Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Constitutional Convention to take back states’ right

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Constitutional Convention to take back states’ right

    “If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience.

    Along with the speech, Abbott released a nearly 70-page plan – part American civics lesson, part anti-Obama diatribe – detailing nine proposed constitutional amendments that he said would unravel the federal government’s decades-long power grab and restore authority over economic regulation and other matters to the states.
    [ ... ]
    Abbott, in his plan, dismisses many of those criticisms, saying that he would call for a limited scope to the convention.

    The plan lays out nine specific proposed amendments that would:
    • Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
    • Require Congress to balance its budget.
    • Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
      Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.
    • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
    • Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
    • Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
    • Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
    • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...s-rights.html/

    A convention would force everybody to take the Constitution seriously again.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I'm thinking the multiple proposed amendments could help the states think that it's more worth it to do the Constitutional Convention, especially since some of these proposed amendments have been floating around for quite some time, like the balanced budget amendment, and makes it more likely to get an audience for all of them.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    It is not possible to enforce a call for limited scope in a constitutional convention, else it would have already been done. We lost the Articles of Confederation effectively through such a convention.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    19th amendment gone then?

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Repeal the 17th. Amendment. The repeal will return the Senate's power back to the states. As our founding fathers intended.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    19th amendment gone then?
    Barefoot, pregnant and behind a mop?????

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,601
    No, absolutely no Constitutional Convention.

    Such would open Padora's Box w/o limit - the topics/questions cannot be restricted. Katie bar the door.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    It is not possible to enforce a call for limited scope in a constitutional convention, else it would have already been done. We lost the Articles of Confederation effectively through such a convention.
    +1 I love Kevin Gutzman as a historian but I think its faulty for him to think the scope can or will be limited.

    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Repeal the 17th. Amendment. The repeal will return the Senate's power back to the states. As our founding fathers intended.
    Along with the 16th.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,753
    A constitutional convention would be equal to national reciprocity.... nothing more than a carrot on a stick for Daddy Fed to be able to ... stick it... to we the people.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    No constitutional convention.

    See the history of the first one. From when it was proposed through ratification of the Bill of Rights. The deceitful, the ambitious, the self-interested, and the power hungry would work together to pervert a modern constitutional convention. Just think about it for a second. The constitution was heavily, heavily opposed in 1787-89. The pro-constitution bunch had to resort to tricks and tactics to push it through. And, this was at a time when more people knew about liberty: the revolution wasn't just living memory--it was yesterday. Today, vast numbers of people don't even know about liberty. They think the government exists to give them things. There is no way the population today could steer right a convention or ratification of its product. They couldn't do it in 1787-89. Try mightily as they did, the pro-freedom crowd failed in 1787-89; there is no chance today. The crooks and slime-balls would coordinate. A willing press would pass along the slime-ball message. The listening crowd would support whoever pandered to give them the most.

    No constitutional convention.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    No, absolutely no Constitutional Convention.

    Such would open Padora's Box w/o limit - the topics/questions cannot be restricted. Katie bar the door.
    Thank you for pointing that out. It bears repeating, I am replying with a quote to make it clear we are on the same page this round.


    Side note, 10th amendment is the point for states' rights.

    16th amendment was never properly ratified and even if it had been, it changed nothing for tax purposes. The 16th amendment conferred no new powers od taxation.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 01-09-2016 at 09:18 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    SNIP “If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience.
    Pandering.

    It requires only scratching the surface to see a constitutional convention is not needed to "take back states rights". State nullification of federal law already has a history.

    As recently as this decade, some states resisted fedgov demands for RealID. One western state forbade its state employees to comply with RealID.

    James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were behind the Kentucky Resolves. The core concept was that the states created the fedgov. The fedgov is their servant. It is entirely legitimate for states to ignore unconstitutional demands by the fedgov. That is what the Kentucky Resolves were really about.

    So, it does not require a constitutional convention to "take back" states rights. It just takes state governments willing to stand up to the fedgov instead of receive fedgov money for roads, schools, and a long list of programs. State governments willing to resist the pressure when military bases in that state are closed, or government contractors in that state lose contracts.

    Thus, since a constitutional convention is not necessary to "take back" states' rights, not even faintly, I call pandering.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-08-2016 at 10:37 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    A constitutional convention would be equal to national reciprocity.... nothing more than a carrot on a stick for Daddy Fed to be able to ... stick it... to we the people.
    Yep and especially since Lincoln has pretty much destroyed a major check on the feds and the 17th made it worse.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I'd forgotten about the dangers of a Constitutional Convention. You're right, guys, it's a bad idea.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Pandering.

    It requires only scratching the surface to see a constitutional convention is not needed to "take back states rights". State nullification of federal law already has a history.

    As recently as this decade, some states resisted fedgov demands for RealID. One western state forbade its state employees to comply with RealID.

    James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were behind the Kentucky Resolves. The core concept was that the states created the fedgov. The fedgov is their servant. It is entirely legitimate for states to ignore unconstitutional demands by the fedgov. That is what the Kentucky Resolves were really about.

    So, it does not require a constitutional convention to "take back" states rights. It just takes state governments willing to stand up to the fedgov instead of receive fedgov money for roads, schools, and a long list of programs. State governments willing to resist the pressure when military bases in that state are closed, or government contractors in that state lose contracts.

    Thus, since a constitutional convention is not necessary to "take back" states' rights, not even faintly, I call pandering.
    Why don't the anti secessionist complain about that secession?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    ........16th amendment was never properly ratified and even if it had been, it changed nothing for tax purposes. The 16th amendment conferred no new powers on taxation.
    You know that and I know that, but the courts refuse to accept the truth.

  17. #17
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    “If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience.

    Along with the speech, Abbott released a nearly 70-page plan – part American civics lesson, part anti-Obama diatribe – detailing nine proposed constitutional amendments that he said would unravel the federal government’s decades-long power grab and restore authority over economic regulation and other matters to the states.
    [ ... ]
    Abbott, in his plan, dismisses many of those criticisms, saying that he would call for a limited scope to the convention.

    The plan lays out nine specific proposed amendments that would:
    • Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
    • Require Congress to balance its budget.
    • Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
      Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.
    • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
    • Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
    • Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
    • Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
    • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.

    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...s-rights.html/

    A convention would force everybody to take the Constitution seriously again.
    As much as I like this guy, he's fallen into the same trap as everyone else. Recognising what the establishment considers to be law. You don't even pretend those laws are there. Constitutionally they don't exist. You simply prosecute anyone who obeys them. You do not need amendments for things that are already in the Constitution. You cannot repeal laws that do not exist.


    *There are NO gun laws anywhere in all 50 states. They do not exist in the eyes of the Constitution.

    BLM and FWS and other agencies have NO right to those lands. States need to trespass them

    There is NO right to conduct checkpoints on public roads. Those who do should be prosecuted

    There is NO legal grounds for civil forfeiture. Those who do should be prosecuted and convicted of armed robbery

    Finally each state should have written into the Constitution, that those who fire upon members of any agency who violates the Constitution by putting someone's life or property in immediate and credible threat from harm of unauthorised search or seizure (theft) cannot be prosecuted.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  18. #18
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    No, absolutely no Constitutional Convention.

    Such would open Padora's Box w/o limit - the topics/questions cannot be restricted. Katie bar the door.
    Exactamundo.

    A Constitutional Convention in this nation that just elected Obama for 2 terms and is flirting with electing Hillary? It's a huge gamble and a bad bet.

    I can hear Obama now: "If you like your Constitution, you can keep it."

    No, no, and no thank you.

    I'll continue to push toward a more proper application of the Constitution we have.
    Last edited by DrMark; 01-09-2016 at 11:24 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Maybe now the point will stick that I have made a number of times before; Karl Popper concludes in his masterwork The Open Society and Its Enemies (Princeton 2013) i.a., that our COTUS is a constitution unique in all of human experience for binding the tyrant. All other constitutions are merely the tyrant's edicts written down for the clear direction of his subjects. We disregard our constitution at our peril, like opening Pandora's Box to horrors un-imagined.

    http://www.amazon.com/Open-Society-I.../dp/0691158134
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    You know that and I know that, but the courts refuse to accept the truth.
    There has been a few, no modern courts have used those rulings as precedents they ignore it. Seems they only like to use precedent when it favors their statist agenda.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Did any of you guys read Levin's Liberty Amendments? Article V Convention of the States is not a Constitutional Convention - it is a meeting of states to propose Amendments to the Constitution.

    If anything comes out of it, the states have to ratify them like any other proposed Amendment to the Constitution. Nothing new in this other than there is absolutely no involvement from Feds or Congress-critters. This w/b much better than the EPA, IRS, Congress, President, SCOTUS, Any Federal Judge, and anyone but the voters daily violating the restrictions of the Constitution.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Even though the Article V Convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has nearly reached the required threshold several times. Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on several occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V Convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention.
    From the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conven...e_V_convention) citing

    The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...gersonline.pdf
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    From the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conven...e_V_convention) citing

    The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...gersonline.pdf
    Not contradicting, just adding.

    Don't forget that other other way to amend the constitution. The Lincoln Process. Just make up whatever amendment you want*, then make war to enforce it while wrecking the economy with massive inflation to pay for it.


    *For example, that states cannot leave a union even when the original treaty (the constitution) contains no prohibition on leaving. And, yet, the immediately preceding federation whose treaty title expressly included the words perpetual union (Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) could be abolished.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-10-2016 at 03:56 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    ALL the arguments have already been made. We stand on the shoulders of giants, also ignored.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I do think that it is a conversation the country should have.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •