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

The Dallas Morning News ^ | 1/8/2016 | Brandi Grissom

[plewis1250]

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. A convention, Abbott wrote, would force the federal government to “take the Constitution seriously again.”

[plewis1250]

Thank God I live in Texas, what a great governor!

[Gasshog]

Do it. show the upstart Fedgov their place.

[WENDLE]

I like it!! let’s get it on and I highly recommend the people of Texas get Cornyn out of there in the next primary and firmly install Abbott in as Senator!!

[Publius]

[PGR88]

the absolutely FIRST thing that must be done is re-design and reform our present monetary system

People ignore the obvious - but a centrally-planned, politicized, fiat, unbacked currency, controlled in Washington DC will ALWAYS benefit insiders and government first. The fact FED.gov can run up $20 Trillion in debt is exactly WHY you have a FED.gov that can intrude on every aspect of your life and local government. They control the money supply.

[Hostage]

Time for the ‘AMERICAN REFORMATION’.

[RKBA Democrat]

Wow. I don’t support an article V as there is nothing to indicate they political class will obey an improved Constitution more than they do the current one.

This is good news though and I’ll take it.

[FlingWingFlyer]

I’d love to see a We the People Convention. When the government continues to violate the Bill of Rights, we’re supposed to replace the government. That time has come.

[Regulator]

I like Greg Abbott more and more all the time.

Big improvement over his Hollywood predecessor.

He and Paxton are rewriting the legal landscape back to core ideals.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Is this to be by the method of a convention of states which, I have been told, is included in the Constitution?

[Tzimisce]

Congress, the President and our courts have decided they’re not going to follow the old rules.

So we’re going to stop them by making new rules?

[Dalberg-Acton]

“Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.”

Isn’t that what the Constitution already says?

[snooter55]

bfl

[Regulator]

PS, one suggestion:

Require the Supreme Court Justices to have one from each Federal Circuit court district. Although this will change the size of the court, it means we don’t get a concentration from one area such as we have now, and it also should mean that they will have been either District Court judges or Appellate Court justices previously, and not some crony from a college or law firm.

[SoFloFreeper]

The need isn’t for a new amendment, but for a PROPER interpretation of #14.

An amendment meant to stop DEMOCRATS from making people 2nd class citizens has been PERVERTED by liberals (most of them—not all—Democrats) to crush liberty.

[demshateGod]

Last couple of years, when the Article V stuff started, I doubted it could every work. I liked everything in it, but I didn’t think it was worth the time and money to bring it all together. We already have a constitution and Fedgov ignores and acts completely contrary to its intent. I thought nullification is already constitutional and we should just do that. We should do this, but momentum is key. The COS process is dead after less than two years because it’s designed to be a slow. Having an executive of a big state on this feels pretty good.

[Publius]

The answer is yes. This is the usual boilerplate I post to these threads to explain the Article V process.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments.

Reference works:

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters

[Blood of Tyrants]

The problems with his plan is that it doesn’t go far enough. It should have term limits for Representatives, repeal the 17th Amendment, make Supreme Court justices serve a single 10 year term, more narrowly define the “interstate commerce clause”, and allowing Congress to override a alphabet rule change (not a repeal of an existing rule) with a simple majority vote.

[demshateGod]

I agree completely!

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

This can’t be said enough.