Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46552
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    The cracks are widening.

    http://guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000074518

    Governor Abbott Unveils Texas Plan, Offers Constitutional Amendments
    To Restore The Rule Of Law
    AUSTIN – Governor Greg Abbott today delivered the keynote address at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Annual Policy Orientation where he unveiled his Texas Plan to restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose. In his plan, Governor Abbott offers nine constitutional amendments to rein in the federal government and restore the balance of power between the States and the United States. The Governor proposes achieving the constitutional amendments through a Convention Of States.

    “The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” said Governor Abbott. “We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way. To do that I am adding another item to the agenda next session. I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our Constitution.”

    Governor Abbott went on to explain that dysfunction in Washington, D.C. stems largely from the federal government’s refusal to follow the Constitution. Congress routinely violates its enumerated powers, while taxing and spending its way from one financial crisis to another. The President exceeds his executive powers to impose heavy-handed regulations. And the Supreme Court imposes its policy views under the guise of judicial interpretation. Governor Abbott urged action by Texas – and other states – to restore the Rule of Law in America.

    Governor Abbott offered the following constitutional amendments:
    1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

    2. Require Congress to balance its budget.

    3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

    4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

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

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

    7. 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.

    8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

    9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

    To view Governor Abbott’s full plan, click here.
    – See more at: http://guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000074518#.dpuf

    #46553
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    I wouldnt be opposed to making the feds sign it at bayonet point ……..sort of like the Magna Carta . Sign it or bad things will happen lol

    #46554
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    Better a Constitutional Convention than Civil War II.

    #46555
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    I agree . Let it be so .

    #46558
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    Reluctantly, I disagree. I believe at this point in our history that once the constitutional amendment can of worms is opened, we’d see the original intent of Abbott and like-minded people swallowed up by others that would start tinkering with every bit of anything going on, and the amendment outcome would be very different from what was intended. But I’d also like to go point by point with Abbott’s probably (uh, MAYBE) well-intentioned plans:

    1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
    Be careful what you wish for. What if some off-the-wall state decided they wanted to expel all of a certain race or religion, re-institute slavery, or some other thing that we’d consider outrageous – but one state legislature and governor manage to make it the law of that one state?

    2. Require Congress to balance its budget.
    There COULD be times of extreme national emergency (such as a multi-front war) where Congress might HAVE to borrow, just as any citizen might have to take on debt for an emergency, for example. Or perhaps the government would have to intervene to rescue the nation in the event of a crippling EMP, regardless of source. There would be no tax revenue because both the means to earn money and then pay it to the government would be wiped out. Either they start down the road of suddenly ignoring the Constitution and say, “This is an exception we simply have to put in play,” or they don’t build in an absolute restriction in the first place. And what would stop Congress from simply arguing themselves through fiscal year after fiscal year without passing a budget? What is the penalty for the Congressmen – death? Prison? That’s a corner we don’t need to be painted into.

    3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
    If the people aren’t willing to be adequately informed about the issues and elect (or fire) their elected representatives who SHOULD already be structuring the laws to prohibit such actions, rather than leaving the “administrative details” of the enabling legislation up to the agencies, then we’ve already given up. We’d have said that Congress is a joke, it doesn’t really matter, and we’d be trying to literally make laws by constitutional amendment ourselves.

    4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
    Again, we’d be using the Constitution to micromanage – that’s the JOB of Congress and the President (and ultimately the courts). If we can’t elect or get appointed the kinds of people needed to do proper oversight, then all the constitutional amendments in the world aren’t going to be enforced any more than they are now. It’s absolutely absurd that bureaucrats are allowed to run roughshod over individual citizens, wiring around state laws, etc. The tools to stop this are already there. If we can’t get it done now, why should we expect the same Congress, President, and Supremes to properly enforce the Constitution then?

    5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
    That’s nothing more than a modified version of pure democracy – where the majority rules, and the minority can be crushed under foot. Look at the laws made in a large number of states even today. What would cause them to suddenly, after these 9 amendments are in place, suddenly “see the light” and do things right?

    6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
    Well, we’d have just destroyed even more of the checks and balances system envisioned by the Framers. The Supreme Court is supposed to be properly interpreting the Constitution in order to rule on whether laws meet that standard or not. If they’re that far out of control that we have to require a 7-justice super-majority, we’re still only patching massive cracks in the dam with surface concrete.

    7. 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.
    It’s already there – why “amend” the Constitution to tell governments to follow the 10th Amendment that already exists?

    8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
    This is getting into an area I don’t know well enough. I know there are restrictions on who can sue the federal government, but I believe individual human beings should not be the ones doing it in at least this case – it should be a state suing the feds, not a state official. The STATES need to get their acts together. This proposed amendment would STILL require the Court to do the right thing – and that’s a function of society as a whole, who ultimately put them there by electing the official that makes those appointments (the President). If the fruit on the tree is still rotten, nothing good will come of it.

    9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
    See answer to #5 above.

    No, I’m not in favor of this. Either the United States succeeds based on the Constitution as it now stands, or the United States falls because the PEOPLE “can’t keep it,” as Ben Franklin told the woman who asked what they’d produced. “A Republic – if you can keep it.” Unless society fundamentally changes back to where people (starting early in school) are taught what is really IN the Constitution, and why, and they truly understand balance of power, checks and balances, etc., then we cannot sustain the nation regardless of all the changes people want to make. And let that camel get his nose even a millimeter under the edge of the tent, and he’ll take over.

    I thought Greg Abbott was a good and decent man. Now I wonder. Either he’s not what he appeared to be, or he’s got very little understanding of government. That should be very scary, given that he was the Texas Attorney General prior to his run for Governor. And beyond that, his advisers should have their heads examined, in my opinion.

    In this day and time, I believe the disloyal opposition would just LOVE to open up the constitutional amendment process. They’d have a field day. Here is just one of many articles that intelligently explore the problems of an Article V Convention.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17692-article-v-group-ignores-states-complicity-in-federal-power-grab

    And if changes are to be made, why ignore both the 16th and 17th Amendments? Income tax? That’s NOT how it was originally supposed to go. And direct election of the U.S. Senate? Again, NOT the way it was originally designed – with fundamentally good reason! I would have to wonder why those two Amendments aren’t even discussed when we hear of the things they want to ADD to the Constitution. Why not whack some things back OUT of the Constitution first? If senators were once again appointed by their respective state legislatures, AND (a huge “and”) if the PEOPLE took an interest and got educated in how government is supposed to work (and hasn’t since just a few decades after the Constitution was signed), perhaps we’d be back on the right track again without having to change the Constitution at all – just UNchange it. If “We the People” won’t force our legislators to do their jobs, all the tinkering in the world won’t make it better. The outcome could make things look like we’re actually following the Constitution today, by comparison. BAD deal!

    #46559
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    The Convention of States is a legal process included in our constitution. Actions taken in an attempt to save the nation through this process probably are necessary. The Constitution was changed in 1913 modifying the election process of federal senators to a popular vote giving majority rule to urban areas. Our current situation is directly related and can’t be fixed unless a new process is introduced.

    The law of unintended consequences be dammed, if we wait any longer there won’t be anything left worth saving.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Profile photo of 74 74.
    #46562
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    I guess we’ll just have to disagree on the right method of a solution – at least we’re still in agreement where we want to end up. My concern is the fundamental brokenness of society, and society elects these people in D.C. that make these laws. While the President is just more outspoken and blatant about it, Congress has been going about the same process as the President for longer than any of us have been around – ignoring what’s written and looking for loopholes. And “we” put them there. The solution (and I admit not having a realistic means of applying it) is to have an educated population that understands the Constitution, the electoral process, the critical importance of intelligently participating in that process, and the will to go after elected officials that don’t DO what they were sent to do. I see nothing in those nine proposed amendments that would do a single thing to change society as a whole and gain greater and better informed participation in the electoral process. Without that, we’re not effectively changing anything, while potentially getting the process hijacked with things added in that we will live (and die) to regret. These make as much sense as the law some Republican congressman proposed to force the President to follow the Constitution. I don’t recall who that was (about a year ago as I remember), but I was simply floored that it had so much support and there was almost no opposition to it – it was a time waster, and a ploy (intended or not) to avoid dealing with the REAL issue that supposedly triggered it.

    We’re broken as a society and the swirl around the drain is widening and speeding up. If someone has a solution to that problem, I’d be very interested. I dealt primarily with individual minds in my employment – I’m not a sociologist.

    #46563
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    GS, I for one would never choose the deaths of millions (and make no mistake Civil War II would entail the death of millions) and the destruction of the economy because in theory a Constitutional Convention shouldn’t be necessary. Theory only works on paper. The real world gets messy. The majority of the population, uneducated in the Constitution as they may be, is perfectly content with how things are. They’re not going to demand change. Sure they might want more freebies but fundamentally they accept as valid the role the Federal govt. plays. Not that the Republicans would adhere to a literal interpretation of the Constitution were they to regain the Whitehouse, but at this point demographics are such that it will be extremely difficult for them to ever regain it. There is a chance this year, but the demographic tide continues to shift and it will be more difficult with each election cycle. Even good old conservative Texas is sliding towards becoming a “battleground State”. That might be the case for a couple election cycles, and then it’ll be a blue State too. Given the sheer number of electoral votes TX represents, this in and of itself may keep the Whitehouse in Democrat hands. For the non-Americans here, blue connotes Democrat States and red connotes Republican States.

    The demographic shift underway is such that the sooner a Constitutional Convention could convene the better the chances something good could come out of it. Currently there are 32 Republican Governors which if we looked at the country’s demographics as a whole is incredibly skewed. The country’s population isn’t even remotely 64% Republican or conservative leaning but in a Constitutional Convention red Wyoming has an equal vote with blue New York. The red States are disproportionately the lower population States and more rural States. With all of the country’s population growth going to urban areas, over time some of the red States like Texas are going to go blue, and there will be fewer Republican Governors sending Republican delegations to a Constitutional Convention. Most of us here are old enough to remember when Colorado was a reliably red State. Nobody ever paid attention to VT given its small population and minimal electoral votes but its only been voting blue since the 1992 elections. Prior to 1992, it had only voted blue once since the 1850’s. Now here we are in 2016 with Bernie.

    In some regards GS, it is now or never as the Constitutional Convention window of opportunity will only get smaller with time.

    #46564
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    MB, you make some good points. I’m not entirely on board, but if it does go forward, those nine proposals as currently written, plus the absence of anything addressing income tax and direct election of senators, are serious no-go issues for me. They would need revision (and in the case of the 16th and 17th Amendments, addition into the process) before I could support it. IF it’s the better option, I would agree with your logic that the window of opportunity is fast closing. So if it’s going to be done, it needs to be done right. There will be no do-over. We will either be cursed or blessed with what we get.

    My concern is not just for the low/no-information voters (what few there are that actually vote anymore). It is with the politicians those voters send to our statehouses and D.C. We should expect them to disregard anything they don’t like even under an amended Constitution if they cannot find a “loophole” as they see it. And that’s my hang up with this process – if it’s on paper but not followed now, we should expect the same the day after the Con-Con process is completed as well. And if we end up with things out of that process that are far worse than we have now (gun control?), those same corrupt politicians would be using their “new, improved” Constitution to enforce those things we may only fear at this point, if they become law through a hijacked Con-Con.

    But the would-be new framers need to at least fix the proposals before going forward. I truly am surprised that a former state attorney general and supposedly successful attorney in his prior practice, was not more careful with what he published. And I have to wonder why. I also have to wonder why there’s NO mention of actual tax reform (e.g. repeal of the 16th Amendment), or the severe assault on the 10th Amendment by the passage of the 17th Amendment (direct election of the Senate), when the verbiage in his proposals frequently seems to go toward states’ rights. Fix the fundamental problem, don’t keep applying bandaids. There’s either incompetence going on there, or corruption. Why would I possibly think the latter, though? [No. I don’t trust them. And I guess that’s my real bottom line.]

    #46566
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    If the Constitutional Convention were to take place , the fundamental differences that are sure to happen , could very well lead to a serious Secession Movement or actions …………a solution I am personally in favor of . I would like to see a break up .

    #46567
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    I seem to remember the Con-Con argument raging on another forum.
    It was heavily debated.

    #46569
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    MB is exactly correct in his comments. I have more trust in State Legislators then any other governmental body, where I have none. Abbott is not the only one calling for a convention, his amendments might not make it to the final draft. The US Constitution wasn’t created on a single writing either. The movement currently has over thirty States calling for a convention. It’s time to make it happen.

    #46571
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    If the Constitutional Convention were to take place , the fundamental differences that are sure to happen , could very well lead to a serious Secession Movement or actions …………a solution I am personally in favor of . I would like to see a break up .

    Tolik, one of the problems with a breakup is that we here in our little bubble where some degree of sanity still exists (Vermont – New Hampshire – Maine) likely wouldn’t be allowed to go our own way. At a minimum NY, MA, CT, & NJ with their vastly larger population (13X ours just for those 4 before MD, PA, OH, RI, & DE are added in) would claim us as theirs, and we’d be far worse off if that gang didn’t have the checks that the current Constitution puts on them. If I knew the three of us (VT, NH, ME) could go our own way I’d see this differently.

    #46573
    Tolik
    Tolik
    Survivalist
    member10

    We may not have a choice , Texas may actually do it if things didnt go their way , if they go , at least 4-5 other states will join the Texas block . Once done , its done , and the divisions will break off in their own regional direction . It has been speculated that in a break up , the United States will basically be the north east . The others calling themselves whatever they decide . However , states can be part of a country without being connected to it , Alaska and Hawaii are that way now . Maine NH, Vermont could join one of the other Republics .

    #46574
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous
    Survivalist

    I see a nightmare. First, all the corporate connections with businesses in most if not every state would be shot – all under certain state laws (where incorporation occurred), as well as federal laws (which would no longer apply in the outlying areas no longer part of the “new” USA (NUSA). Travel between “countries” could get mighty tricky. Banking? How would THAT be split up? And the New York Stock Exchange, which the feddies of the NUSA would still claim to control – what happens to everyone’s investments outside the presumed boundaries of the northeast + California? How about every single Social Security recipient in all the world, when the feddies no longer have but a tiny fraction of their former income, and are thus totally incapable of paying even the people still living in the NUSA? And those outside the NUSA? How about their checks? (Gone!) Then there are military and civilian federal retirees to be paid. How do they get paid, and who gets paid (likely only those that remain – or move to – the NUSA)? How about current military, whose families are scattered all across the nation, at military installations that for the most part are suddenly in foreign lands (like the many military bases of multiple services in Texas alone)?

    Ok, so I want to move to TX to join the new Republic. How do I sell my house, and where am I getting any income from anymore? What do I use to purchase my new residence in Texas – if they even want outsiders?

    Just a few “interesting” questions I thought of, off the top of my head. As Neil Sedaka sang oh so long ago, “Breaking up is hard to do.”

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.