Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[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 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.

Do any of those values include confining women to their kitchens and negros to the cotton fields? Just asking....

It was so nice of Governor Kasich to thank women for leaving their kitchens to support him. That causes me to wonder: If we go back to the "values" that allegedly made this country great, does that mean women should obtain permission from their men folk to support political candidates? How much progress and individual liberty do the anti-progress people desire to eliminate under the guise of "originalism"?

 

[IsaacNewton]

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.

Do any of those values include confining women to their kitchens and negros to the cotton fields? Just asking....

It was so nice of Governor Kasich to thank women for leaving their kitchens to support him. That causes me to wonder: If we go back to the "values" that allegedly made this country great, does that mean women should obtain permission from their men folk to support political candidates? How much progress and individual liberty do the anti-progress people desire to eliminate under the guise of "originalism"?

See the Geico commercial where Flo is a 1950s wife.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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

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

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

How do you commit treason against a country you had withdrawn from?

The Constitution prohibits secession via the Supremacy Clause.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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

What exactly has been improperly changed?

There are many examples, the one I find most egregious is when the court redefined general welfare in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. It was intended to be a general spending category, limited by the remainder of Section 8. The court said it was a general power and stood the concept of a limited government on its head. Madison plainly stated that the powers of the feds were few and limited and the powers of the State were many. That one decision negated that.

Just because you dissent with a Supreme Court decision means nothing. There is always dissent except in unanimous decisions.

 

[g5000]

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.

The federal government has sovereign immunity from being sued by individuals or the states. However, the federal government, more often than not, waives that immunity.

Which is why we have cases like Arizona v. United States on the books. Nine other states signed on as amici curiae.


Which makes this proposal moot:

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

 

[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

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.

And then we can make America great again and build a wall separating Texas from the rest of the union. I fear, however, that won't be long before most Texans would be scaling the walls, entering our country, and begging for sanctuary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

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

Amendment X

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

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

"prohibited by it to the States"

What's the 'it' in that phrase?

You don't know? Hmmm...that may be your problem.

 

[g5000]

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.

And then we can make America great again and build a wall separating Texas from the rest of the union. I fear, however, that won't be long before most Texans would be scaling the walls, entering our country, and begging for sanctuary.

Only after they threw all the Mexicans, blacks, Muslims, and homosexuals into the ovens.

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

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

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

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

I nullify your votes.

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

FORGET IT. YOU ARE NOT AMERICANS ANY MORE.

You aren't.

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

 

[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

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

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

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

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

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

I nullify your votes.

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

FORGET IT. YOU ARE NOT AMERICANS ANY MORE.

You aren't.

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

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

 

[IsaacNewton]

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

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

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

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

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

I nullify your votes.

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

FORGET IT. YOU ARE NOT AMERICANS ANY MORE.

You aren't.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

And then we can make America great again and build a wall separating Texas from the rest of the union. I fear, however, that won't be long before most Texans would be scaling the walls, entering our country, and begging for sanctuary.

Only after they threw all the Mexicans, blacks, Muslims, and homosexuals into the ovens.

Funny, you're the only one to mention such nonsense. Seems to be maybe a secret fantasy of yours?

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union.

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?

A distinction without a difference. If the federal government has the enumerated power to promote the general welfare,
then it has the implied power therein to raise money to do so.

You do know the Constitution draws a distinction between promoting and providing, right. A great example is this.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

They promote the progress of science and the useful arts, not provide for them. They provide patents and copy rights to secure the rights of inventors and authors.

 

[imawhosure]

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?

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

What exactly has been improperly changed?

There are many examples, the one I find most egregious is when the court redefined general welfare in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. It was intended to be a general spending category, limited by the remainder of Section 8. The court said it was a general power and stood the concept of a limited government on its head. Madison plainly stated that the powers of the feds were few and limited and the powers of the State were many. That one decision negated that.

The reason the left, liberals, Democrats, or whatever their moniker is this week fight all of this tooth and nail is simple-----------> While they certainly have the population centers of our country, they do NOT control the vast majority of states.

If the states can impose any part of their will upon the feds, with the political give and take of politics, there is little doubt that the right will assume more control, and Washington will become a shell of itself as far as imposing their "societal" will upon the rest of the nation.

People from both sides of the aisle on here do not understand what 2016 really means. The left wants to tell you if the GOP loses, it is done, over, forget about it, accept us as your rulers. And yet, the GOP controls most of the state legislatures by a wide margin.

Let me tell you what 2016 really means--------> If the Democrats do not win, they control NOTHING, NADA, FORGET ABOUT IT! A few broke states does not a political party make! This is why they are ALL IN on 2016, and fight so vociferously day after day. Without the Presidency, their so called "departments" where they hide all of the Washington left wingers, could be dismantled, and leave them with absolutely NOTHING! Without a SCOTUS appointment now if they lose the Presidency, they are done for DECADES.

They know this, which is why they will do ANYTHING to convince you any of your people have no chance to win; even as they put up candidates who the people see as untrustworthy, or from a different governing system than the United States was ever supposed to have...........then try with a straight face to convince you they are correct by putting DEMOCRATIC in front of SOCIALIST, lol.

Don't let them. Laugh at them! Could they win? Of course they can, to say they can't is a lie. But make them win on what they are and trying to do, not by allowing them to use semantics to rewrite Webster's dictionary to make their positions more palatable. Stick it to them, and remember............almost every issue is on your side by virtually every poll taken so far, so their only attack is PERSONAL. NEVER, EVER allow them the ability to call Bernie a Democratic Socialist.........he is a SOCIALIST, period! Never allow them to suggest Hillary didn't do anything wrong, she DID things wrong, just maybe not enough to get prosecuted for, but WRONG she did!

This is our time, your time, to make a difference, because they don't have a likable person to over ride the issues like Obama except Bernie, and his issues are so bad and easy to refute, his likability won't over ride there weaknesses.

Wait to attack until the Democratic nominee is chosen, then do it everywhere and use facts. They won't win, and if they do, you could have put up JC and lost. That is how cut and dry it really is; not by what I say, but by what the issue polls say. That is the truth, you can believe it, or go to sleep and let them win.........your choice!

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

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

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

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

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

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

Amendment X

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

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

"prohibited by it to the States"

What's the 'it' in that phrase?

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

 

[OKTexas]

You don't know that, because it's never been done. Also States have withdrawn request, but unless that happens, they stand as valid.

Well they just don't. Unless the new legislature votes to sustain the petition they aren't bound by it and any legislature can vote to withdraw it.

You're right, it has never been done just for a single amendment... that should be a clue! This isn't the amendment cafeteria plan where TX petitions for 9... AL picks 5 they like... AR picks 3 they like... ALL states must petition for the same thing. So if you have a set of 9 things, all 2/3 who petition must also petition for all 9 things. That isn't going to happen in our universe... all due respect to quantum physics.

Pick ONE thing that is most likely to garner 2/3 support. I would say balanced budget... we nearly did this one back in the 80s. Congress intervened to pass Grahmm-Rudman which SCOTUS eventually found unconstitutional. We liked one or two states on that and it was going to happen so Congress acted.

Feel free to point out where Article 5 supports any of that.

 

[IsaacNewton]

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?

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

What exactly has been improperly changed?

There are many examples, the one I find most egregious is when the court redefined general welfare in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. It was intended to be a general spending category, limited by the remainder of Section 8. The court said it was a general power and stood the concept of a limited government on its head. Madison plainly stated that the powers of the feds were few and limited and the powers of the State were many. That one decision negated that.

The reason the left, liberals, Democrats, or whatever their moniker is this week fight all of this tooth and nail is simple-----------> While they certainly have the population centers of our country, they do NOT control the vast majority of states.

If the states can impose any part of their will upon the feds, with the political give and take of politics, there is little doubt that the right will assume more control, and Washington will become a shell of itself as far as imposing their "societal" will upon the rest of the nation.

People from both sides of the aisle on here do not understand what 2016 really means. The left wants to tell you if the GOP loses, it is done, over, forget about it, accept us as your rulers. And yet, the GOP controls most of the state legislatures by a wide margin.

Let me tell you what 2016 really means--------> If the Democrats do not win, they control NOTHING, NADA, FORGET ABOUT IT! A few broke states does not a political party make! This is why they are ALL IN on 2016, and fight so vociferously day after day. Without the Presidency, their so called "departments" where they hide all of the Washington left wingers, could be dismantled, and leave them with absolutely NOTHING! Without a SCOTUS appointment now if they lose the Presidency, they are done for DECADES.

They know this, which is why they will do ANYTHING to convince you any of your people have no chance to win; even as they put up candidates who the people see as untrustworthy, or from a different governing system than the United States was ever supposed to have...........then try with a straight face to convince you they are correct by putting DEMOCRATIC in front of SOCIALIST, lol.

Don't let them. Laugh at them! Could they win? Of course they can, to say they can't is a lie. But make them win on what they are and trying to do, not by allowing them to use semantics to rewrite Webster's dictionary to make their positions more palatable. Stick it to them, and remember............almost every issue is on your side by virtually every poll taken so far, so their only attack is PERSONAL. NEVER, EVER allow them the ability to call Bernie a Democratic Socialist.........he is a SOCIALIST, period! Never allow them to suggest Hillary didn't do anything wrong, she DID things wrong, just maybe not enough to get prosecuted for, but WRONG she did!

This is our time, your time, to make a difference, because they don't have a likable person to over ride the issues like Obama except Bernie, and his issues are so bad and easy to refute, his likability won't over ride there weaknesses.

Wait to attack until the Democratic nominee is chosen, then do it everywhere and use facts. They won't win, and if they do, you could have put up JC and lost. That is how cut and dry it really is; not by what I say, but by what the issue polls say. That is the truth, you can believe it, or go to sleep and let them win.........your choice!

Your whole argument is, 'Republicans have the most dirt, Democrats have the most people'. Those with the dirt should control the people.

Bizzaro land.