Texas Governor Leads The Charge

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

 

[eagle1462010]

Texas is so fucking stupid! Stfu texas!

I'm sure they really care what you think.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Then you're in luck. That's exactly the threshold we have right now, exactly the check we have right now.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Then you're in luck. That's exactly the threshold we have right now, exactly the check we have right now.

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

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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

 

[rdean]

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.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Then you're in luck. That's exactly the threshold we have right now, exactly the check we have right now.

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'.

 

[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.

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......................

 

[rdean]

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.

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

So they can make sure we can execute gays and return to slavery. Republicans wouldn't mind returning to the "good old days".

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Then you're in luck. That's exactly the threshold we have right now, exactly the check we have right now.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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

Then you're in luck. That's exactly the threshold we have right now, exactly the check we have right now.

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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[eagle1462010]

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

Then you're in luck. That's exactly the threshold we have right now, exactly the check we have right now.

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's not exactly the same..........................

Let's rephrase it....................25% or more must agree with it............

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

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

So they can make sure we can execute gays and return to slavery. Republicans wouldn't mind returning to the "good old days".

If I had to describe your post in one word it would be "irrational". Here's the definition from the Marriam Webster dictionary, you may want to call one of those crisis hotlines.

Irrational: not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

You're either too stupid or too young to know how many rights the feds have taken from you, If I was to venture a guess, I'd say too young.