anti-democratic bull**** coming from the GOP.

ttwtt78640 said:

Slow down there, Skippy. If marriage, a mere state issued privilege, laws must be "equal" (least restrictive?) among the many states then 2A constitutional rights rental agreements, such as CCW permits and CHLs must be "equal" (least restrictive?) as well. To my knowledge nobody was being arrested, fined and/or jailed for not having a marriage license while engaged in "married" behavior - the same cannot be said for those engaged in the behavior of keeping and bearing arms without securing prior express permission from the state.

Click to expand...

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.

I think Abbot is tilting at windmills.

a convention, would open the constitution up to special interest who would rewrite the constitution is their favor.

easier way to fix the constitution.

repeal the 16th -17th amendments, and phrase out the federal reserve.

ttwtt78640 said:

Slow down there, Skippy. If marriage, a mere state issued privilege, laws must be "equal" (least restrictive?) among the many states then 2A constitutional rights rental agreements, such as CCW permits and CHLs must be "equal" (least restrictive?) as well. To my knowledge nobody was being arrested, fined and/or jailed for not having a marriage license while engaged in "married" behavior - the same cannot be said for those engaged in the behavior of keeping and bearing arms without securing prior express permission from the state.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Vermont is open carry and permitless concealed carry therefore all states should be. Texas gun laws are too strict.

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...

OK, but Vermont is too small, is located way up north and has far too many yankees - quite a price to pay just for better current 2A adherence.

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.

In some way I think a new convention is a good thing, in other ways I'm very leery about it.

For example:
1. For one thing, number of delegates, if the requirement is a fixed number per state. That is one thing. On the other if the number is based on either population or number of Congressional seats (currently 535) then states with larger populations (California, New York, Florida, etc) will have a bigger impact on outcomes. Remember there were 13 colonies but if IIRC there were 55 delegats to the last Constitutional conventions. In other words their were more from some colonies and fewer from others.

2. Secondly there is a question on subject matter that can be addressed within such a convention. And there are two lines of reasoning with that. Which I'll refer to as "limited" and "general".



>>>>

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...

:roll:

VanceMack said:

Silly move. There is a better solution. Call for a convention to insist the government actually FOLLOW the Constitution.

Click to expand...

This is the idea. Once you have 34 states in agreement, the US Congress must address it. (there are 31 Republican governors now)

WCH said:

This is the idea. Once you have 34 states in agreement, the US Congress must address it.

Click to expand...

You can do that during the Governors meetings. Calling a Constitutional Convention is a bad idea and frankly it would be a horrible waste of time.

WCH said:

This is the idea. Once you have 34 states in agreement, the US Congress must address it. (there are 31 Republican governors now)

Click to expand...

Just FYI...

Governors don't have the say (other than as a bully pulpit) on whether a State petitions Congress to call for a convention.


>>>>