Posted on 01/08/2016 1:10:17 PM PST by yoe
AUSTIN â Governor Greg Abbott today delivered the keynote address at the Texas Public Policy Foundationâs Annual Policy Orientation where he unveiled his Texas Plan to restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose. In his plan, Governor Abbott offers nine constitutional amendments to rein in the federal government and restore the balance of power between the States and the United States. The Governor proposes achieving the constitutional amendments through a Convention Of States.
[snip] Governor Abbott offered the following constitutional amendments:
1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
2. Require Congress to balance its budget.
3. Prohibit administrative agenciesâand the unelected bureaucrats that staff themâfrom creating federal law.
4. Prohibit administrative agenciesâand the unelected bureaucrats that staff themâfrom preempting state law.
5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
7. 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.
8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
(Excerpt) Read more at guidrynews.com ...
I like it.
Now get all the Red States on-board.
Repeal the 17th.
Mark Levin wrote the Liberty Amendments that outline the same things.
I wish they would also add an amendment allowing for the recall of congress critters, and also that the S/C justices must stand for confirmation/election the next election, and every 12 years after that.
I also would like to see the congress enlarged, and what the idea of 3 senators per state, one elected every 2 years?
I also think (Rubio/Cruz/Jindahl supporters will hate this) that in light of Obama’s terrible presidency, we need to confirm the constitutional eligibility requirements according to Article I, Section II, Clause V, and that every candidate must present official, documentation that he/she meets those requirements, must obtain highest level security clearance, and that academic and medical records also must be submitted. These steps would ensure no more Obamas and no more Clintons!
the states also need to be directly able to override a law passed by congress and signed by the President
10. If two-thirds of the States vote no-confidence in the President, he is immediately removed from office.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
I like this but I would allow the borrowing of money with a 2/3 majority of Congress. The wording would have to be such that one 2/3 vote does not continue forever and would have to be for a specific project. Admittedly tricky.
http://gov.texas.gov/files/press-office/Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf
Read page 70. It’s funny that Abbot would conclude the proposal with a very good argument from Patrick Henry against the whole thing. Then Abbot offers up a fairly weak rebuttal which basically says, “Oh well, Henry may be right, but we have nothing to lose.”
One of my arguments against COS is the people of my state are leaving our liberty up to Minnesota. This is essentially Henry’s argument. Well, at least someone is doing something.
Second thread on Texas and Article V.
9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
Why so high? Nothing will get overturned.
I would prefer 1/2 of the states plus one more to overturn federal dictates. A simple majority. If the Feds know that a law or court edict will piss off half the country I think they will be less apt to pass such a law or impose a court decision on the nation if they know a simple majority of the states can nullify it.
I like that idea.
It’s dumb.
Look at #1. There is no economic activity that occurs only within one state in the age of the internet and a global supply chain.
This is just political posturing of the worst kind.
It only says “activity”, not economic activity. Lots of things happen in one or more states that don’t happen in all of them.
All of this presupposes the political will to go after a scofflaw like Obama, who uses his (half) race to ignore all criticism. I’ve not seen any such will on the part of the Republicrats, who are also likely being blackmailed with NSA information. They roll over and play dead at each and every opportunity.
I don’t think Trump can come out in favor of this yet. It would cause a fire storm and it would be easily misconstrued. When he is Pres., I hope he will. That would be the WIN/WIN for the Constitution.
Secession is the only solution. There are too many on the federal payroll to ever support this. And there are too many in the “gib me dats” system.
It’s a great idea and I really wish it could happen. Another fault is it would take too long.
Eligibility should be for only those actually born one OUR soil. Back in the beginning there were lots of people who weren’t but still qualified under the NBC rule. Now if a person born on our soil can’t be found then we’re really in trouble.
Yeppers....that right there would fix a LOT of problems...
MHO.
They need a law that removes the voting power of a big city versus all the smaller outlying cities. Big cities are rats cesspools that control the votes of the red non-city populace. Perhaps do it by land mass, or land ownership, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.