Texas Governor Leads The Charge

[eagle1462010]

You seem to think I would care, I trust the legislatures of 33 sovereign States over the federal leviathan any freaking day. The feds were never intended to have the power they have assumed with the complicity of the federal courts, it's time the States take their power back.

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

 

[Skylar]

Then you're in luck. That's exactly the threshold we have right now, exactly the check we have right now.

aka Amended Constitution.....................your real cute when your sarcastic..........LOL

We need a convention and that is not my primary purpose for one.

Smiling.......we both agree on the check. We both agree on the number of states that are necessary to do it.

I like 3/4. You were right when you said it was 'necessarily difficult'.

An Amendment versus an Amendment that would allow the States to vote on a decision made by SCOTUS are 2 different animals.............SCOTUS rules.......and 3/4ths of the states don't agree...........via a vote...............and without an Amendment would overturn that decision.

The amendment is the check that the States already have. The only difference between what you're describing and what I'm describing.....is 'voting' compared to 'ratification'. With ratification being, unsurprisingly, a vote.

It's not exactly the same..........................

Let's rephrase it....................25% or more must agree with it............

Its a difference with no substantial distinction. As in an amendment process to overturn a Supreme Court decision the States don't like, 25% must 'agree with it'.

A state legislature 'ratifying' or a state legislature 'voting' is another difference with no substantial distinction. As ratification IS a vote.

 

[Skylar]

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Is that your way of telling me that you can't tell me of any Supreme Court ruling that Obama just overturned?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No ******* thanks.

Nonsense.

Following settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not 'judicial activism.'

Again, that the Constitution prohibits conservatives from denying women their right to privacy and gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law is not 'justification' for a 'convention' – this idiocy about a 'convention' is nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum.

 

[Skylar]

Ah. So Texas would limit itself to ACA and intrastate commerce, huh?

It would, say.....eliminate all abortion rights, turning abortion into a crime. Or overturn same sex marriage laws. Or perhaps ignore rulings like Loving v. Virginia that overturned its laws. Or strip federal citizens of voting rights protections under the Civil Rights act? How about segregation, which was undone in Texas law by the Supreme Court as well?

If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

Note to dumb ass, one State couldn't do a damn thing by themselves. Also the supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers, not the extra constitutional crap the feds have taken.

Note to the childishly naive: If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

As they wouldn't be limited to issues you believe the federal government has overstepped. That's the part you don't get.

Checks already exist: amendments. Abbot wants to lower the bar on that check and make it easier to use. Unsurprisingly to almost the exact number of Republican legislatures. Its not going to happen.

You seem to think I would care, I trust the legislatures of 33 sovereign States over the federal leviathan any freaking day. The feds were never intended to have the power they have assumed with the complicity of the federal courts, it's time the States take their power back.

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

You're either too stupid or too young to know how many rights the feds have take from you, If I was to venture a guess, I'd say too young.

Or I just don't accept you citing yourself as amounting to much.

Nor do you even try and deny that republican legislatures would go after rights to try and eliminate them if they could. As we both know its true.

 

[eagle1462010]

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Is that your way of telling me that you can't tell me of any Supreme Court ruling that Obama just overturned?

Is that your way of avoiding that it should go through Congress to pass new laws.................he's not there to create new laws...........he's there to enforce them.

Legal eagles find ways to circumvent the Constitution.............this one will be challenged.............and it will get tied up in court for hopefully as long as he's in office.

 

[eagle1462010]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No ******* thanks.

Nonsense.

Following settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not 'judicial activism.'

Again, that the Constitution prohibits conservatives from denying women their right to privacy and gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law is not 'justification' for a 'convention' – this idiocy about a 'convention' is nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum.

Your just afraid that it might actually succeed and put a leash on your sugar daddy.

 

[Skylar]

Not particularly.

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Is that your way of telling me that you can't tell me of any Supreme Court ruling that Obama just overturned?

Is that your way of avoiding that it should go through Congress to pass new laws.................he's not there to create new laws...........he's there to enforce them.

That's my way of discussing the topic of the OP. As we're talking about the States overriding the Supreme Court rulings. And you're trying to change the topic to Obama. Unless Obama is overturning Supreme Court rulings, then you're offering a red herring.

 

[OKTexas]

Article V is to have a Convention of States to Amend the Constitution.

Yup. And the 'check' to States disagreeing with a Supreme Court ruling already exists: amendments. It requires 3/4s of the States to agree. Under Abbot's proposal, it would only take 2/3 of State legislatures for a Supreme Court ruling to be overturned.

Which happens to be almost the exact number of State legislatures that republicans control right now.

But they wouldn't abuse that power or strip citizens of their rights, would they? No, of course not. The States would only limit themselves to what YOU believe is federal overreach. They'd never strip citizens of rights YOU think they should have. Perish the thought.

That is a proposal and for part of the convention....................Not necessarily the one that would be selected to put to a vote in the final proposed amendments...................

Creating an Amendment is necessarily hard via the Founding Fathers.......They wanted the ability to change it, but made it very difficult to do so.......................

Either way.....I'm for putting a leash on the Federal Gov't again.

And under Abbot's proposed amendment, the threshold of the States overriding a Supreme Court decision drops from 3/4......to the number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

I like it at 3/4. I like it necessarily difficult. As what is right isn't necessarily popular at the time it happens.

Right now there is no mechanism for the States to overturn a SCOTUS ruling, that's what they want to put in place.

Nonsense. Its called a constitutional amendment. If 3/4s of the states don't like Obergefell, they can change the constitution to either outlaw gay marriage, define it as they wish, or leave it to the States to decide. Overturning Obergefell point by point if they wish.

Abbot wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds. Which, just coincidentally, happens to be the exact same number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

Um, no thank you. I'm happy with 3/4

I'm not, so I guess our votes would cancel each other, like I said earlier I would make it 30 States to overturn SCOTUS instead of 33.

 

[Skylar]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No ******* thanks.

Nonsense.

Following settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not 'judicial activism.'

Again, that the Constitution prohibits conservatives from denying women their right to privacy and gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law is not 'justification' for a 'convention' – this idiocy about a 'convention' is nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum.

Your just afraid that it might actually succeed and put a leash on your sugar daddy.

There's virtually no chance of this actually happening. The odds of such a constitutional convention are very, very low. And the odds of it passing, virtually nil.

This is merely an exercise is emotion.

 

[eagle1462010]

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Is that your way of telling me that you can't tell me of any Supreme Court ruling that Obama just overturned?

Is that your way of avoiding that it should go through Congress to pass new laws.................he's not there to create new laws...........he's there to enforce them.

That's my way of discussing the topic of the OP. As we're talking about the States overriding the Supreme Court rulings. And you're trying to change the topic to Obama. Unless Obama is overturning Supreme Court rulings, then you're offering a red herring.

The topic is still on a Constitutional Convention....................and those who abuse their power.........aka Obama.........

I want one called, primarily on other issue.................

 

[eagle1462010]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No ******* thanks.

Nonsense.

Following settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not 'judicial activism.'

Again, that the Constitution prohibits conservatives from denying women their right to privacy and gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law is not 'justification' for a 'convention' – this idiocy about a 'convention' is nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum.

Your just afraid that it might actually succeed and put a leash on your sugar daddy.

There's virtually no chance of this actually happening. The odds of such a constitutional convention are very, very low. And the odds of it passing, virtually nil.

This is merely an exercise is emotion.

Nothing is impossible..................or we would never have made it to the moon.

 

[Skylar]

Yup. And the 'check' to States disagreeing with a Supreme Court ruling already exists: amendments. It requires 3/4s of the States to agree. Under Abbot's proposal, it would only take 2/3 of State legislatures for a Supreme Court ruling to be overturned.

Which happens to be almost the exact number of State legislatures that republicans control right now.

But they wouldn't abuse that power or strip citizens of their rights, would they? No, of course not. The States would only limit themselves to what YOU believe is federal overreach. They'd never strip citizens of rights YOU think they should have. Perish the thought.

That is a proposal and for part of the convention....................Not necessarily the one that would be selected to put to a vote in the final proposed amendments...................

Creating an Amendment is necessarily hard via the Founding Fathers.......They wanted the ability to change it, but made it very difficult to do so.......................

Either way.....I'm for putting a leash on the Federal Gov't again.

And under Abbot's proposed amendment, the threshold of the States overriding a Supreme Court decision drops from 3/4......to the number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

I like it at 3/4. I like it necessarily difficult. As what is right isn't necessarily popular at the time it happens.

Right now there is no mechanism for the States to overturn a SCOTUS ruling, that's what they want to put in place.

Nonsense. Its called a constitutional amendment. If 3/4s of the states don't like Obergefell, they can change the constitution to either outlaw gay marriage, define it as they wish, or leave it to the States to decide. Overturning Obergefell point by point if they wish.

Abbot wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds. Which, just coincidentally, happens to be the exact same number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

Um, no thank you. I'm happy with 3/4

I'm not, so I guess our votes would cancel each other, like I said earlier I would make it 30 States to overturn SCOTUS instead of 33.

Given that my vote is the constitution as its written on this topic, we're not beginning from a perspective of equality. As mine reflects reality. And yours, a hopeful wish with virtually no chance of actually being enacted.

Reality vs. Imagination don't 'cancel each other'. Reality wins.

 

[Skylar]

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No ******* thanks.

Nonsense.

Following settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not 'judicial activism.'

Again, that the Constitution prohibits conservatives from denying women their right to privacy and gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law is not 'justification' for a 'convention' – this idiocy about a 'convention' is nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum.

Your just afraid that it might actually succeed and put a leash on your sugar daddy.

There's virtually no chance of this actually happening. The odds of such a constitutional convention are very, very low. And the odds of it passing, virtually nil.

This is merely an exercise is emotion.

Nothing is impossible..................or we would never have made it to the moon.

I said 'virtually impossible'. All things are possible. Some are just ludicrously unlikely.

Like, for example, Abbot's constitutional amendment.

 

[eagle1462010]

That is a proposal and for part of the convention....................Not necessarily the one that would be selected to put to a vote in the final proposed amendments...................

Creating an Amendment is necessarily hard via the Founding Fathers.......They wanted the ability to change it, but made it very difficult to do so.......................

Either way.....I'm for putting a leash on the Federal Gov't again.

And under Abbot's proposed amendment, the threshold of the States overriding a Supreme Court decision drops from 3/4......to the number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

I like it at 3/4. I like it necessarily difficult. As what is right isn't necessarily popular at the time it happens.

Right now there is no mechanism for the States to overturn a SCOTUS ruling, that's what they want to put in place.

Nonsense. Its called a constitutional amendment. If 3/4s of the states don't like Obergefell, they can change the constitution to either outlaw gay marriage, define it as they wish, or leave it to the States to decide. Overturning Obergefell point by point if they wish.

Abbot wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds. Which, just coincidentally, happens to be the exact same number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

Um, no thank you. I'm happy with 3/4

I'm not, so I guess our votes would cancel each other, like I said earlier I would make it 30 States to overturn SCOTUS instead of 33.

Given that my vote is the constitution as its written on this topic, we're not beginning from a perspective of equality. As mine reflects reality. And yours, a hopeful wish with virtually no chance of actually being enacted.

Reality vs. Imagination don't 'cancel each other'. Reality wins.

Your side appoints new Judges to the Supremes and they change the meaning of the 2nd...............There very well may be a new reality in this country.

 

[Skylar]

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Is that your way of telling me that you can't tell me of any Supreme Court ruling that Obama just overturned?

Is that your way of avoiding that it should go through Congress to pass new laws.................he's not there to create new laws...........he's there to enforce them.

That's my way of discussing the topic of the OP. As we're talking about the States overriding the Supreme Court rulings. And you're trying to change the topic to Obama. Unless Obama is overturning Supreme Court rulings, then you're offering a red herring.

The topic is still on a Constitutional Convention....................and those who abuse their power.........aka Obama.........

Obama plays no direct role in a constitutional convention, amendment, or judicial ruling. Making him one of the least relevant people you can cite in this process.

 

[OKTexas]

I would favor a 3/4th to overturn the Supremes..........I have no problem with a check and balance on them as well.

Then you're in luck. That's exactly the threshold we have right now, exactly the check we have right now.

aka Amended Constitution.....................your real cute when your sarcastic..........LOL

We need a convention and that is not my primary purpose for one.

Smiling.......we both agree on the check. We both agree on the number of states that are necessary to do it.

I like 3/4. You were right when you said it was 'necessarily difficult'.

An Amendment versus an Amendment that would allow the States to vote on a decision made by SCOTUS are 2 different animals.............SCOTUS rules.......and 3/4ths of the states don't agree...........via a vote...............and without an Amendment would overturn that decision.

The amendment is the check that the States already have. The only difference between what you're describing and what I'm describing.....is 'voting' compared to 'ratification'. With ratification being, unsurprisingly, a vote.

It might be if congress didn't ignore States when they file applications for a convention, like they've done for decades. More than 700 applications, not one convention.

 

[Skylar]

And under Abbot's proposed amendment, the threshold of the States overriding a Supreme Court decision drops from 3/4......to the number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

I like it at 3/4. I like it necessarily difficult. As what is right isn't necessarily popular at the time it happens.

Right now there is no mechanism for the States to overturn a SCOTUS ruling, that's what they want to put in place.

Nonsense. Its called a constitutional amendment. If 3/4s of the states don't like Obergefell, they can change the constitution to either outlaw gay marriage, define it as they wish, or leave it to the States to decide. Overturning Obergefell point by point if they wish.

Abbot wants to lower that threshold to 2/3rds. Which, just coincidentally, happens to be the exact same number of state legislatures that republicans control right now.

Um, no thank you. I'm happy with 3/4

I'm not, so I guess our votes would cancel each other, like I said earlier I would make it 30 States to overturn SCOTUS instead of 33.

Given that my vote is the constitution as its written on this topic, we're not beginning from a perspective of equality. As mine reflects reality. And yours, a hopeful wish with virtually no chance of actually being enacted.

Reality vs. Imagination don't 'cancel each other'. Reality wins.

Your side appoints new Judges to the Supremes and they change the meaning of the 2nd...............There very well may be a new reality in this country.

Smiling......also exceedingly unlikely. As you don't have the numbers for your 'new reality'. In any capacity.

 

[eagle1462010]

Really........................It should go through Congress and not by decree and you know it....................

Is that your way of telling me that you can't tell me of any Supreme Court ruling that Obama just overturned?

Is that your way of avoiding that it should go through Congress to pass new laws.................he's not there to create new laws...........he's there to enforce them.

That's my way of discussing the topic of the OP. As we're talking about the States overriding the Supreme Court rulings. And you're trying to change the topic to Obama. Unless Obama is overturning Supreme Court rulings, then you're offering a red herring.

The topic is still on a Constitutional Convention....................and those who abuse their power.........aka Obama.........

Obama plays no direct role in a constitutional convention, amendment, or judicial ruling. Making him one of the least relevant people you can cite in this process.

I beg to differ................His pen and a phone techniques make it a relevant topic....................It is exactly this type of power that needs a leash.

 

[Skylar]

Then you're in luck. That's exactly the threshold we have right now, exactly the check we have right now.

aka Amended Constitution.....................your real cute when your sarcastic..........LOL

We need a convention and that is not my primary purpose for one.

Smiling.......we both agree on the check. We both agree on the number of states that are necessary to do it.

I like 3/4. You were right when you said it was 'necessarily difficult'.

An Amendment versus an Amendment that would allow the States to vote on a decision made by SCOTUS are 2 different animals.............SCOTUS rules.......and 3/4ths of the states don't agree...........via a vote...............and without an Amendment would overturn that decision.

The amendment is the check that the States already have. The only difference between what you're describing and what I'm describing.....is 'voting' compared to 'ratification'. With ratification being, unsurprisingly, a vote.

It might be if congress didn't ignore States when they file applications for a convention, like they've done for decades. More than 700 applications, not one convention.

2/3rds of the several states have called for a convention....700 times in the last 'decades'?

Yeah, I'm definitely gonna need to see more than you citing you on that one.