Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[Skylar]

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!

Or someone who is familiar with Black's Law dictionary and the 14th amendment.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

The preamble, the supremacy clause, and the Supreme Court. Plus, James Madison, the father of the Constitution taking a huge rhetorical deuce over the entire concept.

But other than that....

And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

At a 3/4ths majority. Which is the threshold we should keep.

 

[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

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

Oh I can't think of a thing, other than it's the supreme law of the land and every politician and judge swears to uphold it as a condition of their office.

 

[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

The Texas governor's proposal is a paradox. His argument is neither valid nor sound. His proposals contradict his basic premises. He starts with the basic and acceptable premise that we are a nation of laws, not of men. However, if we implement his proposals, then we become a nation of men and not of laws. He's trying to sell Kool-Aid under the guise of originalism. He also ignores the fact that the Constitution that exists today is not the same Constitution that was ratified in 1789. The post-civil war amendments brought forth a "more perfect nation" than the one that existed at our founding. The states were stripped of powers to oppress. Every person in the land is guaranteed due process of law and equal protection under the law. That's the part of our Constitution that the Texas governor seeks to negate with his disingenuous argument. Just because it was "lawful" to oppress a class of people in 1789, that doesn't mean it's lawful to oppress them today.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Actually more people identify with conservative than regressive.

 

[imawhosure]

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!

Or someone who is familiar with Black's Law dictionary and the 14th amendment.

Or maybe someone who thinks they are intelligent enough to decipher what everything means. Kinda like "Jake," aka "rightwinger."

You join with him in his interpetation do you Skylar? Good, killing two birds with one stone is known as a "twofer" where I come from, and knocking two cocky liberals off their supposed high perch is good thing, each and every day it happens-)

And so, you and superstar Jake are SMARTER than the states trying to convene this are you, lol! And NOTHING from the feds that they can't, unless of course you are the feds, lol.

Your and Jakes (RIGHTWINGERS) false narrative is hysterical; which is exactly the word to use when discussing the position you lefties are finding yourselves in, but hey, carry on, lolol!

 

[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 Texas governor's proposal is a paradox. His argument is neither valid nor sound. His proposals contradict his basic premises. He starts with the basic and acceptable premise that we are a nation of laws, not of men. However, if we implement his proposals, then we become a nation of men and not of laws. He's trying to sell Kool-Aid under the guise of originalism. He also ignores the fact that the Constitution that exists today is not the same Constitution that was ratified in 1789. The post-civil war amendments brought forth a "more perfect nation" than the one that existed at our founding. The states were stripped of powers to oppress. Every person in the land is guaranteed due process of law and equal protection under the law. That's the part of our Constitution that the Texas governor seeks to negate with his disingenuous argument. Just because it was "lawful" to oppress a class of people in 1789, that doesn't mean it's lawful to oppress them today.

Oh, we've undoubtedly improved on the US constitution.....which was a bit of a train wreck to begin with. With turmoil, some small, some horrendous, we've corrected their mistakes.

Though in their defense, the 1788 constitution was probably the best they could do at the time. Thankfully, we can do better.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Of course you've read the entire document and can point out in the justification where he got it wrong, right? No hurry i'll wait.

 

[Skylar]

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!

Or someone who is familiar with Black's Law dictionary and the 14th amendment.

Or maybe someone who thinks they are intelligent enough to decipher what everything means. Kinda like "Jake," aka "rightwinger."

You join with him in his interpetation do you Skylar? Good, killing two birds with one stone is known as a "twofer" where I come from, and knocking two cocky liberals off their supposed high perch is good thing, each and every day it happens-)

And so, you and superstar Jake are SMARTER than the states trying to convene this are you, lol! And NOTHING from the feds that they can't, unless of course you are the feds, lol.

Your and Jakes (RIGHTWINGERS) false narrative is hysterical; which is exactly the word to use when discussing the position you lefties are finding yourselves in, but hey, carry on, lolol!

I stand behind what I've said. Feel free to quote me or Black's Law Dictionary on the matter.

Whatever hardon you have for Jake is your business. Like your babble about 'Lenin' and 'Stalin', I'll leave you to it.

 

[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.

Oh I can't think of a thing, other than it's the supreme law of the land and every politician and judge swears to uphold it as a condition of their office.

Then why change it?

 

[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.

Actually more people identify with conservative than regressive.

English please, Lupe.

 

[imawhosure]

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!

Or someone who is familiar with Black's Law dictionary and the 14th amendment.

Or maybe someone who thinks they are intelligent enough to decipher what everything means. Kinda like "Jake," aka "rightwinger."

You join with him in his interpetation do you Skylar? Good, killing two birds with one stone is known as a "twofer" where I come from, and knocking two cocky liberals off their supposed high perch is good thing, each and every day it happens-)

And so, you and superstar Jake are SMARTER than the states trying to convene this are you, lol! And NOTHING from the feds that they can't, unless of course you are the feds, lol.

Your and Jakes (RIGHTWINGERS) false narrative is hysterical; which is exactly the word to use when discussing the position you lefties are finding yourselves in, but hey, carry on, lolol!

I stand behind what I've said. Feel free to quote me or Black's Law Dictionary on the matter.

Whatever hardon you have for Jake is your business. Like your babble about 'Lenin' and 'Stalin', I'll leave you to it.

Well, at least you stand behind what you said, even if it is wrong. But what can we expect from those on the left.

Personally, you being brilliant and all......you should personally write Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on your theory of how to stop this INSANE provocation of returning rights to the states.

Would you like me to write you a letter of introduction, through the office of Debbie Shultz? It will get far more attention than if you submit it yourself, that I can promise you-)

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

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!

Or someone who is familiar with Black's Law dictionary and the 14th amendment.

Or maybe someone who thinks they are intelligent enough to decipher what everything means. Kinda like "Jake," aka "rightwinger."

You join with him in his interpetation do you Skylar? Good, killing two birds with one stone is known as a "twofer" where I come from, and knocking two cocky liberals off their supposed high perch is good thing, each and every day it happens-)

And so, you and superstar Jake are SMARTER than the states trying to convene this are you, lol! And NOTHING from the feds that they can't, unless of course you are the feds, lol.

Your and Jakes (RIGHTWINGERS) false narrative is hysterical; which is exactly the word to use when discussing the position you lefties are finding yourselves in, but hey, carry on, lolol!

I stand behind what I've said. Feel free to quote me or Black's Law Dictionary on the matter.

Whatever hardon you have for Jake is your business. Like your babble about 'Lenin' and 'Stalin', I'll leave you to it.

Well, at least you stand behind what you said, even if it is wrong. But what can we expect from those on the left.

You say I'm wrong. Black's Law Dictionary says I'm right.

Guess which I'm going with.

 

[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. 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.

Things aren't always stated unequivocally in the Constitution. This is why we need a Supreme Court. Scholars have looked at the Federalist Papers and make the argument better than myself. There is nothing that prevents a convention being called for numerous Amendments at the same time but the likelihood of gaining enough support from 2/3 states is slim. It's damn near impossible just for one Amendment. As for time limits, the petition itself only carries weight for the duration of the legislative body which called it. You cannot bound a future state legislature to past petitions.

 

[imawhosure]

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!

Or someone who is familiar with Black's Law dictionary and the 14th amendment.

Or maybe someone who thinks they are intelligent enough to decipher what everything means. Kinda like "Jake," aka "rightwinger."

You join with him in his interpetation do you Skylar? Good, killing two birds with one stone is known as a "twofer" where I come from, and knocking two cocky liberals off their supposed high perch is good thing, each and every day it happens-)

And so, you and superstar Jake are SMARTER than the states trying to convene this are you, lol! And NOTHING from the feds that they can't, unless of course you are the feds, lol.

Your and Jakes (RIGHTWINGERS) false narrative is hysterical; which is exactly the word to use when discussing the position you lefties are finding yourselves in, but hey, carry on, lolol!

I stand behind what I've said. Feel free to quote me or Black's Law Dictionary on the matter.

Whatever hardon you have for Jake is your business. Like your babble about 'Lenin' and 'Stalin', I'll leave you to it.

Well, at least you stand behind what you said, even if it is wrong. But what can we expect from those on the left.

You say I'm wrong. Black's Law Dictionary says I'm right.

Guess which I'm going with.

I am going with the constitution. Unless Black was one of the original authors, may I suggest you change your position lest you come out with poopy all over your pretty face-)

 

[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.

The preamble, the supremacy clause, and the Supreme Court. Plus, James Madison, the father of the Constitution taking a huge rhetorical deuce over the entire concept.

But other than that....

And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

At a 3/4ths majority. Which is the threshold we should keep.

You really want to incorporate the preamble into the Constitution, you know it says the feds are only to promote the general welfare, right, not provide for it. Do you really want to go there?

 

[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.

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!

 

[Avatar4321]

Interesting proposals. Not sure I agree with all of them but I do like a few.

I was under the impression state officials already had standing to challenge federal laws that affect their state.

 

[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.

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.