PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Texas Governor Joins GOP Calls for Constitutional Convention



AeonPax
01-08-2016, 11:33 PM
`

"Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sought to lure Republican support Friday for calling the first U.S. constitutional convention since 1787, a new a priority for his administration that has bemoaned federal courts blocking state laws over gay marriage, abortion restrictions and voting rights. Conservative calls for states to get together and ratify new amendments to the Constitution are hardly new. Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio has even vowed to push for a convention if elected, though the idea is generating little buzz in the 2016 presidential race.

Abbott is now hoping his weight as governor of the nation's biggest conservative state can revive momentum in an enduring but perennially unattainable dream of some Republicans. His vision also goes beyond the most common GOP desire for a convention — to tack a federal balanced budget amendment onto the Constitution — and outlines a flurry of new state protections that would nullify federal laws and weaken the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of his nine proposals would require a supermajority of seven justices — out of nine — to invalidate any state law."The Supreme Court is a co-conspirator in abandoning the Constitution," said Abbott, the state's former attorney general and a former Texas Supreme Court justice. "Instead of applying laws as written, it embarrassingly strains to rewrite laws like Obamacare." "- Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/texas-governor-joins-gop-calls-constitutional-convention-36174448)

`
*****************

`
While the chances for this happening are slim to non-existent, this is Very Bad Idea. The major problem here is that once the US Constitution is opened during a convention, ANYTHING can be changed, even if those who opened it pledge only to change a few things. As is, the Governor is talking about curtailing and moving back Black (and other minorities), Woman's and Gay Rights. Not stopping there, the evangelical religious right can change constitutional language to actually make the US a supposed "Christian Nation."

The US Constitution is humanly flawed but even as is, it still represents a system of governance that has no equal in this world. Don't touch it.

Peter1469
01-08-2016, 11:36 PM
It would take 3/4 of the States to agree to any suggested changes.

Common Sense
01-08-2016, 11:38 PM
Any change to the constitution takes 3/4ths or 38 states to ratify any changes. Since people can't agree on simple gun background checks, I don't see any changes happening.

zelmo1234
01-08-2016, 11:40 PM
This is one of the ways that the founding fathers put in to change the constitution.

We have politicians, Police, and Judges that are out of control. So it is the right of the people to have this changed.

Now if the people in a constitutional convention decide that Marriage is between one man and one women, and it is ratified by the states, then that would be the will of the people.

It is also possible that religion, 2nd amendment, and other rights might be changed, but that is why the founding fathers put in these policies.

zelmo1234
01-08-2016, 11:41 PM
Any change to the constitution takes 3/4ths or 38 states to ratify any changes. Since people can't agree on simple gun background checks, I don't see any changes happening.

Well it is likely going to be something because if there is a convention called, the new constitution is going to come out of that convention.

Green Arrow
01-08-2016, 11:58 PM
The whole point of the constitution is to touch it. The founders explicitly said that the constitution should be adapted to fit the times. It was never meant to stay a static, unchanged document for all eternity.

Cletus
01-09-2016, 12:07 AM
A Constitutional convention is a terrible idea. If someone wants to make changes, propose specific amendments. Don't tear the whole thing down and start from scratch, which is what you would be doing.

Common
01-09-2016, 12:08 AM
Simply put it aint never going to happen

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 12:09 AM
A Constitutional convention is a terrible idea. If someone wants to make changes, propose specific amendments. Don't tear the whole thing down and start from scratch, which is what you would be doing.

Why not? That's what Thomas Jefferson advocated.

Common Sense
01-09-2016, 12:10 AM
Well it is likely going to be something because if there is a convention called, the new constitution is going to come out of that convention.

Not necessarily. Only if you can get 38 states to agree on an issue. I don't see that happening.

maineman
01-09-2016, 12:11 AM
Well it is likely going to be something because if there is a convention called, the new constitution is going to come out of that convention.

Whaaaaat????

What will come out of that convention are proposed amendment(s) to the Constitution which then must be individually ratified by 3/4ths of the state's legislstures before they become effective.

Cletus
01-09-2016, 12:11 AM
Why not? That's what Thomas Jefferson advocated.

Give me a quote in which Jefferson called for a complete rewrite of the constitution.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 12:41 AM
That is a very bad idea that has been tried during the Reagan years and failed. Republicans are basically cry-babies who cry and want to change the U.S. Constitution whenever they don't get their way. They are dangerous people who don't have the basic needs of this country in mind when they pull this type of crap.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 01:31 AM
The US Constitution is an instrument of domination and exploitation that has created one of the most corrupt, criminal institutions on the planet. The only good part of the USC is the Bill of Rights. Everything else is garbage.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 01:33 AM
Give me a quote in which Jefferson called for a complete rewrite of the constitution.

Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 01:41 AM
The US Constitution is an instrument of domination and exploitation that has created one of the most corrupt, criminal institutions on the planet. The only good part of the USC is the Bill of Rights. Everything else is garbage.

That said, I highly doubt the present society is capable of coming up with something better. Everyday the collective IQ of this country descends lower and lower into the thralldom of fascism and civic illiteracy. Whatever came out of a contemporary convention would likely reflect this degradation and lust for empire. Politically speaking, this country is in serious trouble. There are still some bright spots, but they are all in non-political segments of society.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 01:57 AM
Republicans are basically cry-babies who cry and want to change the U.S. Constitution whenever they don't get their way.

In other words, they're exactly like Democrats.

AeonPax
01-09-2016, 02:08 AM
`
`
As it appears right now, every person on the right who thinks they can read, claims to be a constitutional expert, schooled in the legal principles of jurisprudence. This makes for thousands of people whom are absolutely unqualified to judge the document, but that doesn't stop them anyways. However, they should be careful what they wish for. Things could easily tip the other way, such as repealing the 2nd amendment, taking away states rights and the legalization of Sharia law.

Prudence dictates the document stay as is.

Peter1469
01-09-2016, 08:01 AM
That is a very bad idea that has been tried during the Reagan years and failed. Republicans are basically cry-babies who cry and want to change the U.S. Constitution whenever they don't get their way. They are dangerous people who don't have the basic needs of this country in mind when they pull this type of crap.

That is backwards. Most people just ignore the Constitution and consider it a living document.

Those that advocate for using the Amendment or Convention process are on the right track if changes need to be made to the Constitution.

Peter1469
01-09-2016, 08:03 AM
Why not? That's what Thomas Jefferson advocated.


The only part of the Constitution that may need to be changed is the enumerated powers. Perhaps some things not foreseen by the Founders should be under Art. 1, sec. 8. Other than that, the only changes needed relate to amendments. Like the income tax and the direct election of senators.

AeonPax
01-09-2016, 08:15 AM
That is backwards. Most people just ignore the Constitution and consider it a living document. Those that advocate for using the Amendment or Convention process are on the right track if changes need to be made to the Constitution.
`
The Constitution is only a "living document (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_document)" in a metaphoric way. The "Living Constitution" is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. We are talking jurisprudence here. In all cases, federal or state, it is up to their respective legislative bodies to enact laws that can pass the constitutionality test.

Peter1469
01-09-2016, 08:19 AM
`
The Constitution is only a "living document (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_document)" in a metaphoric way. The "Living Constitution" is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. We are talking jurisprudence here. In all cases, federal or state, it is up to their respective legislative bodies to enact laws that can pass the constitutionality test.


That is an idealized version of the phrase living constitution. That is not how the left applies it.

Bo-4
01-09-2016, 08:52 AM
Abbott is even loonier than his last two predecessors.

Funny that absolutists who believe literally in words written 250 years ago and claim to LOVE the Constitution want to take out all the crap they hate about it and add a bunch of fascist ideals on race, gay/ women's rights and Christian Nation silliness.

Nullify all federal laws?

:biglaugh:

donttread
01-09-2016, 09:47 AM
`
"Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sought to lure Republican support Friday for calling the first U.S. constitutional convention since 1787, a new a priority for his administration that has bemoaned federal courts blocking state laws over gay marriage, abortion restrictions and voting rights. Conservative calls for states to get together and ratify new amendments to the Constitution are hardly new. Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio has even vowed to push for a convention if elected, though the idea is generating little buzz in the 2016 presidential race.

Abbott is now hoping his weight as governor of the nation's biggest conservative state can revive momentum in an enduring but perennially unattainable dream of some Republicans. His vision also goes beyond the most common GOP desire for a convention — to tack a federal balanced budget amendment onto the Constitution — and outlines a flurry of new state protections that would nullify federal laws and weaken the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of his nine proposals would require a supermajority of seven justices — out of nine — to invalidate any state law."The Supreme Court is a co-conspirator in abandoning the Constitution," said Abbott, the state's former attorney general and a former Texas Supreme Court justice. "Instead of applying laws as written, it embarrassingly strains to rewrite laws like Obamacare." "- Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/texas-governor-joins-gop-calls-constitutional-convention-36174448)

`
*****************

`
While the chances for this happening are slim to non-existent, this is Very Bad Idea. The major problem here is that once the US Constitution is opened during a convention, ANYTHING can be changed, even if those who opened it pledge only to change a few things. As is, the Governor is talking about curtailing and moving back Black (and other minorities), Woman's and Gay Rights. Not stopping there, the evangelical religious right can change constitutional language to actually make the US a supposed "Christian Nation."

The US Constitution is humanly flawed but even as is, it still represents a system of governance that has no equal in this world. Don't touch it.

I'd like to see the Commerce Clause defined as something other than the current ignorant interpretation that the feds are not bound to remain within the enumerated powers. Also a statement added to the second that says "Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed."
We should also repeal the republic killing 16th amendment and at the same time change our control code to a consumption tax and possibly add an amendment to take money out of campaign politics and give third parties equal footing . Term limits would be a great idea too.
However, I share your concerns about opening up the Constitution to the bought and paid for Donkephant to do whatever they please.

donttread
01-09-2016, 09:48 AM
Abbott is even loonier than his last two predecessors.

Funny that absolutists who believe literally in words written 250 years ago and claim to LOVE the Constitution want to take out all the crap they hate about it and add a bunch of fascist ideals on race, gay/ women's rights and Christian Nation silliness.

Nullify all federal laws?

:biglaugh:

Nullify all federal laws that don't directly apply specifically and wholly to the enumerated powers

donttread
01-09-2016, 09:53 AM
The US Constitution is an instrument of domination and exploitation that has created one of the most corrupt, criminal institutions on the planet. The only good part of the USC is the Bill of Rights. Everything else is garbage.

Actually the Constitution and BOR's are the best blue print for holding a power hungry government in check ever written . But it cannot work when we do not follow it

donttread
01-09-2016, 09:54 AM
Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

I think Madison talked some sense into Jefferson and they settled for the amendment process

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 09:55 AM
Actually the Constitution and BOR's are the best blue print for holding a power hungry government in check ever written . But it cannot work when we do not follow it

They really aren't. They included no term limits on any office, presidency included. They included no stipulations against special interests buying politicians. The wording was just vague enough for the government to justify just about anything, and if you think that wasn't deliberate I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

donttread
01-09-2016, 09:55 AM
The whole point of the constitution is to touch it. The founders explicitly said that the constitution should be adapted to fit the times. It was never meant to stay a static, unchanged document for all eternity.

It's changed through amendments not by simply writing laws that over ride and ignore it

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 09:58 AM
It's changed through amendments not by simply writing laws that over ride and ignore it

Actually, we can change it however we want to, including completely throwing it out and starting over, but yes, amendments is technically the constitutional way to change it.

exotix
01-09-2016, 10:21 AM
The whole point of the constitution is to touch it. The founders explicitly said that the constitution should be adapted to fit the times. It was never meant to stay a static, unchanged document for all eternity.Except for the 2nd Amendment which has now been bastardized by the same people calling for a convention.

zelmo1234
01-09-2016, 10:56 AM
Except for the 2nd Amendment which has now been $#@!ized by the same people calling for a convention.

Certainly, I would think that the left would rejoice in this, they have a chance to write it the way that they want to.

That is what it is all about, everything is on the table in a convention, nothing is constitutional or unconstitutional you go back to the declaration and start with the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and you are off and running.

The left could build their model world that according to them the majority of the American people want.

But when the majority are against your agenda, I can see why the left is worried.

exotix
01-09-2016, 11:08 AM
Certainly, I would think that the left would rejoice in this, they have a chance to write it the way that they want to.

That is what it is all about, everything is on the table in a convention, nothing is constitutional or unconstitutional you go back to the declaration and start with the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and you are off and running.

The left could build their model world that according to them the majority of the American people want.

But when the majority are against your agenda, I can see why the left is worried.When did a wheelchair-bound lunatic who needs to have his bed-pan changed by Ted Nugent become your voice ?

Peter1469
01-09-2016, 11:15 AM
The first Obamacare case had a lot to say about that. And the liberal justices signed that opinion....
I'd like to see the Commerce Clause defined as something other than the current ignorant interpretation that the feds are not bound to remain within the enumerated powers. Also a statement added to the second that says "Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed."
We should also repeal the republic killing 16th amendment and at the same time change our control code to a consumption tax and possibly add an amendment to take money out of campaign politics and give third parties equal footing . Term limits would be a great idea too.
However, I share your concerns about opening up the Constitution to the bought and paid for Donkephant to do whatever they please.

Cletus
01-09-2016, 11:26 AM
I think Madison talked some sense into Jefferson and they settled for the amendment process

Yes. It is probably a good thing that Jefferson, as brilliant as he was, was in France during the convention.

donttread
01-09-2016, 12:59 PM
They really aren't. They included no term limits on any office, presidency included. They included no stipulations against special interests buying politicians. The wording was just vague enough for the government to justify just about anything, and if you think that wasn't deliberate I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

The wording is in general not vague at all. Where are you getting that? For example "shall not be infringed" or the detailed list of what the feds had authority over. The problem is that these days anybody with a Philadelphia lawyer can "interpret " even crystal clear statements to mean whatever the ruling regime wants them too.
The main problem with the Constitution is that as Jefferson said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and decades ago the American people stopped making the payments

donttread
01-09-2016, 01:02 PM
The first Obamacare case had a lot to say about that. And the liberal justices signed that opinion....

I have lost all respect for the so called Supreme Court. Rather than champions f the Constitution they have become nothing more than the Donkephant's toy.

Mac-7
01-09-2016, 01:04 PM
Actually, we can change it however we want to, including completely throwing it out and starting over, but yes, amendments is technically the constitutional way to change it.

You are a third way, non partisan marginal citizen.

The dominant political parties will decide what changes we want not you.

donttread
01-09-2016, 01:05 PM
Actually, we can change it however we want to, including completely throwing it out and starting over, but yes, amendments is technically the constitutional way to change it.

If we "though it out" via Constitution Convention: Can you even imagine the fucked up, megacorp pleasing, control freak central document they would replace it with?

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 01:12 PM
You are a third way, non partisan marginal citizen.

The dominant political parties will decide what changes we want not you.

Until you piss off enough people, then you become King George III.

GRUMPY
01-09-2016, 01:13 PM
When did a wheelchair-bound lunatic who needs to have his bed-pan changed by Ted Nugent become your voice ?

is this the mentally disordered mocking the physically disabled...gotta love the tolerance and inclusiveness of the totalitarian left or is it right, what day is it...

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 01:14 PM
If we "though it out" via Constitution Convention: Can you even imagine the fucked up, megacorp pleasing, control freak central document they would replace it with?

I don't really care what comes out of it. People have the right to choose their government. That's the whole point of "consent of the governed." I'm about freedom even if that freedom means I don't get my way.

Mac-7
01-09-2016, 01:18 PM
Until you piss off enough people, then you become King George III.

Thats odd.

your friends on the left accuse me of being an angry conservative all the time.

Trump already has more supporters than 3rd party whacks like Gary Johnson for instance ever had in his whole political career.

GRUMPY
01-09-2016, 01:18 PM
boys and girls, i guess you are sorta kinda attempting to debate the wisdom and challenges of convening the states toward amending our constitution...if the problem today is that elected and appointed govt officers swear an oath of fidelity to the constitution on monday and then proceed to shred it on tuesday how would amending the constitution in anyway correct a govt that at all levels feels free to violate the words, spirit and intent of said same document...

Mac-7
01-09-2016, 01:21 PM
I don't really care what comes out of it. People have the right to choose their government. That's the whole point of "consent of the governed." I'm about freedom even if that freedom means I don't get my way.

Now youve gone too far the other way.

You should care.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 01:22 PM
`
"Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sought to lure Republican support Friday for calling the first U.S. constitutional convention since 1787, a new a priority for his administration that has bemoaned federal courts blocking state laws over gay marriage, abortion restrictions and voting rights. Conservative calls for states to get together and ratify new amendments to the Constitution are hardly new. Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio has even vowed to push for a convention if elected, though the idea is generating little buzz in the 2016 presidential race.

Abbott is now hoping his weight as governor of the nation's biggest conservative state can revive momentum in an enduring but perennially unattainable dream of some Republicans. His vision also goes beyond the most common GOP desire for a convention — to tack a federal balanced budget amendment onto the Constitution — and outlines a flurry of new state protections that would nullify federal laws and weaken the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of his nine proposals would require a supermajority of seven justices — out of nine — to invalidate any state law."The Supreme Court is a co-conspirator in abandoning the Constitution," said Abbott, the state's former attorney general and a former Texas Supreme Court justice. "Instead of applying laws as written, it embarrassingly strains to rewrite laws like Obamacare." "- Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/texas-governor-joins-gop-calls-constitutional-convention-36174448)

`
*****************

`
While the chances for this happening are slim to non-existent, this is Very Bad Idea. The major problem here is that once the US Constitution is opened during a convention, ANYTHING can be changed, even if those who opened it pledge only to change a few things. As is, the Governor is talking about curtailing and moving back Black (and other minorities), Woman's and Gay Rights. Not stopping there, the evangelical religious right can change constitutional language to actually make the US a supposed "Christian Nation."

The US Constitution is humanly flawed but even as is, it still represents a system of governance that has no equal in this world. Don't touch it.
Your headline is a lie.

The Constitution's Article V establishes two methods for amending the Constitution. Governor Abbott actually made a good case for an Article V convention of states to propose amendments. If we fail to do this the nation will end as a free nation. We will have a choice of submission to our fate as serfs or slaves, or to armed rebellion.

Four states have already petitioned the Congress for a Convention of States. Fifteen more have it in the works.

Every one of your talking points is wrong. You should begin by reading article V.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#cit e_note-2)"

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 01:23 PM
Now youve gone too far the other way.

You should care.

Freedom is messy and doesn't always mean I get my way.

Mac-7
01-09-2016, 01:29 PM
Freedom is messy and doesn't always mean I get my way.

I agree.

Thats a point I have made many times myself and the reason I reject the 3rd way attacks on my voting habits

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 01:31 PM
I agree.

Thats a point I have made many times myself and the reason I reject the 3rd way attacks on my voting habits

I have never attacked your voting habits as much as you have attacked mine, so spare me the whining. You are free to vote for whomever and however you like. What you are not free to do is keep me from the same right to freely vote for whomever and however I like.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 01:32 PM
A Constitutional convention is a terrible idea. If someone wants to make changes, propose specific amendments. Don't tear the whole thing down and start from scratch, which is what you would be doing.
Article V of the Constitution does not establish a method to call a Constitutional Convention. It presents two methods for amending the Constitution. The Convention of States was specifically added for just the situation we find ourselves in today. The federal government is corrupt and tyrannical. The states can act as our last opportunity to restore the Constitution and stop the tyranny.

Or we can just start shooting.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 01:33 PM
I think Madison talked some sense into Jefferson and they settled for the amendment process

If Madison knew what would become of the constitution, he would have listened to Jefferson.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 01:34 PM
Simply put it aint never going to happen
Then either subjugation or revolution becomes inevitable.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 01:35 PM
They really aren't. They included no term limits on any office, presidency included. They included no stipulations against special interests buying politicians. The wording was just vague enough for the government to justify just about anything, and if you think that wasn't deliberate I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

If followed according to its original intent, then it would have been a pretty decent form of government. The problem is that there is nothing stopping politicians from breaking the law. Most people don't have the time, the patience, or the inclination to monitor the political class and keep them in line. It's an impossible task.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 01:39 PM
Yes. It is probably a good thing that Jefferson, as brilliant as he was, was in France during the convention.

The anti-federalist movement is the only reason why we're not living under complete despotism. Can you imagine how much more abusive and oppressive the government would be if not for the Bill of Rights? Even when the constitution expressly prohibits the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, they still try desperately to do just that. If the second amendment weren't there stating in plain English that it's not allowable, all the gun-grabber wet-dreams would have become a reality by now.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 01:44 PM
The wording is in general not vague at all. Where are you getting that? For example "shall not be infringed" or the detailed list of what the feds had authority over. The problem is that these days anybody with a Philadelphia lawyer can "interpret " even crystal clear statements to mean whatever the ruling regime wants them too.
The main problem with the Constitution is that as Jefferson said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and decades ago the American people stopped making the payments

Indeed, and eternal vigilance is an impossible task. The experiment was doomed from the beginning. People simply do not possess the ability to maintain eternal vigilance over politicians. And politicians will always seek to bend and break the law in order to amass more power and wealth for themselves, and people will either remain generally unaware of it or they will just tolerate it until it becomes intolerable. Either way, it just doesn't work. The state is inherently flawed as a concept and results in the same thing every single time: tyranny. Expecting a different result is simply not rational.

Cletus
01-09-2016, 01:44 PM
The anti-federalist movement is the only reason why we're not living under complete despotism. Can you imagine how much more abusive and oppressive the government would be if not for the Bill of Rights? Even when the constitution expressly prohibits the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, they still try desperately to do just that. If the second amendment weren't there stating in plain English that it's not allowable, all the gun-grabber wet-dreams would have become a reality by now.

Again, I agree with that to a large extent. However, I think Jefferson's idea of redoing things every 19 years would have been counterproductive.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 01:51 PM
Again, I agree with that to a large extent. However, I think Jefferson's idea of redoing things every 19 years would have been counterproductive.

I think it would have been feckless because the political class would have found a way around that, too. They would have interpreted "19 years" to mean "in perpetuity throughout the universe" and the general population would have done nothing about it because, as Jefferson said, "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." That is why I've drifted into the "anarchist" school of thought, because the concept or institution of the "state" is inherently flawed and inexorably results in despotism. I cannot think of a single example in history where the state did not begin as or eventually turn into a corrupt, tyrannical institution. So the only solution, as I see it, is to seek the eventual abolition of the state. That doesn't mean it needs to be done over night, but it should be the standard by which we measure progress. Replacing the state with another variation on the same flawed theme will just yield similar results.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 01:57 PM
In other words, they're exactly like Democrats.
Wrong. Democrats don't get their Democratic governors to alarm citizens by trying to change the U.S. Constitution every time they don't get their way. They instead work within the parameters of the new Law of the Land.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 02:00 PM
Then either subjugation or revolution becomes inevitable.
Then it appears that you and your ilk are perfect candidates to go join ISIS and be under their control!

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 02:03 PM
Then it appears that you and your ilk are perfect candidates to go join ISIS and be under their control!
I recognize that reason and responsibility are traits generally lacking in those on the Left. Shouldn't you at least try to pretend you are familiar with them?

Leftists are the natural allies of tyrants and IslamoNAZIs. You remain confused.

Ethereal
01-09-2016, 02:09 PM
Wrong. Democrats don't get their Democratic governors to alarm citizens by trying to change the U.S. Constitution every time they don't get their way. They instead work within the parameters of the new Law of the Land.


Yea, that's why Democrat jurisdictions like Chicago and Washington DC banned handguns and had to be told by the SCOTUS they were violating the Constitution. And when Illinois finally passed conceal carry, the Democrat governor, Pat Quinn, vetoed the bill and kept citing "home rule" provisions in the Illinois constitution that permitted localities to ban "assault rifles". So, just like the Republicans you hate, Democrats do everything in their power to circumvent the constitution and infringe on the rights of Americans.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 02:20 PM
That is backwards. Most people just ignore the Constitution and consider it a living document.

Those that advocate for using the Amendment or Convention process are on the right track if changes need to be made to the Constitution.
Since it has worked ever since the Constitution was enacted into law then that should prove that it is working. The problem is that certain citizens have finally won their rights and Republicans are unhappy about that and simply wish to retain the status quo on things so the amendments are the way to go to try to strip their basic human rights right out of the constitution. They are not fooling any of us. We know exactly what they are up to. As for the Second Amendment, no one is trying to take that away from Americans. The President is trying to protect all citizens and assure that those with mental disabilities do not try to obtain a gun that could be used to shoot others as well as themselves. That is a most responsible approach to date from a Democratic president who truly cares about the safety and welfare of American citizens. But Republicans obviously would rather more people be placed in harm's way thus, removing those Democratic protections. That is so wrong and they have to live with that when more people get killed and they realize they could have joined the Democrats in saving those lives but didn't instead opting for a Constitutional Convention which is a very wrong way to go on this.

Matty
01-09-2016, 02:23 PM
Oh brother. The hysteria is out off the charts.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 02:24 PM
Yea, that's why Democrat jurisdictions like Chicago and Washington DC banned handguns and had to be told by the SCOTUS they were violating the Constitution. And when Illinois finally passed conceal carry, the Democrat governor, Pat Quinn, vetoed the bill and kept citing "home rule" provisions in the Illinois constitution that permitted localities to ban "assault rifles". So, just like the Republicans you hate, Democrats do everything in their power to circumvent the constitution and infringe on the rights of Americans.
You forget we have a Republican SCOTUS that mostly sides with Republicans when it comes to gun cases. End of story.

GRUMPY
01-09-2016, 02:29 PM
Article V of the Constitution does not establish a method to call a Constitutional Convention. It presents two methods for amending the Constitution. The Convention of States was specifically added for just the situation we find ourselves in today. The federal government is corrupt and tyrannical. The states can act as our last opportunity to restore the Constitution and stop the tyranny.

Or we can just start shooting.

and boys and girls there you have it...and that is why the founding fatheres enshrined our god given right to keep and bear arms within the constitution...and of course that is why leftists, liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, fascists and all forms of statists hate the second amendment...so let us put this to a vote, constitutional convention or rightious rebellion...

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 02:31 PM
I recognize that reason and responsibility are traits generally lacking in those on the Left. Shouldn't you at least try to pretend you are familiar with them?

Leftists are the natural allies of tyrants and IslamoNAZIs. You remain confused.
Reason and Responsibility are two traits that Democrats proudly possess compared to Republicans. After all, on things that matter to American citizens like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps, it is Democrats that maintain those programs with reason and full responsibility to its less fortunate citizens. Republicans have no pride in reason much less pride in responsibility to help those in dire need who are unable to fully fend for themselves so go sell that hogwash to the swine in a ditch that might believe you.

GRUMPY
01-09-2016, 02:37 PM
Since it has worked ever since the Constitution was enacted into law then that should prove that it is working. The problem is that certain citizens have finally won their rights and Republicans are unhappy about that and simply wish to retain the status quo on things so the amendments are the way to go to try to strip their basic human rights right out of the constitution. They are not fooling any of us. We know exactly what they are up to. As for the Second Amendment, no one is trying to take that away from Americans. The President is trying to protect all citizens and assure that those with mental disabilities do not try to obtain a gun that could be used to shoot others as well as themselves. That is a most responsible approach to date from a Democratic president who truly cares about the safety and welfare of American citizens. But Republicans obviously would rather more people be placed in harm's way thus, removing those Democratic protections. That is so wrong and they have to live with that when more people get killed and they realize they could have joined the Democrats in saving those lives but didn't instead opting for a Constitutional Convention which is a very wrong way to go on this.


son, what certain citizens have won their rights...and of course the president does not make law, it is his job to enforce law passed by congress and signed by a sitting president...his behavior is obviously lawless and yet you describe lawless behavior as responsible...further, if the president was actually concerned about saving lives, why does he not secure the border, why would he usher into this country people from war torn islamic nations unvetted, why would he give arms to drug cartels on the southern border...no son this is a lawless, totalitarian attack upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed...but i digress, again lad, what citizens have won their rights...

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 02:39 PM
Again, I agree with that to a large extent. However, I think Jefferson's idea of redoing things every 19 years would have been counterproductive.

Because keeping it as-is for 250 years has worked out perfectly.

Peter1469
01-09-2016, 02:41 PM
son, what certain citizens have won their rights...and of course the president does not make law, it is his job to enforce law passed by congress and signed by a sitting president...his behavior is obviously lawless and yet you describe lawless behavior as responsible...further, if the president was actually concerned about saving lives, why does he not secure the border, why would he usher into this country people from war torn islamic nations unvetted, why would he give arms to drug cartels on the southern border...no son this is a lawless, totalitarian attack upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed...but i digress, again lad, what citizens have won their rights...


Warning: the son game needs to end. 24 hours in the Hole next time.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 02:41 PM
son, what certain citizens have won their rights...and of course the president does not make law, it is his job to enforce law passed by congress and signed by a sitting president...his behavior is obviously lawless and yet you describe lawless behavior as responsible...further, if the president was actually concerned about saving lives, why does he not secure the border, why would he usher into this country people from war torn islamic nations unvetted, why would he give arms to drug cartels on the southern border...no son this is a lawless, totalitarian attack upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed...but i digress, again lad, what citizens have won their rights...
Decrepit dad, me thinks you are full of refuse from the large intestine.

AeonPax
01-09-2016, 02:43 PM
Your headline is a lie.The Constitution's Article V establishes two methods for amending the Constitution. Governor Abbott actually made a good case for an Article V convention of states to propose amendments. If we fail to do this the nation will end as a free nation. We will have a choice of submission to our fate as serfs or slaves, or to armed rebellion.Four states have already petitioned the Congress for a Convention of States. Fifteen more have it in the works. Every one of your talking points is wrong. You should begin by reading article V.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#cit e_note-2)"
`
`
I quoted the article verbatim. If you think it is in error, contact the editor there.

As far as my point, let me walk you through this and explain it as best as I can.

1 - Article V (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html) of the US constitution allows for two things; a) Amendments to the constitution and b) a constitutional convention. These are two DIFFERENT things. Got it?

2 - Congress has enacted a Constitutional Amendment Process (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/) that legally dictates and controls the process of how Amendments are proposed and ratified, via the authority of Article V.

3 - Congress has never enacted laws that control how a US Constitutional Convention should be conducted. Understood? There just are no laws that govern that process.
`
`

http://s9.postimg.org/4z27h0z4v/cc1.jpg
Source (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf)
`
`

http://s14.postimg.org/xdyz82jb5/cc2.jpg
Source
`
`
I also found another conservative/libertarian site (The American Policy Center) that agrees that a US Constitutional Convention, at this juncture, would be a bad idea for the same reasons I outlined; Constitutional Convention Can Not Be Controlled (https://americanpolicy.org/2011/10/23/constitutional-convention-can-not-be-controlled/)
`
Any questions?

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 02:45 PM
"I recognize that reason and responsibility are traits generally lacking in those on the Left. Shouldn't you at least try to pretend you are familiar with them?

Leftists are the natural allies of tyrants and IslamoNAZIs. You remain confused."

Reason and Responsibility are two traits that Democrats proudly possess compared to Republicans. After all, on things that matter to American citizens like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps, it is Democrats that maintain those programs with reason and full responsibility to its less fortunate citizens. Republicans have no pride in reason much less pride in responsibility to help those in dire need who are unable to fully fend for themselves so go sell that hogwash to the swine in a ditch that might believe you.

Well, I did ask you to try.

I see you immediately moved to plunder and deceit. Think back. Has there ever been a time in your life when you opposed plundering your neighbors?

Peter1469
01-09-2016, 02:47 PM
Since it has worked ever since the Constitution was enacted into law then that should prove that it is working. The problem is that certain citizens have finally won their rights and Republicans are unhappy about that and simply wish to retain the status quo on things so the amendments are the way to go to try to strip their basic human rights right out of the constitution. They are not fooling any of us. We know exactly what they are up to. As for the Second Amendment, no one is trying to take that away from Americans. The President is trying to protect all citizens and assure that those with mental disabilities do not try to obtain a gun that could be used to shoot others as well as themselves. That is a most responsible approach to date from a Democratic president who truly cares about the safety and welfare of American citizens. But Republicans obviously would rather more people be placed in harm's way thus, removing those Democratic protections. That is so wrong and they have to live with that when more people get killed and they realize they could have joined the Democrats in saving those lives but didn't instead opting for a Constitutional Convention which is a very wrong way to go on this.



Scatter-shot all over the place. Focus on my statements. Living constitution or textual based constitution....

Peter1469
01-09-2016, 02:49 PM
`
`

3 - Congress has never enacted laws that control how a US Constitutional Convention should be conducted. Understood? There just are no laws that govern that process.
`
`

http://s9.postimg.org/4z27h0z4v/cc1.jpg
Source (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf)
`
`

http://s14.postimg.org/xdyz82jb5/cc2.jpg
Source
`
`
I also found another conservative/libertarian site (The American Policy Center) that agrees that a US Constitutional Convention, at this juncture, would be a bad idea for the same reasons I outlined; Constitutional Convention Can Not Be Controlled (https://americanpolicy.org/2011/10/23/constitutional-convention-can-not-be-controlled/)
`
Any questions?

Correct. Congress has absolutely no say in the Convention process. That is a matter 100% up to the states.

Federalism. And it doesn't mean the federal government is all powerful.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 02:52 PM
"I recognize that reason and responsibility are traits generally lacking in those on the Left. Shouldn't you at least try to pretend you are familiar with them?

Leftists are the natural allies of tyrants and IslamoNAZIs. You remain confused."

Well, I did ask you to try.

I see you immediately moved to plunder and deceit. Think back. Has there ever been a time in your life when you opposed plundering your neighbors?
We do not plunder. That is the pixilated belief of those on the right. But compared to your party that literally screws the middle class and poor citizens without any lube we're doing quite great! :)

Dr. Who
01-09-2016, 02:53 PM
Then it appears that you and your ilk are perfect candidates to go join ISIS and be under their control!
Please don't make bad faith implications about forum members.

GRUMPY
01-09-2016, 02:53 PM
Since it has worked ever since the Constitution was enacted into law then that should prove that it is working. The problem is that certain citizens have finally won their rights and Republicans are unhappy about that and simply wish to retain the status quo on things so the amendments are the way to go to try to strip their basic human rights right out of the constitution. They are not fooling any of us. We know exactly what they are up to. As for the Second Amendment, no one is trying to take that away from Americans. The President is trying to protect all citizens and assure that those with mental disabilities do not try to obtain a gun that could be used to shoot others as well as themselves. That is a most responsible approach to date from a Democratic president who truly cares about the safety and welfare of American citizens. But Republicans obviously would rather more people be placed in harm's way thus, removing those Democratic protections. That is so wrong and they have to live with that when more people get killed and they realize they could have joined the Democrats in saving those lives but didn't instead opting for a Constitutional Convention which is a very wrong way to go on this.


most respectfully awaiting to be enlighted as to the identity of certain citizens who have finally won their rights...

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 02:55 PM
`
`
I quoted the article verbatim. If you think it is in error, contact the editor there.

As far as my point, let me walk you through this and explain it as best as I can.

1 - Article V (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html) of the US constitution allows for two things; a) Amendments to the constitution and b) a constitutional convention. These are two DIFFERENT things. Got it?

2 - Congress has enacted a Constitutional Amendment Process (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/) that legally dictates and controls the process of how Amendments are proposed and ratified, via the authority of Article V.

3 - Congress has never enacted laws that control how a US Constitutional Convention should be conducted. Understood? There just are no laws that govern that process.
`
`

http://s9.postimg.org/4z27h0z4v/cc1.jpg
Source (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf)
`
`

http://s14.postimg.org/xdyz82jb5/cc2.jpg
Source
`
`
I also found another conservative/libertarian site (The American Policy Center) that agrees that a US Constitutional Convention, at this juncture, would be a bad idea for the same reasons I outlined; Constitutional Convention Can Not Be Controlled (https://americanpolicy.org/2011/10/23/constitutional-convention-can-not-be-controlled/)
`
Any questions?
Your headline remains a lie. Abbott's speech called for an Article V convention of states. Not a Constitutional Convention.
Now to your numbered frauds:
1. Can you quote for me the words in article V that provide for a constitutional convention? This should be easy to do since you clearly have read and understood it.
2. A congressional law cannot supersede the Constitution. You do understand this, don't you?
3. Congress has no role in the Convention of States process other than to keep track of the states who have petitioned and to set the date and place once two-thirds of the states have petitioned.

Do you understand?

It is not a constitutional convention. It is a convention of states to propose amendments. Yes the federal government cannot control it. That is the whole point. The states control it. It takes two-thirds of the states to start it. It takes three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendments that are proposed.

If you have any questions just ask. There is no need for you to stay in the dark any longer.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 02:59 PM
We do not plunder. That is the pixilated belief of those on the right. But compared to your party that literally screws the middle class and poor citizens without any lube we're doing quite great! :)
Of course you plunder. It is what governments are best at.

Social security is a Ponzi scheme. Roosevelt sold it as a lie. The government maintains and sells the fiction. It is a lie. As is Medicare. It is the same lie told for the same reasons. Medicaid and food stamps are plunder. Vast sums of money are taken from the productive to give to the non-productive.

Those were your signature-items. They are all plunder and deceit. Democrats! Can't live with 'em.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 03:00 PM
Your headline remains a lie. Abbott's speech called for an Article V convention of states. Not a Constitutional Convention.
Now to your numbered frauds:
1. Can you quote for me the words in article V that provide for a constitutional convention? This should be easy to do since you clearly have read and understood it.
2. A congressional law cannot supersede the Constitution. You do understand this, don't you?
3. Congress has no role in the Convention of States process other than to keep track of the states who have petitioned and to set the date and place once two-thirds of the states have petitioned.

Do you understand?

It is not a constitutional convention. It is a convention of states to propose amendments. Yes the federal government cannot control it. That is the whole point. The states control it. It takes two-thirds of the states to start it. It takes three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendments that are proposed.

If you have any questions just ask. There is no need for you to stay in the dark any longer.
The bottom line, literally, on this by AeonPax is when the following was said. You do agree with that Republican and Libertarian position don't you?

I also found another conservative/libertarian site (The American Policy Center) that agrees that a US Constitutional Convention, at this juncture, would be a bad idea for the same reasons I outlined; Constitutional Convention Can Not Be Controlled (https://americanpolicy.org/2011/10/23/constitutional-convention-can-not-be-controlled/)
`
Any questions?

AeonPax
01-09-2016, 03:02 PM
Correct. Congress has absolutely no say in the Convention process. That is a matter 100% up to the states. Federalism. And it doesn't mean the federal government is all powerful.
`
Agreed, but there are absolutely no rules, policies and laws governing how the states are to conduct a US Constitutional Convention. Article V says nothing about it. It would be complete and utter chaos, therein lays the danger.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 03:06 PM
"It is not a constitutional convention. It is a convention of states to propose amendments. Yes the federal government cannot control it. That is the whole point. The states control it. It takes two-thirds of the states to start it. It takes three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendments that are proposed.

If you have any questions just ask. There is no need for you to stay in the dark any longer."

The bottom line, literally, on this by AeonPax is when the following was said. You do agree with that Republican and Libertarian position don't you?
If there is a disagreement between what is in the Constitution and what a blogger writes I will side with the Constitution.
What reasonable questions do you have? You are both difficult cases due to the advanced state of Leftism. I stand by ready to render first aid.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 03:06 PM
Of course you plunder. It is what governments are best at.

Social security is a Ponzi scheme. Roosevelt sold it as a lie. The government maintains and sells the fiction. It is a lie. As is Medicare. It is the same lie told for the same reasons. Medicaid and food stamps are plunder. Vast sums of money are taken from the productive to give to the non-productive.

Those were your signature-items. They are all plunder and deceit. Democrats! Can't live with 'em.
We have known since time immemorial that your bottom line is to starve poor and needy Americans. That is why the people despise having a Republican in the White House because they know they would find themselves stark naked holding their front with one hand and their rear with the other should we ever have another Republican president again. Your attempt to portray Democrats as deceitful, etc. therefore Fails. We are the helpers of needy American citizens who are not rich or independently wealthy. You are the helpers of those who are rich and independently wealthy. End of story.

AeonPax
01-09-2016, 03:08 PM
Your headline remains a lie. Abbott's speech called for an Article V convention of states. Not a Constitutional Convention. Now to your numbered frauds:1. Can you quote for me the words in article V that provide for a constitutional convention? This should be easy to do since you clearly have read and understood it.2. A congressional law cannot supersede the Constitution. You do understand this, don't you?3. Congress has no role in the Convention of States process other than to keep track of the states who have petitioned and to set the date and place once two-thirds of the states have petitioned.Do you understand?
It is not a constitutional convention. It is a convention of states to propose amendments. Yes the federal government cannot control it. That is the whole point. The states control it. It takes two-thirds of the states to start it. It takes three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendments that are proposed.If you have any questions just ask. There is no need for you to stay in the dark any longer.
`
You are deliberately being obtuse. I just stated the facts as clearly and concisely as I can, complete with bona fide and verifiable factual citations (links) which you completely ignored and you go right back to whatever strange concoction you believe in. I'm sorry, you seem to be confusing your opinions with reality, and I cannot help you with that.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 03:09 PM
`
Agreed, but there are absolutely no rules, policies and laws governing how the states are to conduct a US Constitutional Convention. Article V says nothing about it. It would be complete and utter chaos, therein lays the danger.
I sense great obtuseness. It is not a constitutional convention. That falls outside the Constitution. Do you understand?

Adults deal with uncertainty every day. There have been meetings already to resolve questions about how to manage and operate a convention of states. The only danger is if we fail to hold it.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 03:12 PM
We have known since time immemorial that your bottom line is to starve poor and needy Americans. That is why the people despise having a Republican in the White House because they know they would find themselves stark naked holding their front with one hand and their rear with the other should we ever have another Republican president again. Your attempt to portray Democrats as deceitful, etc. therefore Fails. We are the helpers of needy American citizens who are not rich or independently wealthy. You are the helpers of those who are rich and independently wealthy. End of story.

The radical leftist "speaks".

Plunder? Yep.
Deceit? Yep.

Anything else? Nope.

What about responsibility? Nope. TB is a liberal democrat.
What about reason? Nope. See above.

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 03:14 PM
"It is not a constitutional convention. It is a convention of states to propose amendments. Yes the federal government cannot control it. That is the whole point. The states control it. It takes two-thirds of the states to start it. It takes three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendments that are proposed.

If you have any questions just ask. There is no need for you to stay in the dark any longer."

If there is a disagreement between what is in the Constitution and what a blogger writes I will side with the Constitution.

What reasonable questions do you have? You are both difficult cases due to the advances state of Leftism. I stand by ready to render first aid.
Thanks but no thanks. Jesuitic "first aid" by you would be the equivalent of a lethal injection.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 03:15 PM
`You are deliberately being obtuse. I just stated the facts as clearly and concisely as I can, complete with bona fide and verifiable factual citations (links) which you completely ignored and you go right back to whatever strange concoction you believe in. I'm sorry, you seem to be confusing your opinions with reality, and I cannot help you with that.
Yeah. I deal every day with stubborn facts.

Your "facts" were lies. Have you considered reading the Constitution? Article V, which I provided to you verbatim, is explicit. You glossed right over it. Citations from other fools are not as convincing as the source document, the Constitution.

Nice try, though.Here is just a little bit more help:

"AUSTIN (KXAN) — A political firestorm could soon spark across the nation, as Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, calls for nine constitutional amendments to rein in the federal government.His focus is on Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which involves amending the constitution. Over the past the several years, Abbott has taken on the federal government—specifically President Barack Obama’s administration—on everything from healthcare to gun rights to immigration.

Read Abbott’s full plan (https://lintvkxan.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/restoring_the_rule_of_law_01082016.pdf)
Abbott offered the following constitutional amendments:
Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting 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://kxan.com/2016/01/08/gov-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-of-states/

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 03:18 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c9/d7/fa/c9d7fa6702f09a2c4c25883c4e3e2a80.gif

donttread
01-09-2016, 03:36 PM
`
Agreed, but there are absolutely no rules, policies and laws governing how the states are to conduct a US Constitutional Convention. Article V says nothing about it. It would be complete and utter chaos, therein lays the danger.

They could follow the format used in 1787, that worked pretty well

Peter1469
01-09-2016, 03:37 PM
`
Agreed, but there are absolutely no rules, policies and laws governing how the states are to conduct a US Constitutional Convention. Article V says nothing about it. It would be complete and utter chaos, therein lays the danger.

I agree that could be the result. That is how we got our Constitution in the first place. The prior government gave the Constitutional Convention a narrow mandate and they tore up the rule book!

Green Arrow
01-09-2016, 03:39 PM
`
Agreed, but there are absolutely no rules, policies and laws governing how the states are to conduct a US Constitutional Convention. Article V says nothing about it. It would be complete and utter chaos, therein lays the danger.

Can you imagine a world where you can do something, anything, without rules?

TrueBlue
01-09-2016, 03:44 PM
Yeah. I deal every day with stubborn facts.Your "facts" were lies. Have you considered reading the Constitution? Article V, which I provided to you verbatim, is explicit. You glossed right over it. Citations from other fools are not as convincing as the source document, the Constitution.Nice try though.Here is just a little bit more help:"AUSTIN (KXAN) — A political firestorm could soon spark across the nation, as Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, calls for nine constitutional amendments to rein in the federal government.His focus is on Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which involves amending the constitution. Over the past the several years, Abbott has taken on the federal government—specifically President Barack Obama’s administration—on everything from healthcare to gun rights to immigration.

Read Abbott’s full plan (https://lintvkxan.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/restoring_the_rule_of_law_01082016.pdf)

Abbott offered the following constitutional amendments:

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting 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://kxan.com/2016/01/08/gov-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-of-states/


That is nothing more than tantamount to the Dream Act for Republicans.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 03:47 PM
That is nothing more than tantamount to the Dream Act for Republicans.
There are other proposed amendments. Yes. It is time to bring the Federal government in line with the Constitution. As we are no longer a moral people the Constitution needs amending to prevent abuse.

AeonPax
01-09-2016, 04:57 PM
They could follow the format used in 1787, that worked pretty well
`
My understanding of the 1787 convention was that they, for the most part, winged it. - Source (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html)

AeonPax
01-09-2016, 05:04 PM
I agree that could be the result. That is how we got our Constitution in the first place. The prior government gave the Constitutional Convention a narrow mandate and they tore up the rule book!
`
I would say the first order of business would be, who draws up the rules, the States or Congress? Then, should these rules be law or a constitutional Amendment in itself? Lots to consider.

AeonPax
01-09-2016, 05:08 PM
Can you imagine a world where you can do something, anything, without rules?
`
or laws? Doubtful.

donttread
01-09-2016, 05:16 PM
`
My understanding of the 1787 convention was that they, for the most part, winged it. - Source (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html)

Well it worked , we could copy the way they winged it

Peter1469
01-09-2016, 05:42 PM
`
I would say the first order of business would be, who draws up the rules, the States or Congress? Then, should these rules be law or a constitutional Amendment in itself? Lots to consider.

Under any situation Congress has zero to do with it. This is State business.

Congress has its own tools- if it refuses to act screw them.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 05:45 PM
`
I would say the first order of business would be, who draws up the rules, the States or Congress? Then, should these rules be law or a constitutional Amendment in itself? Lots to consider.
The states are already drafting rules for the convention of states. They have been working on the rules for at least two years now. The Congress has no role to play in the convention. None.

Congress gets to count the number of states asking for the convention. Once 2/3rds have asked they set the place and the starting date. Then they move on to other business while the adults meet.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 05:48 PM
Well it worked , we could copy the way they winged it
I am not so sure it worked. The anti-federalists (who were really the federalists) began to object in the newspapers. In the beginning, they were winning. That is what prompted the articles that became the Federalist Papers.

MisterVeritis
01-09-2016, 06:47 PM
`
You are deliberately being obtuse. I just stated the facts as clearly and concisely as I can, complete with bona fide and verifiable factual citations (links) which you completely ignored and you go right back to whatever strange concoction you believe in. I'm sorry, you seem to be confusing your opinions with reality, and I cannot help you with that.

If you have the courage to watch you will hear the truth directly from Governor Abbott. I doubt you will watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQL4t-vtnQA

What you are looking for begins around minute 12.

AeonPax
01-09-2016, 11:12 PM
Under any situation Congress has zero to do with it. This is State business. Congress has its own tools- if it refuses to act screw them.
`
I'm not contradicting this but states can only make laws that affect only their state. As a US Constitutional Convention is nationwide, only congress can make laws binding on all 50 states as to the rules, etc, of a CC.

Peter1469
01-10-2016, 07:50 AM
`
I'm not contradicting this but states can only make laws that affect only their state. As a US Constitutional Convention is nationwide, only congress can make laws binding on all 50 states as to the rules, etc, of a CC.

That is not correct.

If 2/3s of the States call for a Convention, and if 3/4s of the States agree to any changes, the changes are done. The States could abolish the federal government in its entirety. Congress has no stay in the matter whatsoever.

Federalism: it doesn't mean the federal government has all of the power. :smiley:

After all, there would be no federal government had the states not created that position.

donttread
01-10-2016, 07:59 AM
I am not so sure it worked. The anti-federalists (who were really the federalists) began to object in the newspapers. In the beginning, they were winning. That is what prompted the articles that became the Federalist Papers.

Well it worked a hell of a lot better than the way we are governed today.

donttread
01-10-2016, 08:03 AM
We have known since time immemorial that your bottom line is to starve poor and needy Americans. That is why the people despise having a Republican in the White House because they know they would find themselves stark naked holding their front with one hand and their rear with the other should we ever have another Republican president again. Your attempt to portray Democrats as deceitful, etc. therefore Fails. We are the helpers of needy American citizens who are not rich or independently wealthy. You are the helpers of those who are rich and independently wealthy. End of story.


As is Obama

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 10:25 AM
`
I'm not contradicting this but states can only make laws that affect only their state. As a US Constitutional Convention is nationwide, only congress can make laws binding on all 50 states as to the rules, etc, of a CC.
At least you are consistent.

The federal government plays no role in the convention of states. They do not make the rules. They do not participate. They do not approve. The reason the convention of states to propose amendments is in Article V is to overcome the obstacle of a corrupt federal government.

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 10:28 AM
Well it worked a hell of a lot better than the way we are governed today.
The results of the convention were excellent until the people foolishly removed states from their significant role. Once we had the direct election of Senators the states were cut out of the process of governance. We lost our most significant protections against a powerful central, national government.

The people became corrupted. The federal government reflects our corruption.

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 10:35 AM
We have known since time immemorial that your bottom line is to starve poor and needy Americans. That is why the people despise having a Republican in the White House because they know they would find themselves stark naked holding their front with one hand and their rear with the other should we ever have another Republican president again. Your attempt to portray Democrats as deceitful, etc. therefore Fails. We are the helpers of needy American citizens who are not rich or independently wealthy. You are the helpers of those who are rich and independently wealthy. End of story.

You are a liberal Democrat. You cannot distinguish your lies from truths. You plunder the productive, first and foremost to grow government. Democrats create policies that harm the people, then create more policies to "mitigate" the damage their first policies created. Democrats are frauds. FDR, your Father of Lies, sold Social Security as a savings policy. It was a way to extract more taxes from the people. It was a Ponzi scheme. The earliest people in the scheme received far more from the scheme than they ever put in. The last people in will get little out. Democrats describe SS as an account but the individual owns absolutely nothing. It is the same with Medicare. It is a lie built upon a system of fraud.

This is what Democrats, and Establishment Republicans do.

Chris
01-10-2016, 10:54 AM
I haven't thought out all his proposals but thought I'd post them for discussion. I do like the idea of the states leading the way.

Restoring The Rule of Law With the States Leading the Way (Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf) (.pdf)


The Texas Plan accomplishes this by offering nine constitutional amendments:

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

II. Require Congress to balance its budget.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 10:59 AM
I haven't thought out all his proposals but thought I'd post them for discussion. I do like the idea of the states leading the way.

Restoring The Rule of Law With the States Leading the Way (http://Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf) (.pdf)

This is Governor Abbott's request that the Texas State Legislature join the Article V Convention of States Project. Four states have petitioned the Congress. We require 34 states total. Mark Levin wrote a book called The Liberty Amendments (http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Mark-Levin/dp/145160632X) a few years ago. It is worth reading.

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 11:02 AM
I haven't thought out all his proposals but thought I'd post them for discussion. I do like the idea of the states leading the way.

Restoring The Rule of Law With the States Leading the Way (http://Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf) (.pdf)

Here is Abbott's Speech:


https://youtu.be/wQL4t-vtnQA

What you are looking for begins around minute 12.

Common
01-10-2016, 11:04 AM
State rule makes for an even more divided country. You cant have 50 little countries with in one boundary doing their own thing.

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 11:08 AM
State rule makes for an even more divided country. You cant have 50 little countries with in one boundary doing their own thing.
This is your admission that you prefer a national, unconstitutional tyranny over federalism. Understood.

Chris
01-10-2016, 11:14 AM
State rule makes for an even more divided country. You cant have 50 little countries with in one boundary doing their own thing.

My impression is this doesn't seek state rule but seeks to rein in the government to constitutional bounds. For example, it's not stating the federal government cannot enact laws regarding interstate commerce, just no intrastate commerce.

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 11:17 AM
My impression is this doesn't seek state rule but seeks to rein in the government to constitutional bounds. For example, it's not stating the federal government cannot enact laws regarding interstate commerce, just no intrastate commerce.
Abbott's proposed amendments begin the effort to bring the federal government back in line with the US Constitution.

Peter1469
01-10-2016, 11:18 AM
State rule makes for an even more divided country. You cant have 50 little countries with in one boundary doing their own thing.

Why not. Our Founders gave us federalism (that doesn't mean that the federal government makes all of the rules).

The States only gave the federal government limited and enumerated powers. All other powers remained with the States and the People.

Peter1469
01-10-2016, 11:20 AM
I haven't thought out all his proposals but thought I'd post them for discussion. I do like the idea of the states leading the way.

Restoring The Rule of Law With the States Leading the Way (http://Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf) (.pdf)

I like them. Some will require explanation so courts can't wiggle out of them. Like wholly within a state. See the Commerce Clause litigation of that and you will see why we need clarity.

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 11:21 AM
Why not. Our Founders gave us federalism (that doesn't mean that the federal government makes all of the rules).

The States only gave the federal government limited and enumerated powers. All other powers remained with the States and the People.
Abbott's proposed amendments strengthen the 10th Amendment by giving it some teeth.

Chris
01-10-2016, 11:36 AM
I haven't thought out all his proposals but thought I'd post them for discussion. I do like the idea of the states leading the way.

Restoring The Rule of Law With the States Leading the Way (Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf) (.pdf)

Merged in my thread on same topic.

donttread
01-10-2016, 11:46 AM
The results of the convention were excellent until the people foolishly removed states from their significant role. Once we had the direct election of Senators the states were cut out of the process of governance. We lost our most significant protections against a powerful central, national government.

The people became corrupted. The federal government reflects our corruption.

Or as Jefferson so aptly put it. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" Too bad we the sheeple quit making the payments

Green Arrow
01-10-2016, 12:14 PM
State rule makes for an even more divided country. You cant have 50 little countries with in one boundary doing their own thing.

Why not? The whole point of the federal government is to mediate disputes between the states.

AeonPax
01-10-2016, 03:18 PM
That is not correct.If 2/3s of the States call for a Convention, and if 3/4s of the States agree to any changes, the changes are done. The States could abolish the federal government in its entirety. Congress has no stay in the matter whatsoever.Federalism: it doesn't mean the federal government has all of the power. :smiley: After all, there would be no federal government had the states not created that position.
`
And you can post the federal law that says this?

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 03:21 PM
`
And you can post the federal law that says this?
I just shake my head.

ThaiBoxer
01-10-2016, 03:21 PM
When is Texas going to finally secede from the nation so they stop embarrassing us?

Cigar
01-10-2016, 03:23 PM
When is Texas going to finally secede from the nation so they stop embarrassing us?

They depend on the Government too much.

Peter1469
01-10-2016, 03:36 PM
`
And you can post the federal law that says this?

There is nothing outside of the US Constitution, Art. V. That has been posted above, I believe.

MisterVeritis
01-10-2016, 05:10 PM
When is Texas going to finally secede from the nation so they stop embarrassing us?
If you are embarrassed it may be that you know so little.

Chris
01-10-2016, 06:33 PM
When is Texas going to finally secede from the nation so they stop embarrassing us?

Soon as the rest of the country stops moving here for our low taxes and great economy. Embarrassing, isn't it.

ThaiBoxer
01-11-2016, 01:11 AM
Soon as the rest of the country stops moving here for our low taxes and great economy. Embarrassing, isn't it.

I would never live there. It doesn't seem like a really safe place to live to me.

zelmo1234
01-11-2016, 02:06 AM
I would never live there. It doesn't seem like a really safe place to live to me.

Why because people have jobs and don't have to be dependent on the government.

It is much safer than the liberal mica's of the country

AeonPax
01-11-2016, 02:24 AM
There is nothing outside of the US Constitution, Art. V. That has been posted above, I believe.
`
There is no federal law (nothing in the CFR) covering US constitutional conventions. That's my entire point.

Peter1469
01-11-2016, 05:54 AM
`
There is no federal law (nothing in the CFR) covering US constitutional conventions. That's my entire point.

There doesn't have to be. There was no law covering the first Convention that gave us our current Constitution. In fact, the Founders threw their instructions out and totally violated them when they opened that first Convention.

Another consideration, our Constitution is not a list of instructions nor is it a how-to book. It is, as Obama said in the 1990s, a list of negative rights- what the government can't to do you as opposed to what the government can do for you or must do for you. That is why it is so short. Were it to contain instructions on everything it would be thousands of pages and resemble our tax code.

Chris
01-11-2016, 07:29 AM
It's found here: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Common
01-11-2016, 08:05 AM
Crazy stuff most always comes out of texas. Texans must be the most unhappy people on the planet.

Given my personal opinion they have really bad taste in Govs, this new guy seems more cracked than Gov Oops was.

Chris
01-11-2016, 08:24 AM
Crazy stuff most always comes out of texas. Texans must be the most unhappy people on the planet.

Given my personal opinion they have really bad taste in Govs, this new guy seems more cracked than Gov Oops was.


We're just very independent. Lone Star State, remember?

http://i.snag.gy/KAD75.jpg

donttread
01-11-2016, 08:55 AM
State rule makes for an even more divided country. You cant have 50 little countries with in one boundary doing their own thing.

That's exactly what "United States" and "Union of States" are supposed to mean. Not countries but independent states pretty much governing themselves with a the federal government existing as a necessary evil to collectively deal with other nations .
Please read the Constitution and BOR

Chris
01-11-2016, 09:24 AM
That's exactly what "United States" and "Union of States" are supposed to mean. Not countries but independent states pretty much governing themselves with a the federal government existing as a necessary evil to collectively deal with other nations .
Please read the Constitution and BOR

Used to be call these United States, somewhere along the line it changed to the.