Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[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

Its a pretty awful proposal. As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Another dummy chimes in, a State wouldn't be able to do a damn thing on its own. It would take 34 States to do anything. Does it hurt to be wrong so often?

And when, pray tell, did I say a State could do anything on its own? I said if Texas could strip rights, it would. Oh, and what part of this sentence confused you so utterly?

As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4

Can you just highlight the portion you couldn't comprehend?

No you said TX would, not try, here's your sign.

And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Now run along child.

And look at the sentence immediately before it:

As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens

But I'm arguing that Texas alone can strip people of rights? Laughing.......you're embarrassing yourself. My post was a grand total of 3 sentences long. And still you couldn't help but blunder.

You're not very good at this, are you boy?

Your post was only 2 sentences long, and you say I'm embarrassing myself, hell, you can't even count to 2 accurately. Also I only challenged the 2nd sentence, you said TX would, which I highlighted.

 

[jillian]

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

you don't know what a "constitutional government" is.

a constitutional government is the one we have now where the court checks the legislative and executive branches.

you're welcome.

 

[Skylar]

Its a pretty awful proposal. As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Another dummy chimes in, a State wouldn't be able to do a damn thing on its own. It would take 34 States to do anything. Does it hurt to be wrong so often?

And when, pray tell, did I say a State could do anything on its own? I said if Texas could strip rights, it would. Oh, and what part of this sentence confused you so utterly?

As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4

Can you just highlight the portion you couldn't comprehend?

No you said TX would, not try, here's your sign.

And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Now run along child.

And look at the sentence immediately before it:

As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens

But I'm arguing that Texas alone can strip people of rights? Laughing.......you're embarrassing yourself. My post was a grand total of 3 sentences long. And still you couldn't help but blunder.

You're not very good at this, are you boy?

You post was only 2 sentences long, and you say I'm embarrassing myself, hell, you can't even count to 2 accurately. Also I only challenged the 2nd sentence, you said TX would, which I highlighted.

Here's my post:

Its a pretty awful proposal. As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Count, boy. You only need 3 fingers.

 

[Skylar]

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

you don't know what a "constitutional government" is.

a constitutional government is the one we have now where the court checks the legislative and executive branches.

you're welcome.

Abbott wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds of the States so the States can strip rights from Federal citizens.

I like the threshold of stripping rights to be nice and high. 3/4.

 

[jillian]

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

you don't know what a "constitutional government" is.

a constitutional government is the one we have now where the court checks the legislative and executive branches.

you're welcome.

Abbott wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds of the States so the States can strip rights from Federal citizens.

I like the threshold of stripping rights to be nice and high. 3/4.

they're just still angry they have to eat at the same lunch counters as black people and can't hang gays from wire fences and beat them to death.

 

[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.

 

[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

you don't know what a "constitutional government" is.

a constitutional government is the one we have now where the court checks the legislative and executive branches.

you're welcome.

And who/whom is checking the executive branch, lol.

If a Republican gets elected, you are going to see the biggest turnaround in American Juris Prudence, as Democrats start screaming for an article 5 if the executive branch starts using EOs to govern.

So confident are they in the final outcome of 2016, they won't even contemplate a "what if."

Tell you lefties what...................if that comes to pass, I and many others will STILL support an article 5 convention on here, as long as you admit you were wrong, are usually wrong, do not pass go, and never again collect 200 dollars-)

 

[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

you don't know what a "constitutional government" is.

a constitutional government is the one we have now where the court checks the legislative and executive branches.

you're welcome.

You're right, they are not there to enable other branches to exceed their authority and they're not there to exceed their own authority which has been the case for decades.

 

[Skylar]

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

you don't know what a "constitutional government" is.

a constitutional government is the one we have now where the court checks the legislative and executive branches.

you're welcome.

Abbott wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds of the States so the States can strip rights from Federal citizens.

I like the threshold of stripping rights to be nice and high. 3/4.

they're just still angry they have to eat at the same lunch counters as black people and can't hang gays from wire fences and beat them to death.

I'd say that segregation as a state policy would probably be off the table. But businesses being able to rampantly discriminate against 'negros and muzzies' would most likely be on the table. Sodomy would be recriminalized, certainly. Gay marriage stripped from same sex couples. Abortion outlawed. Flag burning outlawed. And most Voters Rights laws ignored.

Most often the conservative conception of 'freedom' involves treating others like pieces of shit.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Yes they did, and in the bargain the several states ceded a portion of their sovereignty to the National government. Edify thyself and read Article XI, Cls 2, the Supremacy clause for a quick reminder of that fact, Tex!

 

[OKTexas]

Another dummy chimes in, a State wouldn't be able to do a damn thing on its own. It would take 34 States to do anything. Does it hurt to be wrong so often?

And when, pray tell, did I say a State could do anything on its own? I said if Texas could strip rights, it would. Oh, and what part of this sentence confused you so utterly?

As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4

Can you just highlight the portion you couldn't comprehend?

No you said TX would, not try, here's your sign.

And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Now run along child.

And look at the sentence immediately before it:

As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens

But I'm arguing that Texas alone can strip people of rights? Laughing.......you're embarrassing yourself. My post was a grand total of 3 sentences long. And still you couldn't help but blunder.

You're not very good at this, are you boy?

You post was only 2 sentences long, and you say I'm embarrassing myself, hell, you can't even count to 2 accurately. Also I only challenged the 2nd sentence, you said TX would, which I highlighted.

Here's my post:

Its a pretty awful proposal. As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Count, boy. You only need 3 fingers.

It's not my fault you used a period where you should have used a comma, is it?

 

[bodecea]

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

So...when Texas secedes, they can give it a whirl.

 

[Boss]

There are already more than 600 requests from 49 States for a convention in the record, has been for years, so why hasn't congress called one? I've been asking my reps that question, have you?

I don't really know what you're talking about here... there have probably been 600 various requests from 49 states over the years for a convention but that isn't how this process works. 2/3rds of the state legislatures have to pass a resolution calling for a convention in which the specific stated purpose of the convention is outlined. They have come close only a few times. Several of our Amendments are the result of such movements where Congress intervened to act rather than sanction the convention. I think it's the 17th, 22nd, 23rd and 25th Amendments.

 

[Skylar]

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.

When it comes to the protection of the privileges and immunities of federal citizens, the 14th amendment makes it ludicrously clear the federal government's role is to prevent the States from violating them.

And *oh* that infuriates conservatives. They despise a federal government that prevents them from violating rights of Federal citizens. Remember, 'small government' isn't actually a conservative ideal. Conservatives love a fiercely intrusive, invasive, interfering and powerful government......the State.

And given the power they would enact fiercely intrusive, invasive, and interfering violation of rights.

 

[Skylar]

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

So...when Texas secedes, they can give it a whirl.

More accurately, if the rest of the States allow them to secede. As the threshold of secession is 3/4.

 

[Skylar]

There are already more than 600 requests from 49 States for a convention in the record, has been for years, so why hasn't congress called one? I've been asking my reps that question, have you?

I don't really know what you're talking about here... there have probably been 600 various requests from 49 states over the years for a convention but that isn't how this process works. 3/4ths of the state legislatures have to pass a resolution calling for a convention in which the specific stated purpose of the convention is outlined. They have come close only a few times. Several of our Amendments are the result of such movements where Congress intervened to act rather than sanction the convention. I think it's the 17th, 22nd, 23rd and 25th Amendments.

Its 2/3rds of the several states to call a convention. Not 3/4. That's the threshold to pass an amendment.

 

[Skylar]

And when, pray tell, did I say a State could do anything on its own? I said if Texas could strip rights, it would. Oh, and what part of this sentence confused you so utterly?

Can you just highlight the portion you couldn't comprehend?

No you said TX would, not try, here's your sign.

And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Now run along child.

And look at the sentence immediately before it:

As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens

But I'm arguing that Texas alone can strip people of rights? Laughing.......you're embarrassing yourself. My post was a grand total of 3 sentences long. And still you couldn't help but blunder.

You're not very good at this, are you boy?

You post was only 2 sentences long, and you say I'm embarrassing myself, hell, you can't even count to 2 accurately. Also I only challenged the 2nd sentence, you said TX would, which I highlighted.

Here's my post:

Its a pretty awful proposal. As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Count, boy. You only need 3 fingers.

It's not my fault you used a period where you should have used a comma, is it?

Laughing.....its certainly your fault you couldn't count.

Do I need to keep spanking you on trivial issues, or can we discuss the topic of the thread civilly? I'm down either way. As you don't count well enough for the less civil conversations.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Doesnt matter what you or any other libtards or RINOs think about it.

If the required number of states call for the Article V convention then Congress SHALL call the convention, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

you don't know what a "constitutional government" is.

a constitutional government is the one we have now where the court checks the legislative and executive branches.

you're welcome.

And by that same constitution an Article V States Constitutional Amendment Convention is allowed and Congress MUST call it when 2/3rds pass resolutions calling for one.

 

[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.

Yes they did, and in the bargain the several states ceded a portion of their sovereignty to the National government. Edify thyself and read Article XI, Cls 2, the Supremacy clause for a quick reminder of that fact, Tex!

The supremacy clause only applies to the enumerated powers, not assumed powers or powers granted by the court. BTW there is no article 11 in the Constitution, the supremacy clause is in Article 6, clause 2.