Texas Governor Leads The Charge

[Skylar]

Is that your way of telling me that you can't tell me of any Supreme Court ruling that Obama just overturned?

Is that your way of avoiding that it should go through Congress to pass new laws.................he's not there to create new laws...........he's there to enforce them.

That's my way of discussing the topic of the OP. As we're talking about the States overriding the Supreme Court rulings. And you're trying to change the topic to Obama. Unless Obama is overturning Supreme Court rulings, then you're offering a red herring.

The topic is still on a Constitutional Convention....................and those who abuse their power.........aka Obama.........

Obama plays no direct role in a constitutional convention, amendment, or judicial ruling. Making him one of the least relevant people you can cite in this process.

I beg to differ................His pen and a phone techniques make it a relevant topic....................It is exactly this type of power that needs a leash.

Says you. Article V doesn't mention the executive in any capacity. Nor does Obama vote in any Supreme Court ruling. Making him gloriously irrelevant to this entire discussion.

If your arguments about amendments had merit, you wouldn't be trying to so hard to change the topic away from them.

 

[eagle1462010]

Right now there is no mechanism for the States to overturn a SCOTUS ruling, that's what they want to put in place.

Nonsense. Its called a constitutional amendment. If 3/4s of the states don't like Obergefell, they can change the constitution to either outlaw gay marriage, define it as they wish, or leave it to the States to decide. Overturning Obergefell point by point if they wish.

Abbot wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds. Which, just coincidentally, happens to be the exact same number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

Um, no thank you. I'm happy with 3/4

I'm not, so I guess our votes would cancel each other, like I said earlier I would make it 30 States to overturn SCOTUS instead of 33.

Given that my vote is the constitution as its written on this topic, we're not beginning from a perspective of equality. As mine reflects reality. And yours, a hopeful wish with virtually no chance of actually being enacted.

Reality vs. Imagination don't 'cancel each other'. Reality wins.

Your side appoints new Judges to the Supremes and they change the meaning of the 2nd...............There very well may be a new reality in this country.

Smiling......also exceedingly unlikely. As you don't have the numbers for your 'new reality'. In any capacity.

I will continue to agree with having this convention.................Until the cows come home.................irregardless of how unlikely it is to succeed.

Now if your side gets it's way with guns.............The term will change to succeed.

 

[eagle1462010]

Is that your way of avoiding that it should go through Congress to pass new laws.................he's not there to create new laws...........he's there to enforce them.

That's my way of discussing the topic of the OP. As we're talking about the States overriding the Supreme Court rulings. And you're trying to change the topic to Obama. Unless Obama is overturning Supreme Court rulings, then you're offering a red herring.

The topic is still on a Constitutional Convention....................and those who abuse their power.........aka Obama.........

Obama plays no direct role in a constitutional convention, amendment, or judicial ruling. Making him one of the least relevant people you can cite in this process.

I beg to differ................His pen and a phone techniques make it a relevant topic....................It is exactly this type of power that needs a leash.

Says you. Article V doesn't mention the executive in any capacity. Nor does Obama vote in any Supreme Court ruling. Making him gloriously irrelevant to this entire discussion.

If your arguments about amendments had merit, you wouldn't be trying to so hard to change the topic away from them.

LOL

Stop dancing...........People like Obama would be talked about there.........People like him are exactly why we need a convention of states.

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to think I would care, I trust the legislatures of 33 sovereign States over the federal leviathan any freaking day. The feds were never intended to have the power they have assumed with the complicity of the federal courts, it's time the States take their power back.

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. Its called a constitutional amendment. If 3/4s of the states don't like Obergefell, they can change the constitution to either outlaw gay marriage, define it as they wish, or leave it to the States to decide. Overturning Obergefell point by point if they wish.

Abbot wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds. Which, just coincidentally, happens to be the exact same number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

Um, no thank you. I'm happy with 3/4

I'm not, so I guess our votes would cancel each other, like I said earlier I would make it 30 States to overturn SCOTUS instead of 33.

Given that my vote is the constitution as its written on this topic, we're not beginning from a perspective of equality. As mine reflects reality. And yours, a hopeful wish with virtually no chance of actually being enacted.

Reality vs. Imagination don't 'cancel each other'. Reality wins.

Your side appoints new Judges to the Supremes and they change the meaning of the 2nd...............There very well may be a new reality in this country.

Smiling......also exceedingly unlikely. As you don't have the numbers for your 'new reality'. In any capacity.

I will continue to agree with having this convention.................Until the cows come home.................irregardless of how unlikely it is to succeed.

Where I argue that a rational person would put energy where it had even a semblance of likeklyood of actually succeeding. To do otherwise is merely to express emotion. Not any credible desire to reasonably enact policy.

Now if your side gets it's way with guns.............The term will change to succeed.

Nope. You don't have the numbers. In any capacity. But emote away.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Partisan ignorance and idiocy.

It already 'went through Congress.'

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C) concerns licensing requirements pursuant to selling firearms as a business, as opposed to a private seller selling from his collection.

The president's EO is an enforcement directive only, instructing the BATFE to ensure that those who are selling firearms in the context of a business “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” are properly licensed in accordance with the law.

That's what the Constitution authorizes the president to do: enforce the law, and that's what the president is doing with this EO.

If you weren't such an ignorant partisan hack you'd understand that.

 

[Skylar]

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

Laughing....Obama has jack shit to do with any such amendment by the States. He plays no role in it.

You're losing on the amendment front. So you're trying to change the topic to Obama, who has nothing to do with it.

You just blinked.

 

[eagle1462010]

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Partisan ignorance and idiocy.

It already 'went through Congress.'

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C) concerns licensing requirements pursuant to selling firearms as a business, as opposed to a private seller selling from his collection.

The president's EO is an enforcement directive only, instructing the BATFE to ensure that those who are selling firearms in the context of a business “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” is properly licensed in accordance with the law.

That's what the Constitution authorizes the president to do: enforce the law, and that's what the president is doing with this EO.

If you weren't such an ignorant partisan hack you'd understand that.

I'm not ignorant to your sides view on eventual ban on all guns.............You can deny it all you want but that is where you want it to go.

BTW.......only a dumb ass would think that Obama's actions will make a bit of difference on criminals getting done.........If you believe it then I have some Ocean Front Property in Arizona to sell you.

 

[Skylar]

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Partisan ignorance and idiocy.

It already 'went through Congress.'

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C) concerns licensing requirements pursuant to selling firearms as a business, as opposed to a private seller selling from his collection.

The president's EO is an enforcement directive only, instructing the BATFE to ensure that those who are selling firearms in the context of a business “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” is properly licensed in accordance with the law.

That's what the Constitution authorizes the president to do: enforce the law, and that's what the president is doing with this EO.

If you weren't such an ignorant partisan hack you'd understand that.

I'm not ignorant to your sides view on eventual ban on all guns.............You can deny it all you want but that is where you want it to go.

BTW.......only a dumb ass would think that Obama's actions will make a bit of difference on criminals getting done.........If you believe it then I have some Ocean Front Property in Arizona to sell you.

Well it looks like an amendment discussion is done. Give me a hollar if you guys ever must up the courage to discuss the issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

Wrong.

See post 186.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Partisan ignorance and idiocy.

It already 'went through Congress.'

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C) concerns licensing requirements pursuant to selling firearms as a business, as opposed to a private seller selling from his collection.

The president's EO is an enforcement directive only, instructing the BATFE to ensure that those who are selling firearms in the context of a business “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” is properly licensed in accordance with the law.

That's what the Constitution authorizes the president to do: enforce the law, and that's what the president is doing with this EO.

If you weren't such an ignorant partisan hack you'd understand that.

I'm not ignorant to your sides view on eventual ban on all guns.............You can deny it all you want but that is where you want it to go.

BTW.......only a dumb ass would think that Obama's actions will make a bit of difference on criminals getting done.........If you believe it then I have some Ocean Front Property in Arizona to sell you.

Well it looks like an amendment discussion is done. Give me a hollar if you guys ever must up the courage to discuss the issue.

It never actually 'started.'

 

[OKTexas]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No fucking thanks.

Nonsense.

Following settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not 'judicial activism.'

Again, that the Constitution prohibits conservatives from denying women their right to privacy and gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law is not 'justification' for a 'convention' – this idiocy about a 'convention' is nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum.

Nothing is settled, everything is subject to change, you only need look at SCOTUS rulings that SCOTUS itself overturned. So shove you settled bullshit, it means nothing.

 

[OKTexas]

That is a proposal and for part of the convention....................Not necessarily the one that would be selected to put to a vote in the final proposed amendments...................

Creating an Amendment is necessarily hard via the Founding Fathers.......They wanted the ability to change it, but made it very difficult to do so.......................

Either way.....I'm for putting a leash on the Federal Gov't again.

And under Abbot's proposed amendment, the threshold of the States overriding a Supreme Court decision drops from 3/4......to the number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

I like it at 3/4. I like it necessarily difficult. As what is right isn't necessarily popular at the time it happens.

Right now there is no mechanism for the States to overturn a SCOTUS ruling, that's what they want to put in place.

Nonsense. Its called a constitutional amendment. If 3/4s of the states don't like Obergefell, they can change the constitution to either outlaw gay marriage, define it as they wish, or leave it to the States to decide. Overturning Obergefell point by point if they wish.

Abbot wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds. Which, just coincidentally, happens to be the exact same number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

Um, no thank you. I'm happy with 3/4

I'm not, so I guess our votes would cancel each other, like I said earlier I would make it 30 States to overturn SCOTUS instead of 33.

Given that my vote is the constitution as its written on this topic, we're not beginning from a perspective of equality. As mine reflects reality. And yours, a hopeful wish with virtually no chance of actually being enacted.

Reality vs. Imagination don't 'cancel each other'. Reality wins.

You don't support the Constitution as written, you support it as bastardized by liberal and corrupt judges, if it were followed as written the federal government would be 1/4 or less of its current size.

 

[Skylar]

And under Abbot's proposed amendment, the threshold of the States overriding a Supreme Court decision drops from 3/4......to the number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

I like it at 3/4. I like it necessarily difficult. As what is right isn't necessarily popular at the time it happens.

Right now there is no mechanism for the States to overturn a SCOTUS ruling, that's what they want to put in place.

Nonsense. Its called a constitutional amendment. If 3/4s of the states don't like Obergefell, they can change the constitution to either outlaw gay marriage, define it as they wish, or leave it to the States to decide. Overturning Obergefell point by point if they wish.

Abbot wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds. Which, just coincidentally, happens to be the exact same number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

Um, no thank you. I'm happy with 3/4

I'm not, so I guess our votes would cancel each other, like I said earlier I would make it 30 States to overturn SCOTUS instead of 33.

Given that my vote is the constitution as its written on this topic, we're not beginning from a perspective of equality. As mine reflects reality. And yours, a hopeful wish with virtually no chance of actually being enacted.

Reality vs. Imagination don't 'cancel each other'. Reality wins.

You don't support the Constitution as written, you support it as bastardized by liberal and corrupt judges, if it were followed as written the federal government would be 1/4 or less of its current size.

I certainly support a 3/4 majority on overturning Supreme Court decisions via the amendment process. Exactly as Article V describes.

With Abbot seeking to lower the threshold to overturn Supreme Court decisions.......to the number of legislatures that Republicans control right now.

No thank you. But hey, imagine as you wish. I'll stick with reality.

 

[OKTexas]

aka Amended Constitution.....................your real cute when your sarcastic..........LOL

We need a convention and that is not my primary purpose for one.

Smiling.......we both agree on the check. We both agree on the number of states that are necessary to do it.

I like 3/4. You were right when you said it was 'necessarily difficult'.

An Amendment versus an Amendment that would allow the States to vote on a decision made by SCOTUS are 2 different animals.............SCOTUS rules.......and 3/4ths of the states don't agree...........via a vote...............and without an Amendment would overturn that decision.

The amendment is the check that the States already have. The only difference between what you're describing and what I'm describing.....is 'voting' compared to 'ratification'. With ratification being, unsurprisingly, a vote.

It might be if congress didn't ignore States when they file applications for a convention, like they've done for decades. More than 700 applications, not one convention.

2/3rds of the several states have called for a convention....700 times in the last 'decades'?

Yeah, I'm definitely gonna need to see more than you citing you on that one.

I've already posted a link in this thread, feel free to go back and read it.

 

[Skylar]

Smiling.......we both agree on the check. We both agree on the number of states that are necessary to do it.

I like 3/4. You were right when you said it was 'necessarily difficult'.

An Amendment versus an Amendment that would allow the States to vote on a decision made by SCOTUS are 2 different animals.............SCOTUS rules.......and 3/4ths of the states don't agree...........via a vote...............and without an Amendment would overturn that decision.

The amendment is the check that the States already have. The only difference between what you're describing and what I'm describing.....is 'voting' compared to 'ratification'. With ratification being, unsurprisingly, a vote.

It might be if congress didn't ignore States when they file applications for a convention, like they've done for decades. More than 700 applications, not one convention.

2/3rds of the several states have called for a convention....700 times in the last 'decades'?

Yeah, I'm definitely gonna need to see more than you citing you on that one.

I've already posted a link in this thread, feel free to go back and read it.

The thread is 20 pages long. Give me the post number and I'll be happy to.

 

[OKTexas]

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

Laughing....Obama has jack shit to do with any such amendment by the States. He plays no role in it.

You're losing on the amendment front. So you're trying to change the topic to Obama, who has nothing to do with it.

You just blinked.

Hey dumb ass, the subject is your dear leaders gun control proposals, you folks brought it up.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and your site lists 2 amendments that it claims have the requisite number of votes necessary to initiate a Article V convention. Balanced Budget amendments and apportionment applications.

Not 700.

And that's when it groups similarly themed calls over spans of hundreds of years as a call for Amendment V conventions. The balanced budget amendment, for example.....includes calls by NY in 1789 beside calls for its own balanced budget amendment in 1989 by South Dakota.

200 years apart.

 

[Skylar]

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

Laughing....Obama has jack shit to do with any such amendment by the States. He plays no role in it.

You're losing on the amendment front. So you're trying to change the topic to Obama, who has nothing to do with it.

You just blinked.

Hey dumb ass, the subject is your dear leaders gun control proposals, you folks brought it up.

Hey dipshit.......the subject is the Texas governor calling for a constitutional convention. And YOU brought up Obama in our conversation.

Right about where your argument on the convention broke.

You blinked.

 

[OKTexas]

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

Wrong.

See post 186.

You can say that till the cows come home, he put the public on notice if you're caught selling guns privately you may be fucked with, he's trying to scare people to stop them from making private sales. You don't need a big dog and pony show to tell an agency to just do their jobs.