Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[JimBowie1958]

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!

And reread Article V while your at it, dude.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Show me in Article 5 where it says all request must be for a single purpose to be valid or where it says the requests expire.

 

[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

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

No, only 2/3rds of states are needed to call for an Article V convention.

Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures....

After being officially proposed, either by Congress or a national convention of the states, a constitutional amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Show me in Article 5 where it says all request must be for a single purpose to be valid or where it says the requests expire.

He cannot because it does not.

Now show me why these renegade courts cant find some bullshit to say it does anyway.

 

[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.

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.

Right, heaven forbid we return to the values that made this country great in the first place.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Right, heaven forbid we return to the values that made this country great in the first place.

But, but, but the Establishment has been doing so well these past 50 years, why risk changing that now?

lol

 

[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

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.

I like your asinine use of the term, "Federal citizen." Trying to get everyone behind Washington DC are we, lol.

It actually sounds almost like a phrase that Stalin or Lenin would use, right comrade Skylar, lol! But trying to turn the rest of us into USEFUL IDIOTS to serve the state, isn't going to work.

Have fun trying though-)

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Why care about original intent? It's 2 centuries later.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a recipe for a chaos of litigation.

PS, it will never happen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is nothing more than the conservative minority in the country trying to jigger the rules around so that the conservative minority can win more.

 

[g5000]

Here are the proposed amendments in the "Texas Plan":

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

II. Require Congress to balance its budget.

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.

 

[g5000]

I'll address this one first:

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.


This is pure sloganeering and is meaningless.

 

[g5000]

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

They are already prohibited from creating federal law. Done!

 

[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.

I like your asinine use of the term, "Federal citizen." Trying to get everyone behind Washington DC are we, lol.

A Federal Citizen is a citizen of the United States. Distinct from a State citizen.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And its the rights of federal citizens that the States are prohibited from violating. Though many conservatives oh-so-want to.

It actually sounds almost like a phrase that Stalin or Lenin would use, right comrade Skylar, lol! But trying to turn the rest of us into USEFUL IDIOTS to serve the state, isn't going to work.

Have fun trying though-)

Or a phrase that Black's Law Dictionary might use:

Federal citizenship. Rights and obligations accruing by reason of being a citizen of the United States. State or status of being a citizen of the United States.

A person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein he resides. Fourteenth Amend., U.S. Const.

Federal citizenship defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth and Sixth Editions

But hey, if babble about Stalin and Lenin melts your butter, don't let me get in your way.

 

[g5000]

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

Oh, that poor dumb bastard. He has no idea that federal pre-emptions are written into the laws passed by Congress! It isn't the administrative agencies doing 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.

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

In a perfect world, not only would we get 3/4th of the states to approve Texas leaving the Union, they would also vote Texas some lovely parting gifts.

 

[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

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.

I like your asinine use of the term, "Federal citizen." Trying to get everyone behind Washington DC are we, lol.

A Federal Citizen is a citizen of the United States. Distinct from a State citizen.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And its the rights of federal citizens that the States are prohibited from violating. Though many conservatives oh-so-want to.

It actually sounds almost like a phrase that Stalin or Lenin would use, right comrade Skylar, lol! But trying to turn the rest of us into USEFUL IDIOTS to serve the state, isn't going to work.

Have fun trying though-)

Or a phrase that Black's Law Dictionary might use:

Federal citizenship. Rights and obligations accruing by reason of being a citizen of the United States. State or status of being a citizen of the United States.

A person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein he resides. Fourteenth Amend., U.S. Const.

Federal citizenship defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth and Sixth Editions

But hey, if babble about Stalin and Lenin melts your butter, don't let me get in your way.

FEDERAL CITIZEN-------------> Lefty who needs the federal government to support their stupidity.
I will send on this definition to "Jake," aka "RIGHTWINGER," to add to the new "WINGER" dictionary for USEFUL IDIOTS!

 

[jillian]

Here are the proposed amendments in the "Texas Plan":

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

II. Require Congress to balance its budget.

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.

those want to restore us to the articles of confederation and undermine individual liberty and the powers of the court.

good luck with that.

 

[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.

In a perfect world, not only would we get 3/4th of the states to approve Texas leaving the Union, they would also vote Texas some lovely parting gifts.

Nah, I love Texas. They're like the French. We may bicker, we may call each other's names. But in the end, we're brothers.

Plus, my sister lives in Texas. And their barbecue is *amazing*.