Texas Governor Leads The Charge

[OKTexas]

As you see it doesn't say "may be directed by congress", a proposal is a suggestion. If 3/4ths of the States agree to the language of an amendment, they can ratify it without involving congress at all and it will become part of the Constitution.

Sorry, that has already been settled. The case was United States v. Sprague where someone challenged an amendment. The court held that Congress has the sole responsibility for determining the method of ratification of an amendment.


FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


>>>>

Once again, a federal court granting the federal government more power, who would have thunk? And people wonder why we want to water down the power of the federal courts and put checks and balances on them.

 

[Skylar]

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

 

[Skylar]

As you see it doesn't say "may be directed by congress", a proposal is a suggestion. If 3/4ths of the States agree to the language of an amendment, they can ratify it without involving congress at all and it will become part of the Constitution.

Sorry, that has already been settled. The case was United States v. Sprague where someone challenged an amendment. The court held that Congress has the sole responsibility for determining the method of ratification of an amendment.


FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


>>>>

Once again, a federal court granting the federal government more power, who would have thunk? And people wonder why we want to water down the power of the federal courts and put checks and balances on them.

And by 'checks' you mean eliminating all federal protection of all rights of federal citizens in any State?

Why would could *possibly* go wrong with that? I mean, no State would strip their citizens of their rights and turn rights into crimes, would they? There couldn't possibly be any unintended consequences on this one, could there?

 

[Hossfly]

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

The proposals made by Gov. Abbott, did you read them?

 

[Skylar]

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

The proposals made by Gov. Abbott, did you read them?

Did you?

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Which is exactly what I've described. As it would allow any State to override and ignore any Supreme Court ruling that the state didn't agree with. Don't like Loving V. Virginia preventing interracial marriage bans? Well now you can overide it. Not thrilled with gay marriage? You can strip marriage rights from all gays you wish. Don't like abortion? You can turn ever abortion into a crime, making a constitutionally protected right into a criminal act.

Sounds like a very republican thing to want.

Its still not happening. But its considerate of conservatives to make so clear what they would do to people....if only you'd let them. A case in point. Hossfly offered us this sick little rhetorical deuce only minutes after posting in this thread, with [homosexuals] added for clarity.

Given the chance, [homosexuals] should be stripped of their heads, Skylark.

Post 104
A Disturbing Union of Powers...Two Court Decisions Must Be Overturned | Page 11 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And with the Supreme Court out of the way in protecting the constitutional rights of gays to life, liberty and property......it would be so much easier for States to do exactly this. Which is why folks like Hossfly are all for it.

 

[Hossfly]

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

The proposals made by Gov. Abbott, did you read them?

Did you?

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Which is exactly what I've described. As it would allow any State to override and ignore any Supreme Court ruling that the state didn't agree with. Don't like Loving V. Virginia preventing interracial marriage bans? Well now you can overide it. Not thrilled with gay marriage? You can strip marriage rights from all gays you wish. Don't like abortion? You can turn ever abortion into a crime, making a constitutionally protected right into a criminal act.

Sounds like a very republican thing to want.

Its still not happening. But its considerate of conservatives to make so clear what they would do to you....if only you'd let them.

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

The proposals made by Gov. Abbott, did you read them?

Did you?

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Which is exactly what I've described. As it would allow any State to override and ignore any Supreme Court ruling that the state didn't agree with. Don't like Loving V. Virginia preventing interracial marriage bans? Well now you can overide it. Not thrilled with gay marriage? You can strip marriage rights from all gays you wish. Don't like abortion? You can turn ever abortion into a crime, making a constitutionally protected right into a criminal act.

Sounds like a very republican thing to want.

Its still not happening. But its considerate of conservatives to make so clear what they would do to you....if only you'd let them.

No, Jerkwad. We just want justice and prevent Liberal Progressive Pukes from fucking up America.

 

[Skylar]

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

The proposals made by Gov. Abbott, did you read them?

Did you?

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Which is exactly what I've described. As it would allow any State to override and ignore any Supreme Court ruling that the state didn't agree with. Don't like Loving V. Virginia preventing interracial marriage bans? Well now you can overide it. Not thrilled with gay marriage? You can strip marriage rights from all gays you wish. Don't like abortion? You can turn ever abortion into a crime, making a constitutionally protected right into a criminal act.

Sounds like a very republican thing to want.

Its still not happening. But its considerate of conservatives to make so clear what they would do to you....if only you'd let them.

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

The proposals made by Gov. Abbott, did you read them?

Did you?

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Which is exactly what I've described. As it would allow any State to override and ignore any Supreme Court ruling that the state didn't agree with. Don't like Loving V. Virginia preventing interracial marriage bans? Well now you can overide it. Not thrilled with gay marriage? You can strip marriage rights from all gays you wish. Don't like abortion? You can turn ever abortion into a crime, making a constitutionally protected right into a criminal act.

Sounds like a very republican thing to want.

Its still not happening. But its considerate of conservatives to make so clear what they would do to you....if only you'd let them.

No, Jerkwad. We just want justice and prevent Liberal Progressive Pukes from fucking up America.

With 'justice' being this, perhaps?

Given the chance, [homosexuals] should be stripped of their heads, Skylark.

Post 104
A Disturbing Union of Powers...Two Court Decisions Must Be Overturned | Page 11 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That pesky federal government keeping your State from murdering all those gay folks, huh. Overturning your laws to criminalize interracial marriage. Letting women choose for themselves. Outlawing segregation and Jim Crow laws.

Gotta be frustrating for you., StormFront.

 

[OKTexas]

As you see it doesn't say "may be directed by congress", a proposal is a suggestion. If 3/4ths of the States agree to the language of an amendment, they can ratify it without involving congress at all and it will become part of the Constitution.

Sorry, that has already been settled. The case was United States v. Sprague where someone challenged an amendment. The court held that Congress has the sole responsibility for determining the method of ratification of an amendment.


FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


>>>>

Once again, a federal court granting the federal government more power, who would have thunk? And people wonder why we want to water down the power of the federal courts and put checks and balances on them.

And by 'checks' you mean eliminating all federal protection of all rights of federal citizens in any State?

Why would could *possibly* go wrong with that? I mean, no State would strip their citizens of their rights and turn rights into crimes, would they? There couldn't possibly be any unintended consequences on this one, could there?

Nope, stopping the courts from entering into legislation like they've done twice on the ACA, or overturning State regulations when the feds have no constitutional power in the area, like intrastate commerce.

 

[Hossfly]

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

The proposals made by Gov. Abbott, did you read them?

Did you?

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Which is exactly what I've described. As it would allow any State to override and ignore any Supreme Court ruling that the state didn't agree with. Don't like Loving V. Virginia preventing interracial marriage bans? Well now you can overide it. Not thrilled with gay marriage? You can strip marriage rights from all gays you wish. Don't like abortion? You can turn ever abortion into a crime, making a constitutionally protected right into a criminal act.

Sounds like a very republican thing to want.

Its still not happening. But its considerate of conservatives to make so clear what they would do to you....if only you'd let them.

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

The proposals made by Gov. Abbott, did you read them?

Did you?

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Which is exactly what I've described. As it would allow any State to override and ignore any Supreme Court ruling that the state didn't agree with. Don't like Loving V. Virginia preventing interracial marriage bans? Well now you can overide it. Not thrilled with gay marriage? You can strip marriage rights from all gays you wish. Don't like abortion? You can turn ever abortion into a crime, making a constitutionally protected right into a criminal act.

Sounds like a very republican thing to want.

Its still not happening. But its considerate of conservatives to make so clear what they would do to you....if only you'd let them.

No, Jerkwad. We just want justice and prevent Liberal Progressive Pukes from fucking up America.

With 'justice' being this, perhaps?

Given the chance, [homosexuals] should be stripped of their heads, Skylark.

Post 104
A Disturbing Union of Powers...Two Court Decisions Must Be Overturned | Page 11 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That pesky federal government keeping your State from murdering all those gay folks, huh. Overturning your laws to criminalize interracial marriage. Letting women choose for themselves. Outlawing segregation and Jim Crow laws.

Gotta be frustrating for you., StormFront.

Not frustrated. I said before, we just want Liberal Progressive, One World Order Pukes from completely ruining America. I could care less about fags and inter-racial marriage, Dufus.

 

[OKTexas]

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

So....essentially the repeal of much of section 1 of the 14th amendment, allowing the States to strip its citizens of any federally protected right the State wishes to take from them.

Yeah, that sounds like something a republican would totally support.

Its going no where. Just FYI. As the same ruling would allow a state to say, ignore Federal Protections on the 2nd amendment. And let any state take away the guns of any citizen it wished.

The proposals made by Gov. Abbott, did you read them?

Did you?

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Which is exactly what I've described. As it would allow any State to override and ignore any Supreme Court ruling that the state didn't agree with. Don't like Loving V. Virginia preventing interracial marriage bans? Well now you can overide it. Not thrilled with gay marriage? You can strip marriage rights from all gays you wish. Don't like abortion? You can turn ever abortion into a crime, making a constitutionally protected right into a criminal act.

Sounds like a very republican thing to want.

Its still not happening. But its considerate of conservatives to make so clear what they would do to people....if only you'd let them. A case in point. Hossfly offered us this sick little rhetorical deuce only minutes after posting in this thread, with [homosexuals] added for clarity.

Given the chance, [homosexuals] should be stripped of their heads, Skylark.

Post 104
A Disturbing Union of Powers...Two Court Decisions Must Be Overturned | Page 11 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And with the Supreme Court out of the way in protecting the constitutional rights of gays to life, liberty and property......it would be so much easier for States to do exactly this. Which is why folks like Hossfly are all for it.

You're a liar, according to Abbots proposal it would take a super majority of the states to override anything. Personally I think it should be 3/5ths and not 2/3rds.

 

[Skylar]

As you see it doesn't say "may be directed by congress", a proposal is a suggestion. If 3/4ths of the States agree to the language of an amendment, they can ratify it without involving congress at all and it will become part of the Constitution.

Sorry, that has already been settled. The case was United States v. Sprague where someone challenged an amendment. The court held that Congress has the sole responsibility for determining the method of ratification of an amendment.


FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


>>>>

Once again, a federal court granting the federal government more power, who would have thunk? And people wonder why we want to water down the power of the federal courts and put checks and balances on them.

And by 'checks' you mean eliminating all federal protection of all rights of federal citizens in any State?

Why would could *possibly* go wrong with that? I mean, no State would strip their citizens of their rights and turn rights into crimes, would they? There couldn't possibly be any unintended consequences on this one, could there?

Nope, stopping the courts from entering into legislation like they've done twice on the ACA, or overturning State regulations when the feds have no constitutional power in the area, like intrastate commerce.

Ah. So Texas would limit itself to ACA and intrastate commerce, huh?

It would, say.....eliminate all abortion rights, turning abortion into a crime. Or overturn same sex marriage laws. Or perhaps ignore rulings like Loving v. Virginia that overturned its laws. Or strip federal citizens of voting rights protections under the Civil Rights act? How about segregation, which was undone in Texas law by the Supreme Court as well?

If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

 

[OKTexas]

As you see it doesn't say "may be directed by congress", a proposal is a suggestion. If 3/4ths of the States agree to the language of an amendment, they can ratify it without involving congress at all and it will become part of the Constitution.

Sorry, that has already been settled. The case was United States v. Sprague where someone challenged an amendment. The court held that Congress has the sole responsibility for determining the method of ratification of an amendment.


FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


>>>>

Once again, a federal court granting the federal government more power, who would have thunk? And people wonder why we want to water down the power of the federal courts and put checks and balances on them.

And by 'checks' you mean eliminating all federal protection of all rights of federal citizens in any State?

Why would could *possibly* go wrong with that? I mean, no State would strip their citizens of their rights and turn rights into crimes, would they? There couldn't possibly be any unintended consequences on this one, could there?

Nope, stopping the courts from entering into legislation like they've done twice on the ACA, or overturning State regulations when the feds have no constitutional power in the area, like intrastate commerce.

Ah. So Texas would limit itself to ACA and intrastate commerce, huh?

It would, say.....eliminate all abortion rights, turning abortion into a crime. Or overturn same sex marriage laws. Or perhaps ignore rulings like Loving v. Virginia that overturned its laws. Or strip federal citizens of voting rights protections under the Civil Rights act? How about segregation, which was undone in Texas law by the Supreme Court as well?

If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

Note to dumb ass, one State couldn't do a damn thing by themselves. Also the supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers, not the extra constitutional crap the feds have taken.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry, that has already been settled. The case was United States v. Sprague where someone challenged an amendment. The court held that Congress has the sole responsibility for determining the method of ratification of an amendment.


FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


>>>>

Once again, a federal court granting the federal government more power, who would have thunk? And people wonder why we want to water down the power of the federal courts and put checks and balances on them.

And by 'checks' you mean eliminating all federal protection of all rights of federal citizens in any State?

Why would could *possibly* go wrong with that? I mean, no State would strip their citizens of their rights and turn rights into crimes, would they? There couldn't possibly be any unintended consequences on this one, could there?

Nope, stopping the courts from entering into legislation like they've done twice on the ACA, or overturning State regulations when the feds have no constitutional power in the area, like intrastate commerce.

Ah. So Texas would limit itself to ACA and intrastate commerce, huh?

It would, say.....eliminate all abortion rights, turning abortion into a crime. Or overturn same sex marriage laws. Or perhaps ignore rulings like Loving v. Virginia that overturned its laws. Or strip federal citizens of voting rights protections under the Civil Rights act? How about segregation, which was undone in Texas law by the Supreme Court as well?

If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

Note to dumb ass, one State couldn't do a damn thing by themselves. Also the supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers, not the extra constitutional crap the feds have taken.

Note to the childishly naive: If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

As they wouldn't be limited to issues you believe the federal government has overstepped. That's the part you don't get.

Checks already exist: amendments. Abbot wants to lower the bar on that check and make it easier to use. Unsurprisingly to almost the exact number of Republican legislatures. Its not going to happen.

 

[eagle1462010]

Once again, a federal court granting the federal government more power, who would have thunk? And people wonder why we want to water down the power of the federal courts and put checks and balances on them.

And by 'checks' you mean eliminating all federal protection of all rights of federal citizens in any State?

Why would could *possibly* go wrong with that? I mean, no State would strip their citizens of their rights and turn rights into crimes, would they? There couldn't possibly be any unintended consequences on this one, could there?

Nope, stopping the courts from entering into legislation like they've done twice on the ACA, or overturning State regulations when the feds have no constitutional power in the area, like intrastate commerce.

Ah. So Texas would limit itself to ACA and intrastate commerce, huh?

It would, say.....eliminate all abortion rights, turning abortion into a crime. Or overturn same sex marriage laws. Or perhaps ignore rulings like Loving v. Virginia that overturned its laws. Or strip federal citizens of voting rights protections under the Civil Rights act? How about segregation, which was undone in Texas law by the Supreme Court as well?

If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

Note to dumb ass, one State couldn't do a damn thing by themselves. Also the supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers, not the extra constitutional crap the feds have taken.

Note to the childishly naive: If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

As they wouldn't be limited to issues you believe the federal government has overstepped. That's the part you don't get.

Checks already exist: amendments. Abbot wants to lower the bar on that check and make it easier to use. Unsurprisingly to almost the exact number of Republican legislatures. Its not going to happen.

Article V is to have a Convention of States to Amend the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

And by 'checks' you mean eliminating all federal protection of all rights of federal citizens in any State?

Why would could *possibly* go wrong with that? I mean, no State would strip their citizens of their rights and turn rights into crimes, would they? There couldn't possibly be any unintended consequences on this one, could there?

Nope, stopping the courts from entering into legislation like they've done twice on the ACA, or overturning State regulations when the feds have no constitutional power in the area, like intrastate commerce.

Ah. So Texas would limit itself to ACA and intrastate commerce, huh?

It would, say.....eliminate all abortion rights, turning abortion into a crime. Or overturn same sex marriage laws. Or perhaps ignore rulings like Loving v. Virginia that overturned its laws. Or strip federal citizens of voting rights protections under the Civil Rights act? How about segregation, which was undone in Texas law by the Supreme Court as well?

If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

Note to dumb ass, one State couldn't do a damn thing by themselves. Also the supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers, not the extra constitutional crap the feds have taken.

Note to the childishly naive: If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

As they wouldn't be limited to issues you believe the federal government has overstepped. That's the part you don't get.

Checks already exist: amendments. Abbot wants to lower the bar on that check and make it easier to use. Unsurprisingly to almost the exact number of Republican legislatures. Its not going to happen.

Article V is to have a Convention of States to Amend the Constitution.

Yup. And the 'check' to States disagreeing with a Supreme Court ruling already exists: amendments. It requires 3/4s of the States to agree. Under Abbot's proposal, it would only take 2/3 of State legislatures for a Supreme Court ruling to be overturned.

Which happens to be almost the exact number of State legislatures that republicans control right now.

But they wouldn't abuse that power or strip citizens of their rights, would they? No, of course not. The States would only limit themselves to what YOU believe is federal overreach. They'd never strip citizens of rights YOU think they should have. Perish the thought.

 

[eagle1462010]

Nope, stopping the courts from entering into legislation like they've done twice on the ACA, or overturning State regulations when the feds have no constitutional power in the area, like intrastate commerce.

Ah. So Texas would limit itself to ACA and intrastate commerce, huh?

It would, say.....eliminate all abortion rights, turning abortion into a crime. Or overturn same sex marriage laws. Or perhaps ignore rulings like Loving v. Virginia that overturned its laws. Or strip federal citizens of voting rights protections under the Civil Rights act? How about segregation, which was undone in Texas law by the Supreme Court as well?

If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

Note to dumb ass, one State couldn't do a damn thing by themselves. Also the supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers, not the extra constitutional crap the feds have taken.

Note to the childishly naive: If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

As they wouldn't be limited to issues you believe the federal government has overstepped. That's the part you don't get.

Checks already exist: amendments. Abbot wants to lower the bar on that check and make it easier to use. Unsurprisingly to almost the exact number of Republican legislatures. Its not going to happen.

Article V is to have a Convention of States to Amend the Constitution.

Yup. And the 'check' to States disagreeing with a Supreme Court ruling already exists: amendments. It requires 3/4s of the States to agree. Under Abbot's proposal, it would only take 2/3 of State legislatures for a Supreme Court ruling to be overturned.

Which happens to be almost the exact number of State legislatures that republicans control right now.

But they wouldn't abuse that power or strip citizens of their rights, would they? No, of course not. The States would only limit themselves to what YOU believe is federal overreach. They'd never strip citizens of rights YOU think they should have. Perish the thought.

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.

 

[Skylar]

Ah. So Texas would limit itself to ACA and intrastate commerce, huh?

It would, say.....eliminate all abortion rights, turning abortion into a crime. Or overturn same sex marriage laws. Or perhaps ignore rulings like Loving v. Virginia that overturned its laws. Or strip federal citizens of voting rights protections under the Civil Rights act? How about segregation, which was undone in Texas law by the Supreme Court as well?

If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

Note to dumb ass, one State couldn't do a damn thing by themselves. Also the supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers, not the extra constitutional crap the feds have taken.

Note to the childishly naive: If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

As they wouldn't be limited to issues you believe the federal government has overstepped. That's the part you don't get.

Checks already exist: amendments. Abbot wants to lower the bar on that check and make it easier to use. Unsurprisingly to almost the exact number of Republican legislatures. Its not going to happen.

Article V is to have a Convention of States to Amend the Constitution.

Yup. And the 'check' to States disagreeing with a Supreme Court ruling already exists: amendments. It requires 3/4s of the States to agree. Under Abbot's proposal, it would only take 2/3 of State legislatures for a Supreme Court ruling to be overturned.

Which happens to be almost the exact number of State legislatures that republicans control right now.

But they wouldn't abuse that power or strip citizens of their rights, would they? No, of course not. The States would only limit themselves to what YOU believe is federal overreach. They'd never strip citizens of rights YOU think they should have. Perish the thought.

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.

 

[ogibillm]

I see that this thread has been hijacked into a meaningless secession discussion. The question as to whether a Constitutional Convention should be convened is a valid one.

it really isn't

 

[ScienceRocks]

Texas is so fucking stupid! Stfu texas!

 

[eagle1462010]

Note to dumb ass, one State couldn't do a damn thing by themselves. Also the supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers, not the extra constitutional crap the feds have taken.

Note to the childishly naive: If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

As they wouldn't be limited to issues you believe the federal government has overstepped. That's the part you don't get.

Checks already exist: amendments. Abbot wants to lower the bar on that check and make it easier to use. Unsurprisingly to almost the exact number of Republican legislatures. Its not going to happen.

Article V is to have a Convention of States to Amend the Constitution.

Yup. And the 'check' to States disagreeing with a Supreme Court ruling already exists: amendments. It requires 3/4s of the States to agree. Under Abbot's proposal, it would only take 2/3 of State legislatures for a Supreme Court ruling to be overturned.

Which happens to be almost the exact number of State legislatures that republicans control right now.

But they wouldn't abuse that power or strip citizens of their rights, would they? No, of course not. The States would only limit themselves to what YOU believe is federal overreach. They'd never strip citizens of rights YOU think they should have. Perish the thought.

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.

I would favor a 3/4th to overturn the Supremes..........I have no problem with a check and balance on them as well.