Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[OKTexas]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

 

[Slade3200]

I don't have the energy to read it right now but find it interesting when people place such emphasis on the original intent of the constitution from the founders. The document was genius but was also written generations ago during a time where values, policies, and the world as a whole was a completely different place. Most feel that the genius of the constitution is its ability to evolve. I question why such individuals fight so hard to revert to the past when we should be focused on doing the best in the progressive society in which we live. Apologies for straying off topic but I thought it a noteworthy observation. I'll give the proposal a read tomorrow.

 

[Boss]

I don't have enough time to read this right now, I will do so later but I wanted to comment about Article V conventions...

I think what needs to happen is some states need to actually do one... take some single issue like "balanced budget" or "term limits" and go with just that one thing... get it done through the Article V process and this will pave the way for the future. I think a lot of people are reluctant to try this because they don't think it can work. However, if you go with something most people support and make it happen once... it sets a precedent and other conventions will follow.

If you get too ambitious with it and try to change too much at one time, it will fail and not be tried again for a century or more because everyone will point to the failure and say it can't be done.

 

[Jackson]

I especially like "Give state officials the power to sue in federal court federal officials that have overstepped their boundaries."

The entire document is a good idea. This president has run over the Constitution with a tractor, ripping it to shreds. Congress and the Executive branch have to start referring to it to make it the basis of our laws and acts.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't have enough time to read this right now, I will do so later but I wanted to comment about Article V conventions...

I think what needs to happen is some states need to actually do one... take some single issue like "balanced budget" or "term limits" and go with just that one thing... get it done through the Article V process and this will pave the way for the future. I think a lot of people are reluctant to try this because they don't think it can work. However, if you go with something most people support and make it happen once... it sets a precedent and other conventions will follow.

If you get too ambitious with it and try to change too much at one time, it will fail and not be tried again for a century or more because everyone will point to the failure and say it can't be done.

Just some can't do it, it take 34 States to agree on the language of a proposed amendment and submit it to the other States for ratification and 38 States to ratify it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This 'proposal' is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong; the Constitution is in no need of 'restoration,' it exists now as intended by the Framers, in the context of its case law, determined by the Supreme Court.

Among the more moronic of Abbot's 'proposals,' completely in conflict with the rule of law, is the wrongheaded notion of the states 'overriding' Supreme Court decisions, which is in complete conflict with the doctrine of the rule of law.

Abbot is clearly unaware of the fact that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law – not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

In our Constitutional Republic the protected liberties of citizens are paramount, immune from attack by the states, and not subject to 'majority rule'; one does not forfeit this rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor do the people of the states have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil rights.

And when the states err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely effected have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where such measures are invalidated pursuant to the Constitution and its case law, the supreme law of the land, binding on the states, which are subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, decisions of Federal courts, and the rule of law.

It was neither the understanding nor intent of the Founding Generation that the states have the 'authority' to violate the inalienable rights of American citizens residing in the states, or that the states would interfere with the relationship of the people with their National government, as Abbot advocates.

Needless to say none of what Abbot proposes will come to pass, or be taken seriously by those knowledgeable of the Constitution, its case law, the intent of the Framers, and the rule of law – and thankfully so.

 

[OKTexas]

I especially like "Give state officials the power to sue in federal court federal officials that have overstepped their boundaries."

The entire document is a good idea. This president has run over the Constitution with a tractor, ripping it to shreds. Congress and the Executive branch have to start referring to it to make it the basis of our laws and acts.

It started long before this president, and the supreme court is as guilty as the other branches.

 

[Boss]

I don't have enough time to read this right now, I will do so later but I wanted to comment about Article V conventions...

I think what needs to happen is some states need to actually do one... take some single issue like "balanced budget" or "term limits" and go with just that one thing... get it done through the Article V process and this will pave the way for the future. I think a lot of people are reluctant to try this because they don't think it can work. However, if you go with something most people support and make it happen once... it sets a precedent and other conventions will follow.

If you get too ambitious with it and try to change too much at one time, it will fail and not be tried again for a century or more because everyone will point to the failure and say it can't be done.

Just some can't do it, it take 34 States to agree on the language of a proposed amendment and submit it to the other States for ratification and 38 States to ratify it.

That's exactly why it needs to be something simple that everyone pretty much agrees on. Term limits or balanced budget... something like that maybe? If it gets too broad and complex, they'll never get ratification and the idea will be labeled a failure and not ever tried again.

 

[OKTexas]

This 'proposal' is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong; the Constitution is in no need of 'restoration,' it exists now as intended by the Framers, in the context of its case law, determined by the Supreme Court.

Among the more moronic of Abbot's 'proposals,' completely in conflict with the rule of law, is the wrongheaded notion of the states 'overriding' Supreme Court decisions, which is in complete conflict with the doctrine of the rule of law.

Abbot is clearly unaware of the fact that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law – not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

In our Constitutional Republic the protected liberties of citizens are paramount, immune from attack by the states, and not subject to 'majority rule'; one does not forfeit this rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor do the people of the states have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil rights.

And when the states err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely effected have the right to seek relief in Federal court, where such measures are invalidated pursuant to the Constitution and its case law, the supreme law of the land, binding on the states, which are subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, decisions of Federal courts, and the rule of law.

It was neither the understanding nor intent of the Founding Generation that the states have the 'authority' to violate the inalienable rights of American citizens residing in the states, or that the states would interfere with the relationship of the people with their National government, as Abbot advocates.

Needless to say none of what Abbot proposes will come to pass, or be taken seriously by those knowledgeable of the Constitution, its case law, the intent of the Framers, and the rule of law – and thankfully so.

Case law is frivolous and totally destructive to original intent and changes at the whim of the supreme court.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't have enough time to read this right now, I will do so later but I wanted to comment about Article V conventions...

I think what needs to happen is some states need to actually do one... take some single issue like "balanced budget" or "term limits" and go with just that one thing... get it done through the Article V process and this will pave the way for the future. I think a lot of people are reluctant to try this because they don't think it can work. However, if you go with something most people support and make it happen once... it sets a precedent and other conventions will follow.

If you get too ambitious with it and try to change too much at one time, it will fail and not be tried again for a century or more because everyone will point to the failure and say it can't be done.

Just some can't do it, it take 34 States to agree on the language of a proposed amendment and submit it to the other States for ratification and 38 States to ratify it.

That's exactly why it needs to be something simple that everyone pretty much agrees on. Term limits or balanced budget... something like that maybe? If it gets too broad and complex, they'll never get ratification and the idea will be labeled a failure and not ever tried again.

Abbott is proposing 9 separate amendments, they can be accepted, rejected or modified and would be ratified separately. Some or all could be rejected, like I said, it's a good starting place.

 

[Boss]

Abbott is proposing 9 separate amendments, they can be accepted, rejected or modified and would be ratified separately. Some or all could be rejected, like I said, it's a good starting place.

Perhaps... but I still think, rather than throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, it would be better to focus on one single item... get it through this process and show that the Article V deal can work... THEN go for the other items.

I am a big fan of Article V... I think it is probably the only way we get our country back at this point. I would just rather see a "test case" done first to show people it's a real thing that we CAN do first... then once it is done, people are more receptive and willing to support other items.

 

[Rambunctious]

The document was genius but was also written generations ago during a time where values, policies, and the world as a whole was a completely different place.

It wasn't all that long ago and it wasn't all that different. The fact is it could all happen again and does in other nations. Strife between the people of a nation is inevitable however a founding document so well conceived as the American constitution to keep a nation as one has never been duplicated. Don't let anyone weaken it's importance.

 

[Agit8r]

Since Abbott doesn't even believe in the Seventh Amendment, there is no point in hearing anything about his ideas on the rest of the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Abbott is proposing 9 separate amendments, they can be accepted, rejected or modified and would be ratified separately. Some or all could be rejected, like I said, it's a good starting place.

Perhaps... but I still think, rather than throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, it would be better to focus on one single item... get it through this process and show that the Article V deal can work... THEN go for the other items.

I am a big fan of Article V... I think it is probably the only way we get our country back at this point. I would just rather see a "test case" done first to show people it's a real thing that we CAN do first... then once it is done, people are more receptive and willing to support other items.

Ok, if you want to start with one, how about we void the supreme court decision that declared general welfare as an independent power rather than a spending category as intended in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

 

[OKTexas]

Since Abbott doesn't even believe in the Seventh Amendment, there is no point in hearing anything about his ideas on the rest of the Constitution.

Of course you can provide documentation of the this claim, right? No hurry, I'll wait.

 

[Boss]

Abbott is proposing 9 separate amendments, they can be accepted, rejected or modified and would be ratified separately. Some or all could be rejected, like I said, it's a good starting place.

Perhaps... but I still think, rather than throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, it would be better to focus on one single item... get it through this process and show that the Article V deal can work... THEN go for the other items.

I am a big fan of Article V... I think it is probably the only way we get our country back at this point. I would just rather see a "test case" done first to show people it's a real thing that we CAN do first... then once it is done, people are more receptive and willing to support other items.

Ok, if you want to start with one, how about we void the supreme court decision that declared general welfare as an independent power rather than a spending category as intended in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

Again, the idea will be to pick something most people will agree on. I think something like that will be very controversial and opponents will murder you. You're talking about something that would end about 90% of what the government is doing.... now... I am all for that and so are you, but you know as well as I, this isn't going to fly with the "welfare state" people and so it probably wouldn't stand any chance of ratification. You need something easy... something simple that everyone can rally around and support and few can argue against. That's why I suggested term limits or balanced budget. I think those would be much easier to get ratified.

 

[Slade3200]

The document was genius but was also written generations ago during a time where values, policies, and the world as a whole was a completely different place.

It wasn't all that long ago and it wasn't all that different. The fact is it could all happen again and does in other nations. Strife between the people of a nation is inevitable however a founding document so well conceived as the American constitution to keep a nation as one has never been duplicated. Don't let anyone weaken it's importance.

I agree with you. My observation wasn't meant to weaken the importance of the document but rather strengthen it through progression. It wasn't written a long time ago historically speaking however look at the how our world has changed in that short amount of time... Abolishment of slavery, women's rights, the complete restructure of our economic system, global trade and the list goes on. Our law makers should capture the spirit the founders put into the constitution but also have a responsibility to utilize it to reflect the world we live in... Not the wold the founders lived in... We are an evolving species and should grow smarter as we progress... Our laws and constitution should evolve with us and reflect what we have learned. The founders framed it to do this and in my opinion that is the genius of what they created.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have enough time to read this right now, I will do so later but I wanted to comment about Article V conventions...

I think what needs to happen is some states need to actually do one... take some single issue like "balanced budget" or "term limits" and go with just that one thing... get it done through the Article V process and this will pave the way for the future. I think a lot of people are reluctant to try this because they don't think it can work. However, if you go with something most people support and make it happen once... it sets a precedent and other conventions will follow.

If you get too ambitious with it and try to change too much at one time, it will fail and not be tried again for a century or more because everyone will point to the failure and say it can't be done.

Good advice. You will have to convince SCOTUS afterwards whatever amendments ratified in convention are constitutional. Good luck with that. Even Scalia said a convention was an unwise idea.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't have the energy to read it right now but find it interesting when people place such emphasis on the original intent of the constitution from the founders. The document was genius but was also written generations ago during a time where values, policies, and the world as a whole was a completely different place. Most feel that the genius of the constitution is its ability to evolve. I question why such individuals fight so hard to revert to the past when we should be focused on doing the best in the progressive society in which we live

The Article V convention is another part of that genius, to allow the states to reign in an imperial government.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Case law is frivolous and totally destructive to original intent and changes at the whim of the supreme court.

I'll bet the courts would disagree with you.