Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States

[∞∞∞]

Even if we go strictly by party lines, Abbott neither has the support to call a convention, much less the votes to change anything.

[Ibanez]

Who has more insight:
Ivy League lawyer or Creole Biologist ( or whatever you are)?

Hmmmmmmmm

He (or she) knows I'm right. He (or she) knows damned well we're not following the Constitution according to the original understanding of any particular portion of it. In other words according to what those who crafted and/or ratified language understood the intended effects to be. And I think he (or she) will say so then give some reason for why that's the right way to do it.

Ivytalk is a dude.

[Ibanez]

I'm all for reform, but I wouldn't want to touch the constitution more than we have to. Certain things have made sense, like the 13th Amendment, but we allowed people to make prohibition an amendment only to repeal it, approximately 13 yrs later.

I'm with Ivy on this one. Leave it alone.

[JohnStOnge]

Nobody has claimed there cant be prayer in schools, John.

You know what I mean.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm all for reform, but I wouldn't want to touch the constitution more than we have to. Certain things have made sense, like the 13th Amendment, but we allowed people to make prohibition an amendment only to repeal it, approximately 13 yrs later.

I'm with Ivy on this one. Leave it alone.

No, we need to change it if for no other reason than to specifically define and limit the role of the Judiciary. This situation where the Judges control the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Judges needs to end. There needs to be an explicit mechanism for ensuring that the Judiciary is not the final word on anything. To me the LAST people we should want being the final word are people who are totally unaccountable, who are in office for life or until THEY decide to retire, and who cannot be removed from office. Having people like that as the ultimate authority makes NO sense at all and it's unbelievable to me that the society has tolerated it for as long as it has. Power without accountability. Seriously. How can you possibly say that makes sense?

[Ivytalk]

I'm all for reform, but I wouldn't want to touch the constitution more than we have to. Certain things have made sense, like the 13th Amendment, but we allowed people to make prohibition an amendment only to repeal it, approximately 13 yrs later.

I'm with Ivy on this one. Leave it alone.

No, we need to change it if for no other reason than to specifically define and limit the role of the Judiciary. This situation where the Judges control the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Judges needs to end. There needs to be an explicit mechanism for ensuring that the Judiciary is not the final word on anything. To me the LAST people we should want being the final word are people who are totally unaccountable, who are in office for life or until THEY decide to retire, and who cannot be removed from office. Having people like that as the ultimate authority makes NO sense at all and it's unbelievable to me that the society has tolerated it for as long as it has. Power without accountability. Seriously. How can you possibly say that makes sense?

Surely you know that federal judges, like Congressmen, can be impeached and removed from office. Witness Hon. Alcee Hastings, who became a Congressman after his impeachment.

John, do you favor elections for Federal judges? We know how well that works at the state level.

[JohnStOnge]

Surely you know that federal judges, like Congressmen, can be impeached and removed from office. Witness Hon. Alcee Hastings, who became a Congressman after his impeachment.

John, do you favor elections for Federal judges? We know how well that works at the state level.

I favor explicitly saying that they are to proceed according to the literal meaning of Constitutional language and when in doubt about that an objective historical analysis of the original understanding. For instance: When deciding whether or not homosexual marriage is required by "equal protection," honestly ask whether the people who generated the language and ratified it would generally have construed it that way (and I think the answer to that question is obvious). And I favor having a check so that if they depart from that their decisions can be overruled by the Congress. The exact form of that could be discussed. But there is no way they should be the final word. We should not be giving the final word on major questions of social policy to people who have no accountability.

Changing things in terms of the direction of the society should not be among the roles of the Judiciary.

And the impeachment thing is not accountability for the voracity of their "interpretations."

[houndawg]

And BTW, IB, that kind of attitude is part of the problem. People just lay down and accept the crap that comes out of the Judiciary because it's the Judiciary or because something like Ivy League Lawyers say so. Like for instance just laying down and accepting something like the idea that the Constitution says there can't be prayer in public schools. It may be a small thing but it's a clear example. No WAY it says that. It's a bunch of crap. And there's no way the idea of some kind of ban against government being associated religion is credible when the friggin Congress was holding Christian Church services in the House chamber shortly after the first Amendment was ratified.

It's way past time people quit suspending their own critical thinking in order to just lay down and accept whatever those associated with the Judiciary in this country tell them because the Judiciary in this country is so full of crap that it's oozing out of the diaper.

What we have is an oligarchy making crap up as it goes along. Oh, it may refer back to earlier crap spewed by the same oligarchy. but it's still crap and it's still making stuff up.

Nobody has claimed there cant be prayer in schools, John.

Pray during recess.

[Ivytalk]

Surely you know that federal judges, like Congressmen, can be impeached and removed from office. Witness Hon. Alcee Hastings, who became a Congressman after his impeachment.

John, do you favor elections for Federal judges? We know how well that works at the state level.

I favor explicitly saying that they are to proceed according to the literal meaning of Constitutional language and when in doubt about that an objective historical analysis of the original understanding. For instance: When deciding whether or not homosexual marriage is required by "equal protection," honestly ask whether the people who generated the language and ratified it would generally have construed it that way (and I think the answer to that question is obvious). And I favor having a check so that if they depart from that their decisions can be overruled by the Congress. The exact form of that could be discussed. But there is no way they should be the final word. We should not be giving the final word on major questions of social policy to people who have no accountability.

Changing things in terms of the direction of the society should not be among the roles of the Judiciary.

And the impeachment thing is not accountability for the voracity of their "interpretations."

As I said a couple of posts ago, if you want an originalist judiciary, you'd better elect originalist Congressmen and Presidents. And I have news for you: Congress can pass legislation that overrules judicial decisions right now. If the legislation is unconstitutional, however, it can be voided in court. It's called "checks and balances." John, I fear that you disapprove of the fundamental principle of judicial review, which has been the law since Marbury v. Madison. You seem to favor legislative supremacy -- whenever it suits your worldview. Imagine a Congress that passed a law saying that the federal government had to be 50% homosexual, and no federal court could review that law. You'd be bloody well stuck, wouldn't you?

[JohnStOnge]

If the legislation is unconstitutional, however, it can be voided in court.

No, it can be voided in Court whether it's really unconstitutional or not. And it can be upheld in Court even if it's NOT really constitutional. That's the problem. And I know you know that's true. The Judges control the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Judges. You KNOW that's true.

[Ivytalk]

If the legislation is unconstitutional, however, it can be voided in court.

No, it can be voided in Court whether it's really unconstitutional or not. And it can be upheld in Court even if it's NOT really constitutional. That's the problem. And I know you know that's true. The Judges control the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Judges. You KNOW that's true.

I don't know that's true. So we have nothing else to talk about. You haven't bothered to rebut my arguments. Good night.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know that's true. So we have nothing else to talk about. You haven't bothered to rebut my arguments. Good night.

I don't think you've made any arguments with respect to what I said. What I'm saying is that the Judiciary controls the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Judiciary. Make an argument to the contrary with respect to that and I will attempt to rebut it, though I think it's pretty darned obvious that it's true.

You said stuff like how would I feel if Congress did something I didn't like and there wasn't a Court around to overrule it. Well, Congress is accountable. The Court is not. I know how I feel when the Court does something I don't like with respect to Constitutionality and nothing can be done about it.

Why don't you make your argument for why someone who is not accountable for the decisions they make should control things? And no the impeachment thing does not relate to that. Impeachment is for crimes. You can't impeach a judge because they made a bad decision. Make your argument for why we should accept the idea that there should be no accountability for someone who has the power that Supreme Court Justices have strictly for the decisions they make? Do that and I will counter your argument.

THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. For Pete's sake just be intellectually honest and admit that. Then you can go on and argue for why that's the way it should be.

[houndawg]

I don't know that's true. So we have nothing else to talk about. You haven't bothered to rebut my arguments. Good night.

I don't think you've made any arguments with respect to what I said. What I'm saying is that the Judiciary controls the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Judiciary. Make an argument to the contrary with respect to that and I will attempt to rebut it, though I think it's pretty darned obvious that it's true.

You said stuff like how would I feel if Congress did something I didn't like and there wasn't a Court around to overrule it. Well, Congress is accountable. The Court is not. I know how I feel when the Court does something I don't like with respect to Constitutionality and nothing can be done about it.

Why don't you make your argument for why someone who is not accountable for the decisions they make should control things? And no the impeachment thing does not relate to that. Impeachment is for crimes. You can't impeach a judge because they made a bad decision. Make your argument for why we should accept the idea that there should be no accountability for someone who has the power that Supreme Court Justices have strictly for the decisions they make? Do that and I will counter your argument.

THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. For Pete's sake just be intellectually honest and admit that. Then you can go on and argue for why that's the way it should be.

Dang, Ivysquawk, you gonna sit still for some yokel from Piss, LA, taking you back to school you on the law?

[houndawg]

"Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states’ rights

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. He said he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States.

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.

“The irony for our generation is that the threat to our Republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes, in part, from our very own leaders,” Abbott said in a speech that took aim at President Obama, Congress and the judicial branch......


.....This week, presidential contender U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., published a piece in USA Today endorsing the idea of a convention to amend the Constitution and restore limited government. In April, 27 active petitions had been filed with Congress seeking a convention to amend the constitution to require that Congress adopt a balanced budget.

Congress would be forced to act once 34 states joined the effort. So far, Cruz hasn’t endorsed the idea.

By this point, you may be wondering just what a constitutional convention or Convention of the States is and why it would be a big deal. A convention is one of two ways that the U.S. Constitution can be amended, and it’s described in Article V. One way is that Congress can propose amendments approved by two-thirds of the members of both chambers. The other method allows two-thirds of the state legislatures to call for a convention to propose amendments. Republicans backing the idea are confident that because they control state government in a majority of states, their ideas would prevail.

In both cases, the amendments become effective only if ratified by three-fourths of the states.

So far, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. None of those were amendments generated by a constitutional convention.....

...The plan lays out nine specific proposed amendments that would:

*Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.

*Require Congress to balance its budget.

*Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.

*Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.

*Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

*Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law

*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.

*Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

*Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.
.........."
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... ghts.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought Texas didn't want to be a State anymore because there's a negro in the White House?

[Ivytalk]

I don't know that's true. So we have nothing else to talk about. You haven't bothered to rebut my arguments. Good night.

I don't think you've made any arguments with respect to what I said. What I'm saying is that the Judiciary controls the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Judiciary. Make an argument to the contrary with respect to that and I will attempt to rebut it, though I think it's pretty darned obvious that it's true.

You said stuff like how would I feel if Congress did something I didn't like and there wasn't a Court around to overrule it. Well, Congress is accountable. The Court is not. I know how I feel when the Court does something I don't like with respect to Constitutionality and nothing can be done about it.

Why don't you make your argument for why someone who is not accountable for the decisions they make should control things? And no the impeachment thing does not relate to that. Impeachment is for crimes. You can't impeach a judge because they made a bad decision. Make your argument for why we should accept the idea that there should be no accountability for someone who has the power that Supreme Court Justices have strictly for the decisions they make? Do that and I will counter your argument.

THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. For Pete's sake just be intellectually honest and admit that. Then you can go on and argue for why that's the way it should be.

John: Your whole beef is summed up in one sentence: "I know how I feel when the Court does something I don't like with respect to Constitutionality and nothing can be done about it." That's precisely what Hamilton dealt with in Federalist 78 (which you should read, by the way) when he viewed the judiciary as a check on the political branches of government, which are subject to the whims of the people. Hamilton also said there what most of us learned in ninth grade civics class: that the judiciary interprets the laws, that federal judges should have life tenure to insulate them from public political " caprice,"and that the Constitution is supreme.

Everyone on this board had at least one recent hot-button SCOTUS decision with which he disagrees. kalm and dback attack Citizens United; I disagree with "takings" cases like Kelo and Koontz; and you -- with your laser-like focus on homosexuality-- don't like Obergefell very much. Although you don't admit it, with your loose talk of "accountability," you advocate either term limits for judges or judicial elections. Either would require a Constitutional amendment. But the judiciary is not intended to be a political branch , although its decisions often have political consequences.

I feel far more threatened by Obama's imperial Executive and the rise of the administrative state than I do about the lack of originalist judges on the federal courts. On the latter, I have already stated twice what the remedy is, and you have yet to address it. Back to you, John.

[kalm]

I don't think you've made any arguments with respect to what I said. What I'm saying is that the Judiciary controls the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Judiciary. Make an argument to the contrary with respect to that and I will attempt to rebut it, though I think it's pretty darned obvious that it's true.

You said stuff like how would I feel if Congress did something I didn't like and there wasn't a Court around to overrule it. Well, Congress is accountable. The Court is not. I know how I feel when the Court does something I don't like with respect to Constitutionality and nothing can be done about it.

Why don't you make your argument for why someone who is not accountable for the decisions they make should control things? And no the impeachment thing does not relate to that. Impeachment is for crimes. You can't impeach a judge because they made a bad decision. Make your argument for why we should accept the idea that there should be no accountability for someone who has the power that Supreme Court Justices have strictly for the decisions they make? Do that and I will counter your argument.

THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. For Pete's sake just be intellectually honest and admit that. Then you can go on and argue for why that's the way it should be.

John: Your whole beef is summed up in one sentence: "I know how I feel when the Court does something I don't like with respect to Constitutionality and nothing can be done about it." That's precisely what Hamilton dealt with in Federalist 78 (which you should read, by the way) when he viewed the judiciary as a check on the political branches of government, which are subject to the whims of the people. Hamilton also said there what most of us learned in ninth grade civics class: that the judiciary interprets the laws, that federal judges should have life tenure to insulate them from public political " caprice,"and that the Constitution is supreme.

Everyone on this board had at least one recent hot-button SCOTUS decision with which he disagrees. kalm and dback attack Citizens United; I disagree with "takings" cases like Kelo and Koontz; and you -- with your laser-like focus on homosexuality-- don't like Obergefell very much. Although you don't admit it, with your loose talk of "accountability," you advocate either term limits for judges or judicial elections. Either would require a Constitutional amendment. But the judiciary is not intended to be a political branch , although its decisions often have political consequences.

I feel far more threatened by Obama's imperial Executive and the rise of the administrative state than I do about the lack of originalist judges on the federal courts. On the latter, I have already stated twice what the remedy is, and you have yet to address it. Back to you, John.

Oh you're just fine with an imperial executive and administrative state...when they fit YOUR world view.

[Ivytalk]

[youtube]l[/youtube]

John: Your whole beef is summed up in one sentence: "I know how I feel when the Court does something I don't like with respect to Constitutionality and nothing can be done about it." That's precisely what Hamilton dealt with in Federalist 78 (which you should read, by the way) when he viewed the judiciary as a check on the political branches of government, which are subject to the whims of the people. Hamilton also said there what most of us learned in ninth grade civics class: that the judiciary interprets the laws, that federal judges should have life tenure to insulate them from public political " caprice,"and that the Constitution is supreme.

Everyone on this board had at least one recent hot-button SCOTUS decision with which he disagrees. kalm and dback attack Citizens United; I disagree with "takings" cases like Kelo and Koontz; and you -- with your laser-like focus on homosexuality-- don't like Obergefell very much. Although you don't admit it, with your loose talk of "accountability," you advocate either term limits for judges or judicial elections. Either would require a Constitutional amendment. But the judiciary is not intended to be a political branch , although its decisions often have political consequences.

I feel far more threatened by Obama's imperial Executive and the rise of the administrative state than I do about the lack of originalist judges on the federal courts. On the latter, I have already stated twice what the remedy is, and you have yet to address it. Back to you, John.

Oh you're just fine with an imperial executive and administrative state...when they fit YOUR world view.

To quote JSO: "No, I'm not.I'm just not!"

As the ultimate authority, Monty Python, says: "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

[kalm]

[youtube]l[/youtube]

Oh you're just fine with an imperial executive and administrative state...when they fit YOUR world view.

To quote JSO: "No, I'm not.I'm just not!"

As the ultimate authority, Monty Python, says: "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

Great quote and that happens a lot 'round here.

[Ivytalk]

Why is there a Ben Carson ad down there?

[houndawg]

I don't think you've made any arguments with respect to what I said. What I'm saying is that the Judiciary controls the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Judiciary. Make an argument to the contrary with respect to that and I will attempt to rebut it, though I think it's pretty darned obvious that it's true.

You said stuff like how would I feel if Congress did something I didn't like and there wasn't a Court around to overrule it. Well, Congress is accountable. The Court is not. I know how I feel when the Court does something I don't like with respect to Constitutionality and nothing can be done about it.

Why don't you make your argument for why someone who is not accountable for the decisions they make should control things? And no the impeachment thing does not relate to that. Impeachment is for crimes. You can't impeach a judge because they made a bad decision. Make your argument for why we should accept the idea that there should be no accountability for someone who has the power that Supreme Court Justices have strictly for the decisions they make? Do that and I will counter your argument.

THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. For Pete's sake just be intellectually honest and admit that. Then you can go on and argue for why that's the way it should be.

John: Your whole beef is summed up in one sentence: "I know how I feel when the Court does something I don't like with respect to Constitutionality and nothing can be done about it." That's precisely what Hamilton dealt with in Federalist 78 (which you should read, by the way) when he viewed the judiciary as a check on the political branches of government, which are subject to the whims of the people. Hamilton also said there what most of us learned in ninth grade civics class: that the judiciary interprets the laws, that federal judges should have life tenure to insulate them from public political " caprice,"and that the Constitution is supreme.

Everyone on this board had at least one recent hot-button SCOTUS decision with which he disagrees. kalm and dback attack Citizens United; I disagree with "takings" cases like Kelo and Koontz; and you -- with your laser-like focus on homosexuality-- don't like Obergefell very much. Although you don't admit it, with your loose talk of "accountability," you advocate either term limits for judges or judicial elections. Either would require a Constitutional amendment. But the judiciary is not intended to be a political branch , although its decisions often have political consequences.

I feel far more threatened by Obama's imperial Executive and the rise of the administrative state than I do about the lack of originalist judges on the federal courts. On the latter, I have already stated twice what the remedy is, and you have yet to address it. Back to you, John.

You notice that too? Also the creationist thing - both things he works hard to distance himself from with a veneer of scientific rationalism.

[BDKJMU]

The short version of what I think JSO is getting at by saying the judges control the Constitution is that the Constitution says and means what the judges say it says it means, and that is the problem.

[kalm]

The short version of what I think JSO is getting at by saying the judges control the Constitution is that the Constitution says and means what the judges say it says it means, and that is the problem.

Versus what JSO thinks it says and means?

[AshevilleApp]

The short version of what I think JSO is getting at by saying the judges control the Constitution is that the Constitution says and means what the judges say it says it means, and that is the problem.

Why? That is the way it was set up by the (genuflect here) Founding Fathers. The (genuflect here) Founding Fathers also provided a means to amend the great document they provided. Everyone gets disappointed with judicial decisions at some time, but no need to make a wholesale move. And be careful what you wish for. The results of the Convention of States may not be what you would like.

[Ivytalk]

The short version of what I think JSO is getting at by saying the judges control the Constitution is that the Constitution says and means what the judges say it says it means, and that is the problem.

Why? That is the way it was set up by the (genuflect here) Founding Fathers. The (genuflect here) Founding Fathers also provided a means to amend the great document they provided. Everyone gets disappointed with judicial decisions at some time, but no need to make a wholesale move. And be careful what you wish for. The results of the Convention of States may not be what you would like.

Other than the snarky parentheticals, I agree with this.

[JoltinJoe]

This has a slightly less than zero percent chance of happening -- and for that we should be grateful.