Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[ThoughtCrimes]

Amendment X is about EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED powers of the Federal and the subordinate States. There can be found no authority in the Constitution where the federal has the power to expel a troublesome State, such as Tejas, so how the fuck does a subordinate power have that power to exercise it? You don't know what the hell you're talking about, Tex!

Sorry, but no. The Constitution holds that all powers belong to the states, except for those they gave to the Fed by ratifying the Constitution.

Any power not explicitly named in the Constitution, does NOT belong to the Fed. And if the Fed tries to exercise that power, it is null and void… and it does NOT supersede state powers.

Big-govt leftists have been trying for a few centuries to pretend that ALL Federal laws override state laws. But they don’t. Only the laws given to the Fed by the Constitution do that. And that’s about ¼ of the powers the Fed is currently trying to claim as their own.

You post responding to mine to another has no fucking relevance to the topic of the discussion. Have you suffered a TBI recently?

 

[OKTexas]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

A balanced budget amendment I would support. The 'super-majority' I would say has to be 3/4 of Congress and signature of the president, rather than 78% of the Supreme Court.

The rest is much of what the Confederate States wanted before the civil war. The states with more power than the federal government.

Right now the Republican party who is in control of the Senate stated yesterday they 'won't even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee put forth by this president'.

I voted for this president in 2012. It was for a 4 year term, not 3. The CONSTITUTION requires the president to nominate justices to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, then the Senate interviews and approves one. Both parties have abided by the Constitution on this for 240 years, even with all the bickering and ankle biting, each party sucks it up and does their Constituitonal duty.

Now the Republicans have stated in essence they are free to ignore the Constitution in favor of their political biases. What they are doing is single-handedly nullifying my vote for president in 2012. A clear violation of the Constituiton and really an act of treason. I have already sent a letter to Republican House and Senate members, as well as state officials stating I am nullifying any votes they received and I will not follow any law or order enacted by a Republican official in the entire country.

I nullify your votes.

You people see what your hatred of this one man has done? And now you want the rest of us to consider letting YOUR party tamper with the Constitution?

FORGET IT. YOU ARE NOT AMERICANS ANY MORE.

You aren't.

The States were always supposed to have more power than the feds.

No they weren't. The Supremacy clause applies to the federal government, not the individual states.

You seem to forget, the supremacy of the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states, it says so right in the clause itself.

Article 6, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[OKTexas]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

A balanced budget amendment I would support. The 'super-majority' I would say has to be 3/4 of Congress and signature of the president, rather than 78% of the Supreme Court.

The rest is much of what the Confederate States wanted before the civil war. The states with more power than the federal government.

Right now the Republican party who is in control of the Senate stated yesterday they 'won't even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee put forth by this president'.

I voted for this president in 2012. It was for a 4 year term, not 3. The CONSTITUTION requires the president to nominate justices to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, then the Senate interviews and approves one. Both parties have abided by the Constitution on this for 240 years, even with all the bickering and ankle biting, each party sucks it up and does their Constituitonal duty.

Now the Republicans have stated in essence they are free to ignore the Constitution in favor of their political biases. What they are doing is single-handedly nullifying my vote for president in 2012. A clear violation of the Constituiton and really an act of treason. I have already sent a letter to Republican House and Senate members, as well as state officials stating I am nullifying any votes they received and I will not follow any law or order enacted by a Republican official in the entire country.

I nullify your votes.

You people see what your hatred of this one man has done? And now you want the rest of us to consider letting YOUR party tamper with the Constitution?

FORGET IT. YOU ARE NOT AMERICANS ANY MORE.

You aren't.

The States were always supposed to have more power than the feds. Also if the power to consent to a nomination they have the power to withhold that consent, there is nothing unconstitutional about what they are doing. And last but not least, I have been proposing an Article 5 convention a lot longer than the current POS has been in office. So take your pea brained bigotry somewhere else.

Ah and there it is. You support a political party nullifying votes for political purposes. You believe whoever is in power should get to pick and choose when they do and don't want to follow the Constitution and an election result they don't like.

This nullifies any of your 'desires' regarding changing the Constitution. Next.

The new senate was installed by the voters, they are doing what those voters want them to do, like your dear leader said, elections do have consequences, a sentiment, you have repeated. You are crying because the shoe is on the other foot. Grow up child.

 

[Debra K]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

A balanced budget amendment I would support. The 'super-majority' I would say has to be 3/4 of Congress and signature of the president, rather than 78% of the Supreme Court.

The rest is much of what the Confederate States wanted before the civil war. The states with more power than the federal government.

Right now the Republican party who is in control of the Senate stated yesterday they 'won't even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee put forth by this president'.

I voted for this president in 2012. It was for a 4 year term, not 3. The CONSTITUTION requires the president to nominate justices to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, then the Senate interviews and approves one. Both parties have abided by the Constitution on this for 240 years, even with all the bickering and ankle biting, each party sucks it up and does their Constituitonal duty.

Now the Republicans have stated in essence they are free to ignore the Constitution in favor of their political biases. What they are doing is single-handedly nullifying my vote for president in 2012. A clear violation of the Constituiton and really an act of treason. I have already sent a letter to Republican House and Senate members, as well as state officials stating I am nullifying any votes they received and I will not follow any law or order enacted by a Republican official in the entire country.

I nullify your votes.

You people see what your hatred of this one man has done? And now you want the rest of us to consider letting YOUR party tamper with the Constitution?

FORGET IT. YOU ARE NOT AMERICANS ANY MORE.

You aren't.

The States were always supposed to have more power than the feds.

No they weren't. The Supremacy clause applies to the federal government, not the individual states.

You seem to forget, the supremacy if the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states, it says so right in the clause itself.

Article 6, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Underline the part above that says "the supremacy if (sic) the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states." It says NO SUCH THING. Thus, you should identify which clause you are allegedly relying upon so the reader may correct your error.

I think you're misconstruing "the Laws of the United States". The United States is the federal government. Federal laws are set forth in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please clarify.

 

[OKTexas]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

The proposed "amendments" are absurd and are aimed at undermining the supremacy of the national government INTENDED within the four corners of the US Constitution that got rid of the Articles of Confederation in the first place. It's nothing more than a proposal for the neoconservative faction to take over national control through oligarchic rule and transform existing individual rights into majority rights & rule with the majority being that of the ruling oligarchs.

For those who haven't read them, here are Abbott's nine POS "proposed amendments":

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

II. Require Congress to balance its budget. (the only one worth consideration)

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

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

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

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

VII. 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.

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

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

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

 

[OKTexas]

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

And there is nothing in the Constitution that permits a State from seceding from the Union either. You don't consider insurrection, open rebellion and the Southern States' declarations of secession acts of treason? Somehow, the founders did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence!

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States.

"prohibited by it to the States"

What's the 'it' in that phrase?

That would be the Constitution, but no where is secession prohibited in that document, is it?

Secession? No...and if the South had stuck with just that, they might have succeeded. But they were stupid and fired first on a federal installation that had not fired on them.

Stupid...and treason. They deserved more than what Sherman did to Georgia.

The US was told to remove their soldiers from a sovereign nation and they did the opposite, that was an act of war.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

And there is nothing in the Constitution that permits a State from seceding from the Union either. You don't consider insurrection, open rebellion and the Southern States' declarations of secession acts of treason? Somehow, the founders did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence!

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States.

"prohibited by it to the States"

What's the 'it' in that phrase?

That would be the Constitution, but no where is secession prohibited in that document, is it?

Secession? No...and if the South had stuck with just that, they might have succeeded. But they were stupid and fired first on a federal installation that had not fired on them.

Stupid...and treason. They deserved more than what Sherman did to Georgia.

Let's see if you have an ounce of intellectual integrity. Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union were traitors?

 

[OKTexas]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

The proposed "amendments" are absurd and are aimed at undermining the supremacy of the national government INTENDED within the four corners of the US Constitution that got rid of the Articles of Confederation in the first place. It's nothing more than a proposal for the neoconservative faction to take over national control through oligarchic rule and transform existing individual rights into majority rights & rule with the majority being that of the ruling oligarchs.

For those who haven't read them, here are Abbott's nine POS "proposed amendments":

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

II. Require Congress to balance its budget. (the only one worth consideration)

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

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

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

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

VII. 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.

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

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

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

If we accept that premise as true, then what happened? Wasn't there a subsequent civil war? How much blood was spilled? At great human cost, didn't the civil war give rise to the post-civil war amendments? Those amendments provide the federal government with authority to "manage" states. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prevents States from depriving persons of their lives, liberty, or property without due process of law and depriving persons of equal protection under the law.

The civil war occurred because a single man decided that the primary reason for our founding, that free men should be able to govern themselves, was no longer a valid concept. And through the force of arms, imposed his will, while ignoring the bedrock principle.

You must be one of those who was taught that the War was started by the North. "The Lost Cause" propaganda machine was well entrenched by the 1880s.

Guess you haven't figured out that sending troops to a neighboring country is an act of war.

 

[imawhosure]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

A balanced budget amendment I would support. The 'super-majority' I would say has to be 3/4 of Congress and signature of the president, rather than 78% of the Supreme Court.

The rest is much of what the Confederate States wanted before the civil war. The states with more power than the federal government.

Right now the Republican party who is in control of the Senate stated yesterday they 'won't even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee put forth by this president'.

I voted for this president in 2012. It was for a 4 year term, not 3. The CONSTITUTION requires the president to nominate justices to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, then the Senate interviews and approves one. Both parties have abided by the Constitution on this for 240 years, even with all the bickering and ankle biting, each party sucks it up and does their Constituitonal duty.

Now the Republicans have stated in essence they are free to ignore the Constitution in favor of their political biases. What they are doing is single-handedly nullifying my vote for president in 2012. A clear violation of the Constituiton and really an act of treason. I have already sent a letter to Republican House and Senate members, as well as state officials stating I am nullifying any votes they received and I will not follow any law or order enacted by a Republican official in the entire country.

I nullify your votes.

You people see what your hatred of this one man has done? And now you want the rest of us to consider letting YOUR party tamper with the Constitution?

FORGET IT. YOU ARE NOT AMERICANS ANY MORE.

You aren't.

The States were always supposed to have more power than the feds. Also if the power to consent to a nomination they have the power to withhold that consent, there is nothing unconstitutional about what they are doing. And last but not least, I have been proposing an Article 5 convention a lot longer than the current POS has been in office. So take your pea brained bigotry somewhere else.

Ah and there it is. You support a political party nullifying votes for political purposes. You believe whoever is in power should get to pick and choose when they do and don't want to follow the Constitution and an election result they don't like.

This nullifies any of your 'desires' regarding changing the Constitution. Next.

The new senate was installed by the voters, they are doing what those voters want them to do, like your dear leader said, elections do have consequences, a sentiment, you have repeated. You are crying because the shoe is on the other foot. Grow up child.

If an article 5 was not constitutional, (how, I would never know since the framers laid it out) the Feds would have sent a "cease and desist" order. They didn't!

I know it can happen, you know it can happen, and pretend otherwise.........they know it can happen.

That is all anybody needs know, except once we decide together what Washington is losing, how long it is before it happens. Done. Period!

 

[OKTexas]

You mean why change it back, the feds and the courts has already improperly changed it, or just ignores it entirely.

Everything done by the feds and the courts has conformed to the Constitution.

That isn't true, there is nothing in the commerce clause to give power to the feds to regulate economic activities within a State, hell they even used it to regulate non-economic activities and the courts have allowed it. The justices decided many years ago that expanding the power of the feds, also expands their power. That's was not the intent, but it's been the result.

If the Supreme Court says it conforms to the Constitution, it conforms to the Constitution. That is how the Constitution works.

Sure and they can do that while not only ignoring the intent but the letter of the Constitution. They just conveniently say the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says. Get real.

And just coincidentally I suppose all of their errors just happen to be in conflict with your agenda.

YOU get real.

Nope, they're in conflict with the Constitution, whether we are a constitutional republic or not is determined by the courts. That's not what was intended.

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

And there is nothing in the Constitution that permits a State from seceding from the Union either. You don't consider insurrection, open rebellion and the Southern States' declarations of secession acts of treason? Somehow, the founders did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence!

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States. And the State used the democratic process to secede.

Are you freaking serious? Amendment X was the EXCUSE of the secessionists to rebel; States Rights was the bogus excuse to color the claim. Those States joining the US voluntarily ceded a portion of the sovereignty to join the union and accepted the Constitution as written.

Amendment X is about EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED powers of the Federal and the subordinate States. There can be found no authority in the Constitution where the federal has the power to expel a troublesome State, such as Tejas, so how the fuck does a subordinate power have that power to exercise it? You don't know what the hell you're talking about, Tex!

As the 10th states, the State are only subordinate in the areas where THEY granted power to the feds, no where did THEY give the feds the power to compel them to remain in the union.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

They most certainly did commit Treason...upon firing upon the U.S. And it was a big mistake to not hang quite a few of the leaders afterwards.

How do you commit treason against a country you had withdrawn from?

The Constitution prohibits secession via the Supremacy Clause.

Bullshit. The supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers.

lolol, where is that enumerated?

The Supremacy Clause applies to ALL federal law.

Which are only supposed to be written in the furtherance of the Constitution itself, to carry out the enumerated powers granted to the feds, by who, oh right, the STATES.

 

[OKTexas]

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

And there is nothing in the Constitution that permits a State from seceding from the Union either. You don't consider insurrection, open rebellion and the Southern States' declarations of secession acts of treason? Somehow, the founders did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence!

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States.

"prohibited by it to the States"

What's the 'it' in that phrase?

Let me help you.

The 'it' refers to the Constitution.

...powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, are reserved to the States.

So, IOW, the States get to do what the Constitution doesn't prohibit them from doing.

Your dumb assed little question was answered a couple of pages ago.

 

[OKTexas]

The Supremacy Clause applies to ALL federal law.

Nope, only to Fed laws the govt is authorized to exercise. And that's maybe 1/4 of the powers they are currently trying to claim.

The Federal government is entitled to as much power as the Supreme Court allows.

And I guess the supreme court is allowed to grant itself any power it desires also. Every time they expand the power of the feds they also expand their authority.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

They most certainly did commit Treason...upon firing upon the U.S. And it was a big mistake to not hang quite a few of the leaders afterwards.

How do you commit treason against a country you had withdrawn from?

The Constitution prohibits secession via the Supremacy Clause.

Bullshit. The supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers.

The bullshit is coming from your keyboard, Tex.

The supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers.

Here is Article VI Cls 2, the Supremacy Clause;

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Now you show all of us where it reads that limitation you assert, Tex, you blowhard!

I guess you don't understand what "in pursuance thereof" means.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Sorry, but no. The Constitution holds that all powers belong to the states, except for those they gave to the Fed by ratifying the Constitution.
Any power not explicitly named in the Constitution, does NOT belong to the Fed. And if the Fed tries to exercise that power, it is null and void… and it does NOT supersede state powers.
Big-govt leftists have been trying for a few centuries to pretend that ALL Federal laws override state laws. But they don’t. Only the laws given to the Fed by the Constitution do that. And that’s about ¼ of the powers the Fed is currently trying to claim as their own.

That's false. The Supremacy Clause makes ALL Federal law supreme.

Nope, just the legitimate ones. Those authorized by the Constitution. That's maybe 1/4 of the laws Congress keeps making nowadays.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Big-govt leftists have been trying for a few centuries to pretend that ALL Federal laws override state laws.

That's false. The Supremacy Clause makes ALL Federal law supreme.

See?

 

[OKTexas]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

A balanced budget amendment I would support. The 'super-majority' I would say has to be 3/4 of Congress and signature of the president, rather than 78% of the Supreme Court.

The rest is much of what the Confederate States wanted before the civil war. The states with more power than the federal government.

Right now the Republican party who is in control of the Senate stated yesterday they 'won't even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee put forth by this president'.

I voted for this president in 2012. It was for a 4 year term, not 3. The CONSTITUTION requires the president to nominate justices to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, then the Senate interviews and approves one. Both parties have abided by the Constitution on this for 240 years, even with all the bickering and ankle biting, each party sucks it up and does their Constituitonal duty.

Now the Republicans have stated in essence they are free to ignore the Constitution in favor of their political biases. What they are doing is single-handedly nullifying my vote for president in 2012. A clear violation of the Constituiton and really an act of treason. I have already sent a letter to Republican House and Senate members, as well as state officials stating I am nullifying any votes they received and I will not follow any law or order enacted by a Republican official in the entire country.

I nullify your votes.

You people see what your hatred of this one man has done? And now you want the rest of us to consider letting YOUR party tamper with the Constitution?

FORGET IT. YOU ARE NOT AMERICANS ANY MORE.

You aren't.

The States were always supposed to have more power than the feds.

No they weren't. The Supremacy clause applies to the federal government, not the individual states.

You seem to forget, the supremacy if the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states, it says so right in the clause itself.

Article 6, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Underline the part above that says "the supremacy if (sic) the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states." It says NO SUCH THING. Thus, you should identify which clause you are allegedly relying upon so the reader may correct your error.

I think you're misconstruing "the Laws of the United States". The United States is the federal government. Federal laws are set forth in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please clarify.

So you don't understand that "in pursuance thereof", is a limiting factor. They are only supreme in the laws made pursuant to the Constitution itself, they forfeit supremacy when a law is not pursuant to the Constitution. Of course the supreme court has been complicit in allowing them to do otherwise.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't have the energy to read it right now but find it interesting when people place such emphasis on the original intent of the constitution from the founders. The document was genius but was also written generations ago during a time where values, policies, and the world as a whole was a completely different place. Most feel that the genius of the constitution is its ability to evolve. I question why such individuals fight so hard to revert to the past when we should be focused on doing the best in the progressive society in which we live. Apologies for straying off topic but I thought it a noteworthy observation. I'll give the proposal a read tomorrow.

We are a Constitutional Republic. That means our government is based on that document. I'm so sick of half-educated nimrods shrieking "it's old it doesn't matter anymore!"

We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. We have not changed our form of government. If we are no longer a Constitutional Republic, then we aren't a republic at all, but a tyranny, because we did not decide to change our government. The feds did not obtain permission to ignore the constitution and write illegal laws that grant them power to grant themselves power.

 

[Debra K]

The proposed "amendments" are absurd and are aimed at undermining the supremacy of the national government INTENDED within the four corners of the US Constitution that got rid of the Articles of Confederation in the first place. It's nothing more than a proposal for the neoconservative faction to take over national control through oligarchic rule and transform existing individual rights into majority rights & rule with the majority being that of the ruling oligarchs.

For those who haven't read them, here are Abbott's nine POS "proposed amendments":

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

II. Require Congress to balance its budget. (the only one worth consideration)

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

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

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

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

VII. 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.

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

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

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Our founding fathers committed high treason against King George. If our founding fathers had not won the revolutionary war, they would be labeled traitors and not patriots. Same goes for the secessionists .... if they had won the civil war, they would probably be considered "patriots" to the citizens of the Confederate States of America. But they didn't win. Modern day deniers, like you, can't pretend the civil war never happened. Whatever arguments you may have about a state's right to secede from the union are moot. The traitors to the union lost the war.