Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[OKTexas]

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

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

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

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

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

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"?

Cotton is picked by machines, do try to keep up.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

No, there you go again! I am saying, "follow the constitution," nothing more, nothing less. It has served us well since our inception, and if you want to ignore it, then what kind of patriot are you? Oh yes, I forgot, a leftist. Explains everything-)

 

[bodecea]

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?

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

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

 

[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.

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

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

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

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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

 

[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.

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

So true. Once they get rid of their main targets, they will have to cannibalize each other to satiate their relentless hunger for unchecked power.

 

[Debra K]

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?

Ha Ha, funny indeed ... have you not heard of the rhetorical device called hyperbole?

 

[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.

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

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

The Constitution prohibits secession via the Supremacy Clause.

Bullshit. The supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

And there you have it folks, the leftists illogical logic, lol. On the one hand, he doesn't want us using the constitution to alter anything; and on the other hand, he doesn't like the constitution the way it is written because we can address issues, but is so afraid of his own shadow, he won't even think about using the process to address what he sees as wrong with it.

What he is basically saying is------------> don't anybody change anything, just let my guys over ride it the way I want, so I get my way. Wonderful, just wonderful, and it reflects the lefts mentality in a nutshell.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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

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

YOU get real.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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!

Amendment X

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

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

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Bullshit. The supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers.

lolol, where is that enumerated?

The Supremacy Clause applies to ALL federal law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

The residents of every state who are citizens of the United States are protected by the Constitution. No state can lawfully take that protection away from any American citizen, even if he is a resident of that state.

Secession would violate the constitutionally protected rights of every American citizen in any state that seceded.

 

[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?

Let me help you.

The 'it' refers to the Constitution.

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

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

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

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

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

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

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Supremacy Clause applies to ALL federal law.

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

 

[Debra K]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"?

Cotton is picked by machines, do try to keep up.

Oh my. Perhaps you should have a discussion with Cliven Bundy, our most beloved social commentator and expert on "the Negro." Perhaps you could inform him that the invention of the cotton gin throws a huge wrench into his idea of a more perfect union, one where the Negro is better off as a slave and picking cotton. Automation, apparently, has taken the place of that coveted slave job. What is the Negro to do now? After all, he had more "freedom" living on the plantation than he does now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause applies to ALL federal law.

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Bullshit. The supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers.

The bullshit is coming from your keyboard, Tex.

The supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers.

Here is Article VI Cls 2, the Supremacy Clause;

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

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