Support NeoGAF

[Tripon]

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - Texas Governor Greg Abbott called for a conference of the states to add new nine amendments to the U.S. Constitution, saying the U.S. Congress, the President and U.S. Supreme Court are eroding the rule of law in the country.

Speaking at a conservative forum in Austin, Abbott, a Republican, said the federal government, courts and president were overreaching their constitutional bounds and he wanted legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a "Convention of States to fix the cracks in our Constitution."

His nine amendments include requiring Congress to balance the budget, allowing two-thirds of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision and allowing a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation - rights that the states do not have.

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-governor-abbott-calls-amendments-u-constitution-203900672.html

Somebody sounds mad.

I guess this is the full list of nine?

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
2. Require Congress to balance its budget.
3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from 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.

 

[HerbertFish]

I do wish there were more checks on the Supreme Court. I thnk thats true across party lines actually. Don't think that's right way though. Not sure what is.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It's nice to want things

 

[GPsych]

Didn't some states already try that in 1860? I think there was some sort of conflict as a result.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Hmmm I wonder what Supreme Court decisions he wants to override...

 

[perfectchaos007]

If he wants to be able to make amendments I hope he realizes this opens the door to finally make guns illegal. Its a two way street

 

[sangreal]

2 thirds of the states can already do those things.... By passing amendments

Aren't there a lot of official convention calls out there now? A bunch were passed in the Reagan years

 

[grumble]

Not entirely a bad idea.

 

[Nightbird]

So basically, he wants more power

 

[Soapbox Killer]

Wishful thinking. Supreme court should have less power.

 

[Dude Abides]

His proposed amendment 1: No Negro shall be President.

 

[Vicetrailia]

There are more red states than blue states right?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I do wish there were more checks on the Supreme coirt. Don't think that's right way though. Not sure what is.

I think ending lifetime terms could be a start.

As for these proposals, I don't think it is the best course of action either. You render the court system quite useless. Granted, 2/3 majority of presumably state legislatures is a pretty high test, it just doesn't seem like a good idea.

What's the percentage of low population conservative flyover states?

 

[RiccochetJ]

What if 2/3rds of all the states want to put the official reps from Texas into solitary confinement for 10 years?

 

[onadesertedisland]

That man is insane. Good lord that tree must have really done a thing on his ability to not be a partisan asshole.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

The constitution has never been amended via the constitutional convention route. Good luck with that Governor Abbott.

 

[KingBroly]

2 thirds of the states can already do those things.... By passing amendments

Aren't there a lot of official convention calls out there now? A bunch were passed in the Reagan years

A Convention's never been done before.

During W's term, they were 1 vote shy of passing a flag burning amendment through the Senate. It passed the House.

 

[cpp_is_king]

If he wants to be able to make amendments I hope he realizes this opens the door to finally make guns illegal. Its a two way street

It doesn't "finally" open the door. The door is already open. Amendments are already a thing that can happen, he's just proposing 9 new ones.

Requiring a balanced budget doesn't sound that bad to me though. Almost seems like common sense. What's the argument against requiring a balanced budget?

 

[gcubed]

Someone from Texas says something stupid. As the world turns...

 

[Slayven]

His proposed amendment 1: No Negro shall be President.

Pretty much

 

[Aurongel]

Honestly, not all of this sounds that bad. The budget one in particular probably won't be very popular in his party.

 

[Guevara]

Oh I get it: it's because most states are GOP controlled.

 

[Armaros]

It doesn't "finally" open the door. The door is already open. Amendments are already a thing that can happen, he's just proposing 9 new ones.

Requiring a balanced budget doesn't sound that bad to me though. Almost seems like common sense. What's the argument against requiring a balanced budget?

How would have the US surivived the Great Depression and WW2 with such a amendment?

 

[FLEABttn]

The article lacks most of the nine amendments, which are:

1) Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
2) Require Congress to balance its budget.
3) Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
4) Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from 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.

 

[Jay Shadow]

"allowing a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation"

Maybe when these laws are proposed we can gather representatives of these states in a building of some sort in Washtington and they can have the option to overturn these attempts at laws with a two-thirds majority before they even pass in the first place.

 

[Balphon]

A balanced budget amendment and nullification?

I can't decide which is dumber.

EDIT: An amendment to override Wickard v. Filburn is at least conceptually interesting, I guess.

 

[uncredited male]

Gay marriage isn't going away dude.

 

[CitizenVectron]

The best part is:

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
2. Require Congress to balance its budget.
3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from 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.

So make a new amendment saying you have to follow the other amendments? What will it read, "Amendment 28: No, really, seriously guys, follow this."?

This whole list is pretty silly.

 

[sangreal]

A Convention's never been done before.

During W's term, they were 1 vote shy of passing a flag burning amendment through the Senate. It passed the House.

I know a convention has never been done before but a lot of states have convention calls on the books. We are probably close to the threshold but it will come down to whether courts think you can have a limited call for a convention (a bunch of states passed calls for only specific issues)

 

[PanicFreak]

Honestly, not all of this sounds that bad. The budget one in particular probably won't be very popular in his party.

A mandated balanced budget is literally the dumbest idea on Earth. Just imagine a situation where you have to borrow a lot of money to finance a World War but you can't because some dipshit from Texas decided it would be a good idea to have a perpetually balanced budget.

 

[VendettaRed07]

So he wants two thirds of the states to agree and pass an amendment that allows two thirds of the states to agree to override a Supreme Court decision.

Uh...

 

[jmdajr]

Thanks Obama

 

[sangreal]

If he wants to be able to make amendments I hope he realizes this opens the door to finally make guns illegal. Its a two way street

Good luck with that when the GOP controls most state legislatures though

 

[j_k_redtail]

It's nice to want things

.

 

[sikkinixx]

Who needs judges amirite? Unless they decide election wins.

 

[FelixOrion]

I guess this is the full list of nine?

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
2. Require Congress to balance its budget.
3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from 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.

 

[Ri'Orius]

Requiring a balanced budget doesn't sound that bad to me though. Almost seems like common sense. What's the argument against requiring a balanced budget?

Intelligent use of loans and debt can be financially beneficial? Surely you realize how taking out a mortgage to buy a house, or getting loans to pay for an individual's college education, in the long run pay for themselves? Why do you think the government should be legally prohibited from taking similar steps?

Increased spending during times of crisis, coupled with paying back that debt during times of plenty, would be way more effective than requiring a balanced budget at all times. And arguably the latter isn't actually as important as one might think.

 

[Version 3.0]

2 thirds of the states can already do those things.... By passing amendments

Aren't there a lot of official convention calls out there now? A bunch were passed in the Reagan years

Almost. Two thirds of the states' legislatures already have the power to call a Constitutional Convention, but it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify whatever the convention proposes.

 

[GaimeGuy]

allowing two-thirds of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision and allowing a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation - rights that the states do not have

Yes they do. It's called a Constitutional Convention.

 

[adj_noun]

It's want to nice things.

 

[Dan]

All of this is dumb red meat for conservatives. Another silly idea to toss out as figures rally the base and try to look super hardcore ideological.

 

[sangreal]

Almost. Two thirds of the states' legislatures already have the power to call a Constitutional Convention, but it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify whatever the convention proposes.

Oh yeah, that's right.

 

[cpp_is_king]

A mandated balanced budget is literally the dumbest idea on Earth. Just imagine a situation where you have to borrow a lot of money to finance a World War but you can't because some dipshit from Texas decided it would be a good idea to have a perpetually balanced budget.

Presumably the amendment would be more than 1 line of text. Like, I don't think it would say "Amendment 46: The budget must always be balanced". There would be, you know, additional stuff. Like perhaps "except in times of an active war declared by congress". If you think about it for more than half a second you can probably come up with some more exceptions.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Reading the amendments it's now clear he's just salty about gay marriage.

Ironically his 7 out of 9 requirement to strike down a law would pretty well preserve Obamacare.

 

[Zophar]

Gotta love states rights rhetoric as if federalism wasn't the way it was gonna be from day one.

 

[uncredited male]

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

This one's my favorite.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Intelligent use of loans and debt can be financially beneficial? Surely you realize how taking out a mortgage to buy a house, or getting loans to pay for an individual's college education, in the long run pay for themselves? Why do you think the government should be legally prohibited from taking similar steps?

Because they are not bound by the same obligations to pay them back, and they are not bound by the same restrictions under which they are eligible to take out a loan. Sure, I can get a mortgage. But I can't get new mortgages every year while sitting on my old mortgages and not paying them back.

 

[Basileus777]

Requiring a balanced budget doesn't sound that bad to me though. Almost seems like common sense. What's the argument against requiring a balanced budget?

Well for starters it would utterly ruin the US economy and have a severe negative impact on the lives of most Americans.

 

[Tripon]

Presumably the amendment would be more than 1 line of text. Like, I don't think it would say "Amendment 46: The budget must always be balanced". There would be, you know, additional stuff. Like perhaps "except in times of an active war declared by congress". If you think about it for more than half a second you can probably come up with some more exceptions.

Have you read the actual amendments? They're simple statements that can be interpreted in a variety of ways that have been applied in the ever shifting era that we live in.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Well for starters it would utterly ruin the US economy and have a severe negative impact on the lives of most Americans.

You don't think a monotonically increasing national debt will destroy the US economy?