No Sweat For Media & Money

[Flanders]

Governor Abbott’s intentions are honorable, but I doubt if nine new Amendments stand a chance. One maybe? Trying for more than one will kill all nine.

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.

Texas Governor Abbott calls for amendments to U.S. Constitution
By Jon Herskovitz
January 8, 2016

Texas Governor Abbott calls for amendments to U.S. Constitution​

I cannot find one thing among Abbott’s nine that reduces the size of government. It looks to me like they all transfer power from the federal government to state government. Nowhere can I find one of the nine increasing individual Rights for every private sector American.

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.

I much prefer repealing the XVI and XVII Amendments.

NOTE: The XVI and XVII Amendments were never ratified. See this thread:

A First Blush Lawsuit Is Better Than Nothing | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The XVI Amendment alone insures the end of this country. If the Income Tax Amendment is not abolished before the parasite class grows much larger it will never be “repealed.”

The XVII Amendment transformed the US Senate into a nest of traitors more loyal to the United Nations than to the United States. In short: The XVII Amendment made it easier for presidents like Bill Clinton and the current piece of garbage in the White House to control Congress for ruling class globalists. Hell, money and media do not have to work up a sweat to elect one third of the US Senate every two years.

 

[Flanders]

I cannot find one thing among Abbott’s nine that reduces the size of government. It looks to me like they all transfer power from the federal government to state government.

Governor Abbott sounds good in the few minutes he had:



Nevertheless, I still want some insurance he will use Article V to shrink the government across the board.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[Skylar]

Governor Abbott’s intentions are honorable, but I doubt if nine new Amendments stand a chance. One maybe? Trying for more than one will kill all nine.

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.

Texas Governor Abbott calls for amendments to U.S. Constitution
By Jon Herskovitz
January 8, 2016

Texas Governor Abbott calls for amendments to U.S. Constitution​

I cannot find one thing among Abbott’s nine that reduces the size of government. It looks to me like they all transfer power from the federal government to state government. Nowhere can I find one of the nine increasing individual Rights for every private sector American.

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.

I much prefer repealing the XVI and XVII Amendments.

NOTE: The XVI and XVII Amendments were never ratified. See this thread:

A First Blush Lawsuit Is Better Than Nothing | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The XVI Amendment alone insures the end of this country. If the Income Tax Amendment is not abolished before the parasite class grows much larger it will never be “repealed.”

The XVII Amendment transformed the US Senate into a nest of traitors more loyal to the United Nations than to the United States. In short: The XVII Amendment made it easier for presidents like Bill Clinton and the current piece of garbage in the White House to control Congress for ruling class globalists. Hell, money and media do not have to work up a sweat to elect one third of the US Senate every two years.

Its a bad idea. There are already checks by the States: amendments. To override a Supreme Court decision it takes 3/4 majority. Abbot wants to reduce that threshold to 2/3rds....almost the number that republicans control.

Its a bad idea, as one of the first thing that republican state legislatures will go after is rights. Attempting to strip them from citizens and turning them into crimes. It dramatically changes the relationship between the States and rights of the individual. Dramatically empowering the States to violate them.

Its a bad idea in terms of rights. If the threshold is higher, States can generally extend rights it believes the people should have. So rights are generally unaffected.

If the threshold is lower, States can remove protection for rights that a State doesn't believe its citizens should have. So rights would be dramatically reduced.

The higher threshold is better for the people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clearly Abbott doesn't know we're a Republic, not a democracy - the rule of law is better for the people.

 

[Flanders]

Its a bad idea, as one of the first thing that republican state legislatures will go after is rights.

To Skylar: States go after privileges as they should.

Its a bad idea in terms of rights. If the threshold is higher, States can generally extend rights it believes the people should have. So rights are generally unaffected.

To Skylar: It is not a Right if everyone does not get it. Hell, states cannot protect every American’s Rights in the original Bill of Rights, but the federal government can, and does, protect every privilege through their courts.

Incidentally, show me a state that extended a Right to EVERYONE IN THAT STATE and I’ll move there posthaste so I can enjoy it before the Supreme Court overturns it.

It dramatically changes the relationship between the States and rights of the individual. Dramatically empowering the States to violate them.

To Skylar: Give me one example in any state. And if you plan on citing the Right to vote, provide one case in the past 60-plus years where one American CITIZEN was denied the Right to vote.

If the threshold is lower, States can remove protection for rights that a State doesn't believe its citizens should have. So rights would be dramatically reduced.

To Skylar: PRIVILEGES ——that liberals call Rights —— were created by the federal government for the welfare state and they should be eliminated by the states whenever possible. Big Brother sure as hell will block every attempt to remove the protection.

 

[Skylar]

To Skylar: States go after privileges as they should.

Why should rights be something that the States go after? As it seems we both recognize that the States with republican legislatures will try and strip citizens of rights in a heart beat given the chance.

And they're hoping to increase that chance by lowing the threshold necessary to do it. Its a bad idea. Its practically begging for abuse.

To Skylar: It is not a Right if everyone does not get it. Hell, states cannot protect every American’s Rights in the original Bill of Rights, but the federal government can, and does, protect every privilege through their courts.

The Federal government recognizes rights that States don't. And protects them. Some States recognize rights that the federal government doesn't, and protects them. But only in that State. Rights protected federal apply across the whole of the United States.

The federally recognized rights establish a floor below which no State can go. But many states would if they could. They're simply not allowed.

And in the battle of State Power v. Individual Rights, I side with rights. Abbot's proposal sides with government power.

Incidentally, show me a state that extended a Right to EVERYONE IN THAT STATE and I’ll move there posthaste so I can enjoy it before the Supreme Court overturns it.

The Supreme Court doesn't generally overturn rights. They adjudicate laws that violate them. Rights are freedom from government action. State recognized rights are freedom from State action. Federally recognized rights are freedom from State and Federal action. Generally speaking.

To Skylar: Give me one example in any state. And if you plan on citing the Right to vote, provide one case in the past 60-plus years where one American CITIZEN was denied the Right to vote.

You're not following me. I'm not saying that the States are necessarily violating rights now. I'm saying that republican led states would if they could. Take....abortion. States like Texas would strip that right away from women in a heart beat. And then criminalize abortion. Turning a constitutional right into a crime.

Sodomy bans, prohibition of free expressions like flag burning, interracial marriage bans, same sex marriage bans...these would all be on the table again in rapid order. With many related rights protected now turned into crimes.

The reason they aren't is that the 3/4 threshold is really hard to meet. So these protections remains beyond the ability of States to strip from citizens. But oh, they want to. And Abbot's proposal wants to change that.

Its a bad idea.

 

[12icer]

what "right" has a republican state, or any republican politician gone after oh wise one? Surely not the first or second amendment, that is what the LIBERALS want to TAKE AWAY!! BTW I am a DEMOCRAT, NOT A LIBERAL LYING dimocrat THOUGH. The things you use as examples are NOT rights, they are choices, The same thing obamacare took away, and all government TAKES when it makes a directive out of any type of restriction.

 

[Flanders]

As it seems we both recognize that the States with republican legislatures will try and strip citizens of rights in a heart beat given the chance.

To Skylar: Speak for yourself. I recognize special privileges. You insist on calling them Rights.

Some States recognize rights that the federal government doesn't, and protects them. But only in that State.

To Skylar: Once again:

It is not a Right if everyone does not get it.

Rights protected federal apply across the whole of the United States.

To Skylar: No they don’t. Legislating against the 1st, and the 2nd Amendments is commonplace in addition to refusing to enforce them.

See this thread to learn how Congress, along with federal and state courts, completely abolished the 8th and the 13th Amendments without repealing either one:

8th Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

13th Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Judges & Tea Party Conservatives​

The Supreme Court doesn't generally overturn rights. They adjudicate laws that violate them. Rights are freedom from government action. State recognized rights are freedom from State action. Federally recognized rights are freedom from State and Federal action. Generally speaking.

To Skylar: I do not accept your premise. Basically, exactly how can a constitutional Right be general. You either have it or you don’t. I will agree with you if you can convince me that a woman can be pregnant GENERALLY.

Take....abortion. States like Texas would strip that right away from women in a heart beat. And then criminalize abortion.

To Skylar: Abortion is not constitutional Right. Abortion is a murderous privilege given to half of the population by 7 lawyers wearing black robes.

Turning a constitutional right into a crime.

To Skylar: Abortion was a crime before those 7 lawyers DECRIMINALIZED infanticide. Over 50 million dead to date.

NOTE: The number of illegal aliens that came to this country —— UNCONSTITUTIONALLY —— is closer to 30 million than it is to the 11 million lie the media has been telling us since 2008. Obviously, it is easier to preach amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens than it is to sell amnesty for 30 million. Add UNITED NATIONS refugees to the 30 illegal aliens million already here and the total will soon pass the number of children murdered in the womb sooner than you might think. The United Nations is tearing down every national border in Europe by citing our UNCONSTITUTIONAL open-borders as the model.

“One last question and you asked we ask on Twitter: Tell me anything new that is not known generally,” Ramos asked Coulter to wrap the interview about her new book, Adios America.

“Well, obviously you brought one up: 30 million illegals, not 11,” Coulter fired back, referencing a fiery opening exchange to the interview.​

Jorge Ramos Admits to Ann Coulter: Bring All of Mexico to Live Here
by Matthew Boyle26 May 2015

Jorge Ramos Admits to Ann Coulter: Bring All of Mexico to Live Here - Breitbart​

NOTE: The United Nations is sending refugees here LEGALLY. Perhaps you can tell me where the United Nations got the authority to write our immigration laws? Also note that the federal government tells state legislators they cannot stop UNICEF charity hustlers from dumping refugees in their states.

Sodomy bans, prohibition of free expressions like flag burning, interracial marriage bans, same sex marriage bans...these would all be on the table again in rapid order. With many related rights protected now turned into crimes.

To Skylar: Everybody can burn a flag because it is covered by the 1st Amendment. Homosexual activity is a privilege with no basis in the Constitution. Worse still, homosexual activity was given to a few by state courts and protected by federal courts. In short: It is not a Right when the courts know that an overwhelming majority reject the practice. See the Eric Hoffer quotation following my signature.

Incidentally, Most Americans do not care what homosexuals do in private so long as heterosexuals are not forced to associate with them. See this thread for my views on forced associations:

Another Vocal Minority Heard From

The things you use as examples are NOT rights, they are choices,

To 2icer: Thank you. I missed that one. In the future, I will try to combine choices with privileges.

 

[Skylar]

To Skylar: Speak for yourself. I recognize special privileges. You insist on calling them Rights.

Me, the Supreme Court, and our entire body of laws.

On what constitutes a constitutional right, I'll stick with the Supreme Court over you citing yourself any day. As would any court in our country. If you're going to have a legal discussion, you can't arbitrarily redefine legal terms to fit your argument if you want your argument to have any legal relevance.

We're speaking of rights. Under our law, per the rulings of our Supreme Court, recognized in any court of law. That you believe otherwise changes nothing.

To Skylar: No they don’t. Legislating against the 1st, and the 2nd Amendments is commonplace in addition to refusing to enforce them.

Again, you're confused. We're not talking about federal legislation. We're talking about Supreme Court rulings. And the Supreme Court routinely protects both the 1st and 2nd amendments. With Johnson v. Texas and McDonald v. Chicago being two somewhat recent examples.

8th Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Excessive fines according to who? Cruel and unusual punishments according to who?

13th Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And what 'slavery' or 'involuntary servitude' are you referring to? Recognizing that both mandatory taxation nor conscription fit that definition under either our laws or the original intent of the founders.

To Skylar: Abortion is not constitutional Right. Abortion is a murderous privilege given to half of the population by 7 lawyers wearing black robes.

Says you, citing yourself. Per our body of law its a constitutional right. One the States are unable to interfere with.

But you do demonstrate my point elegantly. Given the opportunity, there are rights galore that the States with republican legislatures would strip from citizens and turn into crimes.

Abbot's proposal is an attempt to make it easier to do exactly that by lowering the threshold of rights being stripped from citizens from 3/4 to 2/3. Its a bad idea and here's why:

The States won't be limited to rights you think should be stripped from the people. The States can strip citizens of rights you believe people *should* have. The States could overturn McDonald v. Chicago, for example.

Whereas a higher threshold has far less impact on rights. As the States can extend rights that the Supreme Court doesn't recognize.

NOTE: The United Nations is sending refugees here LEGALLY. Perhaps you can tell me where the United Nations got the authority to write our immigration laws? Also note that the federal government tells state legislators they cannot stop UNICEF charity hustlers from dumping refugees in their states.

We've agreed to take refugees. They aren't sending us refugees against our will.

As for the Feds placing refugees in States that don't want them, the States lack the authority to restrict access to anyone who is legally allowed to be in the US. Its a violation of the Right to Travel. Anyone legally in the US would have the right to live in any State they wish.

Its the decision of the individual. Not the State.

To Skylar: Everybody can burn a flag because it is covered by the 1st Amendment.

Its covered in the 1st amendment because of a Supreme Court ruling. Johnson v. Texas. Before that 1989 ruling, it was a crime in Texas. And you can add that 1st amendment protection to the list of rights that will be stripped from citizens if republican legislatures had the chance.

Homosexual activity is a privilege with no basis in the Constitution. Worse still, homosexual activity was given to a few by state courts and protected by federal courts. In short: It is not a Right when the courts know that an overwhelming majority reject the practice. See the Eric Hoffer quotation following my signature.

You misunderstand what the constitution actually is. Its not an exhaustive list of rights. Its an exhaustive list of powers. As the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear, there are far more rights reserved by the people than are enumerated in the constitution. Making your 'basis in the constitution' claim mere nonsense. As a right need not have a 'basis in the constitution' to be reserved by the people.

Its fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of rights just like the one you made that makes republican legislatures so dangerous to rights. And why the threshold should remain at 3/4s....not 2/3rds.

 

[Skylar]

what "right" has a republican state, or any republican politician gone after oh wise one? Surely not the first or second amendment, that is what the LIBERALS want to TAKE AWAY!! BTW I am a DEMOCRAT, NOT A LIBERAL LYING dimocrat THOUGH. The things you use as examples are NOT rights, they are choices, The same thing obamacare took away, and all government TAKES when it makes a directive out of any type of restriction.

Off the top of my head?

The right to privacy.....interracial sex bans, sodomy bans, abortion bans.

Right to marry...interracial and same sex.

Free speech: 'stolen valor' laws. Flag burning bans, etc.

And segregation didn't end because of cuddles and unicorn kisses. But because of Federal intervention.

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE

Reworking the Constitution to Save the Constitution
Gov. Greg Abbott introduces the Texas Plan to revive and defend our founding document.
By William Murchison – 1.19.16

Reworking the Constitution to Save the Constitution

 

[Skylar]

UPDATE

Reworking the Constitution to Save the Constitution
Gov. Greg Abbott introduces the Texas Plan to revive and defend our founding document.
By William Murchison – 1.19.16

Reworking the Constitution to Save the Constitution

You're not going to 'save' the constitution by lowering the threshold of States being able to violate individual rights to 2/3rds rather than 3/4.

You're merely going to damage rights.

Its shocking how often conservatives come down on the side of State government power over individual rights.