View Full Version : Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Constitutional Convention to take back states’ right
Whiskey_Bravo
01-08-16, 15:34
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/gov-greg-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-to-take-back-states-rights.html/
Do you think this will go anywhere? Is this a good thing? The only thing that scares me about a constitutional convention is the fact that once you have one there is the possibility that things get changed/removed/added that you really didn't want to happen.
Gov. Greg Abbott, aiming to spark a national conversation about states’ rights, said Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run amok.”
“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience.
Along with the speech, Abbott released a nearly 70-page plan – part American civics lesson, part anti-Obama diatribe – detailing nine proposed constitutional amendments that he said would unravel the federal government’s decades-long power grab and restore authority over economic regulation and other matters to the states
it would be nice to take away almost all federal agencies , all federal land, and almost all power from them.
But I don't think we have enough Red states with Strong Red leaders, to get it done, and leave others alone or strengthen some.
Eurodriver
01-08-16, 16:23
it would be nice to take away almost all federal agencies , all federal land, and almost all power from them.
But I don't think we have enough Red states with Strong Red leaders, to get it done, and leave others alone or strengthen some.
We don't. We have maybe 20 at best.
Speaking of that, this is a map the left released a few years ago showing what would happen if Hillary ran.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jDOI8hRXxPI/USUAFAinZEI/AAAAAAAABHQ/NCCEijvLwHk/s1600/507-31.png
Texas, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming and Virginia could create a power house
The best arguement I have heard against an article 5 convention of states is that they do not obey, nor are held accountable by congress, to The Constitution as it exists now. Why would we think they would respect and obey an changes made during a convention.
Outlander Systems
01-08-16, 17:02
Ho Lee Shit.
I always said, the only place I'd leave Georgia for is Texas...
I like this dude.
As a Texan, I say let's get our own house in order first.
Averageman
01-08-16, 17:09
Aint it a bitch that the only guy willing to stand up to Obama has to do it from a wheelchair?
The only thing that scares me about a constitutional convention is the fact that once you have one there is the possibility that things get changed/removed/added that you really didn't want to happen.
Agree! The phrase "Be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. I'd rather see us work to get our state and federal governments in line with the existing Constitution.
We don't. We have maybe 20 at best.
Speaking of that, this is a map the left released a few years ago showing what would happen if Hillary ran.
Don't know where you got the map from my state, SC, Is far from blue. You'll see in a couple of weeks.
Moose-Knuckle
01-08-16, 17:44
As a Texan, I say let's get our own house in order first.
Seal the border with Mexico tighter than the Korean DMZ and repel the progressive leftest who have been fleeing their blue state utopias for our economy and job market.
This is something I will be contacting my state Reps about going forward with.
Ho Lee Shit.
I always said, the only place I'd leave Georgia for is Texas...
I like this dude.
First beer is on me if you move......;)
Outlander Systems
01-08-16, 18:46
Roger that, and thank you, Sir.
This is something I will be contacting my state Reps about going forward with.
First beer is on me if you move......;)
Dist. Expert 26
01-08-16, 19:00
I would love to see a Constitutional convention if and only if the topic was term limits for Congress and SCOTUS. Anything else could prove to be dangerous and we might not like the result.
He does have some interesting and thought provoking ideas. My concern has always been that any new amendments would be ignored like the current ones are. Many of his ideas are geared toward providing the states a mechanism to hold the three federal branches accountable. The devil is in the details, but if amendments were drafted that accomplished what his summaries state, we could have something worth considering.
The other significant concern I have is how the delegates to the convention get chosen. If the U.S. congress doesn't have the balls to get this stuff done then I sure don't want my US senators and congressmen at the helm. Though my congressman Bruce Poliquin is a rockstar.
Outlander Systems
01-08-16, 19:58
Repercussions you rat finks. Repercussions.
We need an ability to recall these clowns when they get stupid.
Force them to swear an oath upon taking office, and hold them to it by statute...Criminal penalties for violating the Constitutional restraints.
Make it so that, running for office isn't a ****ing free pass to easy street, and enforce a two-term limit. Maximum. For errybody.
Damn! I like the sounds of this.
Outlander Systems
01-08-16, 22:01
I'm conflicted. The idea is tempting, but we run the risk of opening Pandora's Box.
Texas could always lead the way by cutting loose. Pretty sure Texas would be just fine on its own. Maybe even fine 'n dandy on its own.
Damn! I like the sounds of this.
We don't need a convention. We don't need more states rights. We don't need new constitutional amendments.
What we need is for the rules of the most excellent document ever written to be followed. What we need is for the people violating those rules to be prosecuted and punished. What we need is for the government to bow to the will of the people instead of trying to make the people bow to its will.
We don't. We have maybe 20 at best.
Speaking of that, this is a map the left released a few years ago showing what would happen if Hillary ran.
No f**cking way Alaska would allow its delegates to go for Hilary.
Whiskey_Bravo
01-08-16, 23:59
Roger that, and thank you, Sir.
And the second beer would be on me :)
Actually I am rescinding my worries. F - it . Lets just do this thing and see where it leads. **** it, lets do it live.
36964
Leaveammoforme
01-09-16, 02:17
We don't. We have maybe 20 at best.
Speaking of that, this is a map the left released a few years ago showing what would happen if Hillary ran.
Well Wendy Davis isn't our Governor so I'll say the chart is flawed. I expect mama Hillary would receive the same voters.
I'm conflicted. The idea is tempting, but we run the risk of opening Pandora's Box.
Texas could always lead the way by cutting loose. Pretty sure Texas would be just fine on its own. Maybe even fine 'n dandy on its own.
I honestly think we would be fine. I'm willing to bet we would even prosper. If we had the say so of our borders, they would be snapped shut.
We have zero state income tax. I read that Texas receives back 79% of taxes paid to the Feds. If we cut out the middle man and had 100% of our tax money, we would probably post a surplus.
One thing Texas doesn't have is time. The longer we go the more diluted down we become. People come from crappy states, or countries, and try to turn Texas into the exact place they left.
I'm proud to have Greg Abbott as my voice.
We don't need a convention. We don't need more states rights. We don't need new constitutional amendments.
What we need is for the rules of the most excellent document ever written to be followed. What we need is for the people violating those rules to be prosecuted and punished. What we need is for the government to bow to the will of the people instead of trying to make the people bow to its will.
Here, here! I'll second that.
I agree that we need a government that will bow to the will of its people, but by what existing mechanism is the current government held accountable if they don't? All three branches of the federal government are unaccountable to the people, so aside from violent means or amending The Constitution, how do we bring them to obey?
PatrioticDisorder
01-09-16, 07:14
An article 5 convention is THEE way to save the country & take back states rights. Mark Levin has been screaming about it from the mountain tops, seems it is starting to pick up some traction with people. I would love to see it happen.
An article 5 convention is THEE way to save the country & take back states rights. Mark Levin has been screaming about it from the mountain tops, seems it is starting to pick up some traction with people. I would love to see it happen.
We don't need a convention. We don't need more states rights. We don't need new constitutional amendments.
What we need is for the rules of the most excellent document ever written to be followed. What we need is for the people violating those rules to be prosecuted and punished. What we need is for the government to bow to the will of the people instead of trying to make the people bow to its will.
That's exactly what we need, however, right now we aren't getting it. This whole thought is based on how do we go about actually getting back to things running like they should and giving the power back to the people. Right now no one, or practically no one, in a position of power has any interest whatsoever to return that power.
Between this and the inquiry into the SF soldiers left out to dry, I am very curious to see where these things go from here. Quites frankly I'm ready to get behind anything that has a chance of reversing our course. Any chance we can get Mark Levin his own prime time television pulpit?
Outlander Systems
01-09-16, 07:48
Thanks, my brother.
We left San Antonio for Nashville, TN when I was three, so I remember next to nothing of Texas as a kid.
Hearing my entire family go on and on and on about how "awesome" Texas was sticks with you. I've been dying to try it out.
And the second beer would be on me :)
Actually I am rescinding my worries. F - it . Lets just do this thing and see where it leads. **** it, lets do it live.
36964
Im far from comfortable voicing support for a convention in the name of "doing something." Sound familiar? There are inherent dangers involved. That said, I won't shoot down the idea either as it could be shaped into something extraordinary.
I want very specific details.
-Can we limit the scope of the convention and how?
If a convention is called for there must be a focused agenda. Potential delegates to the convention within the states should decide beforehand what the exact agenda will be and only consider amendments addressing that agenda.
-How are delegates chosen?
I do not want the states to force the U.S. congress to draft amendments nor to send house members and senators to the convention as delegates. They already have the ability to act, and have refused. Delegates should be chosen on a state by state basis, and states should decide who to send. In my opinion, state legislatures should vote on delegates who should already have a specific, and publicly known, agenda.
I'll give Gov. Abbott this: As this is a convention of states, potential delegates must make themselves known, get organized, and should begin to conference now to express ideas toward forming an agenda. He is looking to the future and recognizes the difficult hurdle to leap over will be potential delegates forming an organized agenda and promoting it before even being chosen.
I don't agree with the idea of a Constitutional Convention for simply one reason, it is not the desire of a majority of the American people.
Everyone complains about elected officials, but the fact is that every representative we have, except for the President, is elected by popular vote. And our Constitution ensures that the President does not have absolute power. The real problem is the dysfunction in the Congress.
It may bring distaste to the mouth to say it, but we do have the government that the majority of our citizens want. We need to work harder at education, conversion, not disruption.
JM .02, and I'm a simple shit.
Added - the whole Texas thing - Texas certainly has the population to be an independent nation, but I believe that success in that endeavor would be dependent on the United States decisions on commerce and borders.
I don't agree with the idea of a Constitutional Convention for simply one reason, it is not the desire of a majority of the American people.
Everyone complains about elected officials, but the fact is that every representative we have, except for the President, is elected by popular vote. And our Constitution ensures that the President does not have absolute power. The real problem is the dysfunction in the Congress.
It may bring distaste to the mouth to say it, but we do have the government that the majority of our citizens want. We need to work harder at education, conversion, not disruption.
JM .02, and I'm a simple shit.
Added - the whole Texas thing - Texas certainly has the population to be an independent nation, but I believe that success in that endeavor would be dependent on the United States decisions on commerce and borders.
Then perhaps we could start simply and work to repeal the 17th Amendment? That's the one that made the US Senate a popularity contest rather than the voice of the State Legislatures.
Then perhaps we could start simply and work to repeal the 17th Amendment? That's the one that made the US Senate a popularity contest rather than the voice of the State Legislatures.
Precisely this. That the senate is elected by a majority vote is its self a problem, along with the president. That was not the original intention of the framers. The framers original design was that states would choose electors and those electors would choose the president only if he received a majority of their votes, and they assumed that would rarely happen with 4+ candidates. In that case the choice of president would fall to the house. As candidates gained in national popularity that all changed, and after 1824 the choice of president never fell to congress again. This was the "elected monarch" the framers had tried to avoid during the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia.
Go to Amazon and download a free sample of FH Buckley's The Once and Future King. Though I don't agree with all his conclusions, he is historically accurate to the beginnings of our constitution and the framers intent.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00VPPYF8M/ref=mp_s_a_1_8?qid=1452360636&sr=8-8&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70&keywords=the+once+an+future+king&dpPl=1&dpID=51kY6pfHLnL&ref=plSrch
MountainRaven
01-09-16, 12:55
We don't. We have maybe 20 at best.
Speaking of that, this is a map the left released a few years ago showing what would happen if Hillary ran.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jDOI8hRXxPI/USUAFAinZEI/AAAAAAAABHQ/NCCEijvLwHk/s1600/507-31.png
I don't buy it.
Montana came closest to going blue in the Presidential way in 2008 with Obama. And Hillary doesn't stand a snowball's-chance-in-hell of winning Montana. The only way Hillary wins is if all the state's GOP-leaning voters stay home.
BoringGuy45
01-09-16, 14:24
We don't. We have maybe 20 at best.
Speaking of that, this is a map the left released a few years ago showing what would happen if Hillary ran.
That map is a flat out lie. Not even a lie wrapped in truth. Complete and utter bullshit. AL, MS, GA, LA, and TX would go for Hillary??? It must have been Marion Berry who came up with this, because you'd have to be smoking crack to believe this map.
There was that book that came out in I think 2010 or so called "Permanently Blue." The author, who I think was Hillary's staff (literally and figuratively), gleefully declared that the GOP would never win a single election ANYWHERE or at any level starting in 2014. He claimed that in less than 10 years, the U.S. would be a one party state. It may happen eventually, but not yet.
Then perhaps we could start simply and work to repeal the 17th Amendment? That's the one that made the US Senate a popularity contest rather than the voice of the State Legislatures.
That's no joke, repeal the 17th then change it to if you don't pay federal income tax you don't get to vote. But the biggest thing I'd like to see personally is the electoral college changed to where it's not the populous vote that wins the state's delegates or the percentage of them. It should be each county gets one vote for that state, you win the county you win the vote. Then, whoever wins the majority of the counties wins that states electoral college votes.
It would turn the state of California red in the blink of an eye. And I'm sure various other states too.
I think the framers were trying for the similar thing when they wrote that you had to be a land owning male to vote. They only wanted people voting who had skin in the game. The requirement of paying FIT would do the virtually the same thing. And this would give the majority of the country and say and not held hostage by the large metropolitan areas like we are now.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
That's no joke, repeal the 17th then change it to if you don't pay federal income tax you don't get to vote. But the biggest thing I'd like to see personally is the electoral college changed to where it's not the populous vote that wins the state's delegates or the percentage of them. It should be each county gets one vote for that state, you win the county you win the vote. Then, whoever wins the majority of the counties wins that states electoral college votes.
This is an idea I could get behind. It would give millions of people whose votes "don't matter" a voice again. I think this would turn several states red again, and not coincidentally get this country moving in the direction that the MAJORITY of Americans want it moving. This is also why I think the Dems would fight it tooth and nail.
My concern is that a constitutional convention could harm us by unfavorably revising the 2a.
I'm conflicted. The idea is tempting, but we run the risk of opening Pandora's Box.
Texas could always lead the way by cutting loose. Pretty sure Texas would be just fine on its own. Maybe even fine 'n dandy on its own.
I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not conflicted.
The federal government has spun so far out of control, that it is surreal. The current federal government is a Leviathan that the Constitution was specifically written to prevent.
We don't need a convention. We don't need more states rights. We don't need new constitutional amendments.
What we need is for the rules of the most excellent document ever written to be followed. What we need is for the people violating those rules to be prosecuted and punished. What we need is for the government to bow to the will of the people instead of trying to make the people bow to its will.
That is true, but the federal government has no intention to follow the Constitution. What recourse is there in the face of such a group and the people they have bribed to vote for them?
I agree that we need a government that will bow to the will of its people, but by what existing mechanism is the current government held accountable if they don't? All three branches of the federal government are unaccountable to the people, so aside from violent means or amending The Constitution, how do we bring them to obey?
Exactly.
I don't agree with the idea of a Constitutional Convention for simply one reason, it is not the desire of a majority of the American people.
Everyone complains about elected officials, but the fact is that every representative we have, except for the President, is elected by popular vote. And our Constitution ensures that the President does not have absolute power. The real problem is the dysfunction in the Congress.
It may bring distaste to the mouth to say it, but we do have the government that the majority of our citizens want. We need to work harder at education, conversion, not disruption.
JM .02, and I'm a simple shit.
Added - the whole Texas thing - Texas certainly has the population to be an independent nation, but I believe that success in that endeavor would be dependent on the United States decisions on commerce and borders.
Frankly, **** the majority. Getting majority consent had legitimacy when life was such that in general one could not live in the United States without being a productive member of society, or at the very least being able to sustain themselves. Now.... not so much. Close to half the population leaches off an increasing minority thanks to the laws and politicians they have voted in to make their existence and free cell phones possible.
If trends continue, in 20 years the majority is going to be sucking food stamps, unable and unwilling to speak a word of English, won't have any clue what the Constitution is, let alone believing in its tenets and principles, and is going to only be American on paper - their self-identity and loyalty will be either in Mexico, Pakistan, Syria or Saudi Arabia.
**** that majority.
But the biggest thing I'd like to see personally is the electoral college changed to where it's not the populous vote that wins the state's delegates or the percentage of them. It should be each county gets one vote for that state, you win the county you win the vote.
That won't work... There are counties with a million people and counties with a thousand. You feel that they should have an "equal voice" in elections?
That said, you take away "winner take all" and have each state award one elector per congressional district and they vote the way their district voted. You get much closer to accurate public representation of what "the people" actually want. (You also eliminate any chance the Democrats have of winning a presidential election, which is why it will never happen.)
That won't work... There are counties with a million people and counties with a thousand. You feel that they should have an "equal voice" in elections?
That said, you take away "winner take all" and have each state award one elector per congressional district and they vote the way their district voted. You get much closer to accurate public representation of what "the people" actually want. (You also eliminate any chance the Democrats have of winning a presidential election, which is why it will never happen.)
I think each county should have a voice regardless of the population. I was born and raised in California and grew up watching thar whole damned state controlled by 7 or so counties. 58 counties controlled by roughly 7. Didn't matter how the state voted just the retard hippie commie scum suckers on the coast and in LA. State sent how they voted majority of the time, it was infuriating.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
And I wouldn't say congressional districts are the best way, look at the house of r er representatives
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
SeriousStudent
01-10-16, 22:24
The Dallas Morning News editorial board came out against Abbot and his call for the convention.
I was on the fence, but if the Snooze is against, it, I'm all for it.
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
This may be the light we need in the wake of Scalia's death.
Several states have signed on. It's never been done before to amend the Constitution; it's always gone the Congressional route for initiation. Does not need a governor's approval either. My state just became one of those whose legislature passed it.
So, how would the RKBA be worded to forever nullify any liberal-leaning SCOTUS interpretation? You might have to actually get specific in terms of firearms as an vagueness would no doubt be twisted by libtards to be against us.
MountainRaven
02-14-16, 15:07
Not sure how much clearer you can get than, "Shall not be infringed."
Only thing I can think of is to drop, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," from what we already have. Or maybe add, "No, seriously, we mean it. Shall NOT be infringed!"
It doesn't matter how you word something. If it did, we'd not be in the current predicament. Nine unelected people in black robes will decide what you may and may not possess. Your opinion doesn't matter.
There was never any clearer wording then Eminent Domain for "public use" only and the the SCOTUS, even the one with Scalia present, voted to permit "private use" if it can be demonstrated it would benefit the public.
So your home or family property, even if it has belonged to your family for generations, can be forcibly sold to the government and turned into a casino if they can make the case that it will bring jobs to the economy and tax revenue to the city / county.
This was done while Bush was in office. There are no guarantees of anything. The more you try and fix things, the more you open the door to make them worse.
It doesn't matter how you word something. If it did, we'd not be in the current predicament. Nine unelected people in black robes will decide what you may and may not possess. Your opinion doesn't matter.
What would you suggest then Debbie Downer? The focus of the whole thing is to limit the power and overreach of the federal government.
My "opinion", or anyone else's, matters not when it is written in the Constitution. I agree with what someone above said about dropping the well-regulated militia thing. With any proposed amendment the wording will be crucial.
There was never any clearer wording then Eminent Domain for "public use" only and the the SCOTUS, even the one with Scalia present, voted to permit "private use" if it can be demonstrated it would benefit the public.
So your home or family property, even if it has belonged to your family for generations, can be forcibly sold to the government and turned into a casino if they can make the case that it will bring jobs to the economy and tax revenue to the city / county.
This was done while Bush was in office. There are no guarantees of anything. The more you try and fix things, the more you open the door to make them worse.
I might add that Scalia was on the dissenting side in Kelo.
Know what is ironic? If you make the argument that liberals are all for the "working man" and the "poor" against the financial interests of the greedy "rich", Kelo was decided by the libs on the SCOTUS! In favor of stripping property rights for financial gain of someone else!
Also, Bush being in office doesn't deter a SCOTUS decision one way or another. They are 9 unelected judges who basically have the final say in ANYTHING.
I might add that Scalia was on the dissenting side in Kelo.
Know what is ironic? If you make the argument that liberals are all for the "working man" and the "poor" against the financial interests of the greedy "rich", Kelo was decided by the libs on the SCOTUS! In favor of stripping property rights for financial gain of someone else!
Also, Bush being in office doesn't deter a SCOTUS decision one way or another. They are 9 unelected judges who basically have the final say in ANYTHING.
I'm just saying it happened under Republican president, many people think the SCOTUS rules in various ways due to the influence of the Obama administration.
Of course the real issue is lifetime appointments. That we actually have people like "asleep at the wheel" Ginsberg deciding the most important issues in the land is amazingly offensive. And we've seen how easy it is for a president to stack the deck with appointments.
I'm just saying it happened under Republican president, many people think the SCOTUS rules in various ways due to the influence of the Obama administration.
Of course the real issue is lifetime appointments. That we actually have people like "asleep at the wheel" Ginsberg deciding the most important issues in the land is amazingly offensive. And we've seen how easy it is for a president to stack the deck with appointments.
Well in order to fix that we need to amend the Constitution! Hence the convention of states. I'm not worried about something nefarious slipping through as IIRC it's one amendment at a time (not vote on 'em all or none) and the standard for it passing is quite high. Even stuff we would want might not pass. I believe it's easier to get the convention called than it is to actually pass the amendments, i.e. a greater number of state legislatures required to ratify than call the convention itself.
One of the beauties of this convention is that it largely nullifies the populace libtard states, as each state has one delegate and their legislature counts as one for ratification. Wyoming's legislature would count as much in the ratification process as California's. A "tyranny of the majority" is pretty much eliminated.
We don't. We have maybe 20 at best.
Speaking of that, this is a map the left released a few years ago showing what would happen if Hillary ran.
Remember it's the state legislatures that decide the issue; governors have no say. So in states like FL where it could go either way in a POTUS election, the state legislature is Republican controlled (assuming of course this breaks down as a R vs D issue, which it basically would).
MountainRaven
02-14-16, 18:08
Well in order to fix that we need to amend the Constitution! Hence the convention of states. I'm not worried about something nefarious slipping through as IIRC it's one amendment at a time (not vote on 'em all or none) and the standard for it passing is quite high. Even stuff we would want might not pass. I believe it's easier to get the convention called than it is to actually pass the amendments, i.e. a greater number of state legislatures required to ratify than call the convention itself.
One of the beauties of this convention is that it largely nullifies the populace libtard states, as each state has one delegate and their legislature counts as one for ratification. Wyoming's legislature would count as much in the ratification process as California's. A "tyranny of the majority" is pretty much eliminated.
I, er, "eagerly" await the Constitutional Amendment that's so long that our state legislators have to vote on it before we can find out what's in it.
Of course the real issue is lifetime appointments. That we actually have people like "asleep at the wheel" Ginsberg deciding the most important issues in the land is amazingly offensive.
By all reports, she and Scalia were BFF so he saw something in her.
And we've seen how easy it is for a president to stack the deck with appointments.
Cuts both ways. Timing is everything!
Moose-Knuckle
02-15-16, 03:22
By all reports, she and Scalia were BFF so he saw something in her.
This is true and a little known factoid many on both the R and the L are shocked by, but I think it was more a mutual respect of two intellectuals concerning Law. Kind of like Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt became friends and would lecture / debate together on the First Amendment.
"My best buddy on the court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, always has been." – Justice Scalia
The organization Citizens for Self Governance has done excellent work to organize an extraordinary website. I would encourage those who are sceptical, interested, curious, etc to explore the website and especially read through the link at the bottom of the page to the FAQ's. The website has very detailed descriptions and answers to logistics questions regarding a plan of action. They are currently proposing house resolutions in various state legislatures to narrow the scope of a convention as well as defining how a convention would be conducted.
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.cosaction.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.