Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently called for a Constitutional Amendment.
Abbott's nine proposed amendments are:
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.
I believe the founders were in favor of states' rights which is why they ensured the Bill of Rights were short and sweet, included the 10th Amendment, and made it extremely difficult to amend the Constitution.
There is perhaps an additional amendment about corporate influence that could be devised to limit corporate or even individual influence in districts where they are not residents, but overall, these amendments seem reasonable.
The US is not culturally homogenous. I don't think it is fair to let a small geographical area to dictate policies all over the United States. In particular, I think the proposed amendment to limit the federal government to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution is absolutely necessary.
I'm interested in other's views about this. Please try to put aside your partisan views and think about this like a rational human being who isn't indoctrinated by group think.
None of it's ever going to happen. As for the ideas; mostly they are ridiculous. Basically they would make the Fed and Supreme Court toothless. While I don't think the Fed should have absolute power, I don't think the States should either. A balanced budget is nice but it's not feasible because at times you are going to require a deficit. The only one I agree with is not allowing administrative agencies to make their own laws.
I'm against these proposed amendments. Basically, this allows states to ignore the Supreme Court and Federal law. No country will exist for long without some type of central authority and Texas is not a sovereign nation.
However, this isn't a serious proposal since these amendments read like something he wrote on a napkin. It's grandstanding.
I'm against these proposed amendments. Basically, this allows states to ignore the Supreme Court and Federal law. No country will exist for long without some type of central authority and Texas is not a sovereign nation.
However, this isn't a serious proposal since these amendments read like something he wrote on a napkin. It's grandstanding.
I imagine that is the goal of people like Abbot. To erode the power of the Fed to such a point that they can simply leave.
The current occupant of the White House knows that his days there are numbered; consequently, he will use executive power to throw a last sop or two to his sycophants, without regard to the Constitution -- which he would attempt to circumvent by "packing" the Supreme Court with "rubber stamp" judges as well, if the opportunity presented itself.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but Gov. Abbot is merely attempting to feed the President from the same spoon as the President fed organizations, industries and regions on his own "enemies list".
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 01-09-2016 at 07:50 PM..
None of it's ever going to happen. As for the ideas; mostly they are ridiculous. Basically they would make the Fed and Supreme Court toothless. While I don't think the Fed should have absolute power, I don't think the States should either. A balanced budget is nice but it's not feasible because at times you are going to require a deficit. The only one I agree with is not allowing administrative agencies to make their own laws.
I'm scratching my head a little at this response.
You stated "they would make the Fed and Supreme Court toothless;" however, the proposed amendments would require a 2/3 majority of states to overthrow a ruling. Additionally, it required a Super Majority to overthrow a law that was enacted democratically by the people.
Do you think it should require a larger majority of states? Do you not have faith in a democratic system?
While it is possible to have a Constitutional Convention, to have one I think would be something of a disaster for two main reasons.
First of all, one has to realize that by opening up the Pandora Box to try to get the changes you want to put in, others will probably be there trying to get the changes they want which may be the last things you want to see. A Constitutional Convention would probably oust the 2nd Amendment and who knows, might even result in saying the Federal Government is supreme in all matters. It could end up being a peaceful example of the Russian and Iranian Revolutions where one got rid of what was causing heartache at the time but ended up with something they really were not expecting.
I like it when Abbot is promoting Texas rights but I think this suggestion is a fools folly.
Secondly is that we have over two centuries of how to do things, how life is conducted, based on case law sourced of the Constitution as it now. What will happen to all of that if the document is changed? Say the 8th amendment is changed to permit the DP in cases of murder, rape, and maiming and that the Ex Post Facto clause is removed enabling it to be applied to those who committed their crimes before the Convention. There are certainly at least voices who feel the DP should be applied in that way. How could we conduct life after such a change and should we be tied up in so many court cases that would result when we should be doing other things?
I'm against these proposed amendments. Basically, this allows states to ignore the Supreme Court and Federal law. No country will exist for long without some type of central authority and Texas is not a sovereign nation.
However, this isn't a serious proposal since these amendments read like something he wrote on a napkin. It's grandstanding.
The states can't ignore anything without a 2/3 majority. If the majority of the states are against a Supreme Court ruling, then why should it be written into law? The states that agree could change their laws to reflect the Supreme Court ruling so people have freedom of choice to move to or from that state if the law sufficiently affects their lifestyle enough to merit a move.
You stated "they would make the Fed and Supreme Court toothless;" however, the proposed amendments would require a 2/3 majority of states to overthrow a ruling. Additionally, it required a Super Majority to overthrow a law that was enacted democratically by the people.
Do you think it should require a larger majority of states? Do you not have faith in a democratic system?
You need a super majority to overturn legislation. Meaning that rarely would legislation ever be overturned, even if it was not Constitutional. And since the right Controls 35 State Legislatures they would be able to overturn most decisions. As I said, toothless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
