Gov. Abbott Calls for Constitutional Convention of States

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

As a staunch Libertarian I am 100% OPPOSED to a Constitutional convention at this time! Once that genie is out of the bottle, everything goes onto the table for discussion. This is exactly the way Americans could see the Second Amendment legally removed from our list of inalienable rights.

I agree, the only immediate constitutional amendments that need to be made are the complete repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments and only if we can conduct it as a plebiscite. An open convention would only allow the current crop of political professionals to further erode our constitutional rights.

.

Oh and Yes we have a winner. The only real way to get things done legally ect ect......create the situation where many would demand a convention then rat sack the thing.

As I recall, it is not something easily done. 1) They do not have the political strength. 2) They do not have the population to support or approve of such.

That means that it would require 3/4's of the voting population to approve of any new amendment that is propsed, and then it has to be voted on by the senate, at which time, any one of those could be a major set back.

In short he wants to prevent the Federal government from enforcing federal law, and to be able to overturn unpopular supreme court decisions, can you think of what decisions that they would go after in a new york minute? I can think of at least 4.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz

Why amend the US constitution to take power away from the federal government? Why not just secede?

You make it sound so easy, but that didn't work out too well last time it was tried, did it?

The thing is, having a Constitutional Convention would not be just for your pet project, but EVERYONE'S pet projects. It will attract every extremist crazy group in the country. ANYTHING could happen. Everything listed here so far has a good counter-argument.

You really do not want to go there.

You Do realize that tey can SPECIFY what the conventions about and not go beyond it right? Its not always a free for all.

a reply to: seeker1963

See, I believe in the masses ability to come together, in unity, in THIS day and age.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

He'll get no argument from me. Although there are some risks involved in calling a convention of the states, I've felt for some time that the potential reward of reigning in the federal government would be a chance worth taking. As for Governor Abbott's proposal, the one I like perhaps the most of all is allowing the states to invalidate a federal law with a two thirds majority, which would prevent a handful of states from being able to dictate domestic policy and cram their garbage down the rest of the country's throat. So yeah, even though its unlikely to happen, I'm all in favor of it.

I have long thought it is past time to re-evaluate the "United States." I truly believe the country is just as divided today as it was in 1860; maybe even more. In a convention states would be able to more clearly express their state's concerns and needs and perhaps reorganize the states as presently defined. States with common industrial, cultural and commercial, social interests could combine as a unified "country" within North America; however continue "united" in areas of defense, etc. Crazy, longshot but maybe a direction to be considered. We are certainly divided in every respect at the present and forcing provincial laws on other cultural parts of this country are tearing it apart.

First of all, despite the "history" that some of you learned at Glenn Beck's feet ...

1. States do not have "power over" the Federal Government - The Constitution and US Laws are the Supreme Laws of the Land: Article VI, Paragraph 2.

2. The Constitution (that so many claim to love) and the current US Government created thereby (which so many claim to hate) were put into place precisely because the loose confederation of smaller States was an abyssal failure in in the late 18th century. The similar foolish suggestions floated through the right-wingnut media chambers would be even more impotent in the international realities of 2016.

3. Most of you have absolutely no conception of what you're talking about with the endless harping on the evils of the "Guvment" whose teat you probably suckled off of at least three times today. If the US failed tomorrow, you would be living in a third-world country within a year at best.

What utter rot infests this place now!

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
Why not just secede?

texas tried that already, it was on ats awhile back, texas got what they needed to put it to the white house but the white house refused to let them secede, this looks like their plan B.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What utter rot infests this place now!

right right, if only all members could learn from your example in that post, to be more thoughtful, considerate, friendly, well informed and non-hostile, right?.....

lets face it, the attitude you present in your post makes you a part of the "rot" your complaining about

ridiculing people for not knowing something that you do know does not encourage them to learn what you know, rather it encourages them to disagree with you BECAUSE you ridiculed them, perhaps thats what you wanted, as a part of the rot you may very well be enjoying the rot.

a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye
I see this making the US a weaker mish mash of tiny counties, becoming like Africa or Europe, where a lot of smaller countries are dead, dying, or bullies.

I see no good in it in the long run and it would not benefit the average America citizen.

A State is the sum of its people, not just a mass of land. How would this help any of the 99%? Chopping up the country into individual enclaves were you have a bunch of big fish in little ponds will be a disaster.

Look at history. Think about the human psyche. We already have one Oz. Imagine 50+ of them.

We need to control what we have, not allow it to splinter.

Corruption runs rampant in Texas as it does in any other southern state.

If a constitutional convention is called, it is more than likely going to end up that the constitution will be gone for all intents and purposes as far as protecting the people below the police fence built between the privileged class in the end as the government does not play by the rules anyway and pretty much ignores it.

Constitutional rights are a myth, people do not need them and just sound stupid when they babble the term.

The constitution is a framework or set of parameters for the government to stay within to keep from infringing on the natural born rights of the citizens.

The governments need to keep their hands off of it and instead observe and obey the rules laid down for them to work within by it.

Let Texas secede and see how rich a state or whatever it would be then, as it has prospered from the way things are now.

Stupid is as stupid does....

a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

texas tried that already, it was on ats awhile back, texas got what they needed to put it to the white house but the white house refused to let them secede, this looks like their plan B.

Actually they didn't try. I live in Texas and all they did was pander to the conservative base about it. They never submitted any formal request. Also, Texas is the only state in the union that can secede legally; due to the treaty they signed when joining the union. However, if Texas secedes, then it must be broken into 5 separate states; giving each new "state" an option to rejoin the union. Texas didn't do it because they know it would be disastrous to the economy and the Texas government would be exposed as being more corrupt than the federal government ever was.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Like corruption doesn't run rampant in northern states like NY, IL, MO, WA just to name a few.

I can't read past the lie in the first sentence.

Why is it suddenly horrible and too awful to comprehend a convention ?

The function exists for a specific purpose, the framers created it to give us a way to fix specific problems.

The only reason that anybody would have such faux worry and outrage, would be if they truly enjoy the out of control govt, socialism, jihad, open borders, etc.

Of course one would rail against a convention if they were in support of sharia, la raza, socialism or communism, etc.

a reply to: EternalSolaceyou are right one state can influence the rest don't believe me ok but if you can an old house try replacing plumbiing fixtures and toilets you will find that the taps run slower the showers have less force and the toilets aare harder to flush because the tank on back is considerably smaller why because California water restrictions all plumbing products are now made with built in water flow restricting devices because california requires them

a reply to: hubrisinxs The states can surely take on the federal govenment, rather they can take it OUT! The problem is that Americans forget that the States are the creators of the constitution and the federal government--the creature-- which has gotten out of control and needs to be sent to "hell" by it's creators! Governor Abott's proposals are not bold nor profound enough. The States should amend their constitution and strip most powers from their created federal gov't. The senators should be chosen by the state legislatures to do their bidding (like it used to be) and be removed whenever the states deem so. However, the more profound change I favor is whithin the executive branch: the States should abolish a one man presidency, which has proven itself prone to tyranny and corruption. They, the States, should take over the executive branch, through a collective presidency, called THE COUNCIL OF THE STATES, made up of the governors of all the states, with a rotating and elected chairperson from amongst them. All federal laws emanating from Congress ( the House of Representatives, elected by the people and the Senate, elected by the state legislatures) would be subject to the approval or veto by THE COUNCIL OF THE STATES! If you want to change the Constitution, be bold enough to change the root of the problem. THE STATES HAVE THE ULTIMATE POWER, as CREATORS, not the evil creature, which has gotten out of control and needs to be TERMINATED!

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

They should be careful. The amendment process is a two edged sword. You could call it with one thing in mind and leave with an entirely different idea that is now law.

You need to hold a majority across the board or propose a change a majority support. If not anything can go.

a reply to: covoada

The states can surely take on the federal government, rather they can take it OUT!

are you agreeing with me? My post was the Article V of the constitution and me saying that the Governor is talking about a real legal process.

I understand your distrust of the federal government, but I not sure we agree on the level of hate and anger. I want to make clear that I in no way endorse the overthrowing of the American government.

My real point was that, though there is a legal method for the states to change the constitution, I find it hard to believe that 34 state legislators would come together to try and dismantle the government through a constitutional convention. Most high-level state officials have friends or family in the upper levels of the federal government.

I know it sucks sometimes, but try not to be so mad because it is not good for the health.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

This is simply a call to reiterate what the constitution already states and has largely been ignored by the federal govt. I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this...

Jaden

a reply to: hubrisinxs

The biggest problem with the convening of a constitutional convention is that once it has been convened, there is nothing stopping it from doing exactly that and completely annihilating the existing government and replacing it with whatever.

There would be nothing that would force them to stick to what the convention was called for...

Jaden