Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States

[kalm]

I took Tribe's Con Law course and aced it, even though Larry is a "liberal left-wing judicial activist." He was an excellent teacher, by the way.

I've seen Tribe speak and he is a great speaker/teacher. He would have made a great Supreme Court justice, but I think he poisoned his chances by taking such an active role in speaking out against Robert Bork. I think he'd be on the Court by now if he had not done that.

You know, in law school, I always found that in classes like Con Law and Constitutional Criminal Procedure, you can learn more from a professor that shares a viewpoint different than your own, because you have to work harder to defend your positions in class.

That's how I view our poli forum.

I get an Ivy League/Fordham education at a fraction of the cost!

[dbackjon]

I agree with all 9 proposals..

And all are stupid, would destroy this country, and would plunge the country into a Depression worse than any we have ever seen.

[dbackjon]

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 do you hate the Constitution?


NEWS FLASH - THAT IS THE WAY THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

[dbackjon]

There has been argument of the interpretation of the Constitution since its founding, JSO. It isn't something that was invented in the 1900s.

Our first President, along with Alexander Hamilton, argued that there are "implied powers" granted to the Federal government by the Constitution that are not expressly stated.... like the creation of a national bank.

In fact... anything not expressly forbidden by the Constitution could be allowed under "general welfare" or "necessary and proper." That's been argued since our first President was in office.

As I always tell you: the country you are always pining for is not the pre-Roosevelt US... but, the pre-Constitution US.

All of the State's Rights people either don't realize, or choose to ignore we tried, and quickly abandoned a weak Federal Government. The Constitution replaced the State's Rights heavy Articles of Confederation, which quickly proved to be inadequate even back then.

[dbackjon]

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

So no child labor laws, on say a family farm, or a factory that only sells within the state. But what happens if the factory buys something that originally came from another state? Is that activity wholly in the state?
Unworkable, and a bad idea

*Require Congress to balance its budget.

Why? None of you have debt? What is your debt to income ratio? Debt makes the world work.

*Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.

Meaning? Agencies don't make law already. They promulgate regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

*Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.

If you want that, then move to another country.

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

Might as well rip up the entire Constitution

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

See above

*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.

Again, this was tried and failed

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

What constitutes overstepping? And can't they do that already?

*Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.

You can already do that - either by constitutional amendment, or an election.

[JohnStOnge]

NEWS FLASH - THAT IS THE WAY THE **** CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

So you are saying that the Constitution was written intentionally so as to create a situation where it says whatever Judges say it says? You are saying that it's correct that the Judges control what the Constitution says rather than the Constitution controlling what the Judges say?

If that is the case, why do we even have a Constitution? Why not just have a Council of Judges make up the rules as they go along?

Can you guys not see that if you allow what we have with respect to the power of the Judiciary we have oligarchy as our form of government? Can you not see that what you're supporting is incredible power in the absence of any accountability? It just amazes me that any sensible person would support that. I mean, I see it all the time when the Judiciary comes up. But it just amazes me.

[JohnStOnge]

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

Might as well rip up the entire Constitution

It just amazes me that you would say that. You would be amending the Constitution in a way that provides for some accountability when it comes to Constitutional interpretation, not ripping it up. What rips up the Constitution is this attitude that whatever the Supreme Court says goes regardless of how ridiculous it is.

You might think they've never done anything ridiculous. But even then there is no mechanism in place to correct the situation if they do. THAT is ridiculous.

[Ibanez]

There has been argument of the interpretation of the Constitution since its founding, JSO. It isn't something that was invented in the 1900s.

Our first President, along with Alexander Hamilton, argued that there are "implied powers" granted to the Federal government by the Constitution that are not expressly stated.... like the creation of a national bank.

In fact... anything not expressly forbidden by the Constitution could be allowed under "general welfare" or "necessary and proper." That's been argued since our first President was in office.

As I always tell you: the country you are always pining for is not the pre-Roosevelt US... but, the pre-Constitution US.

All of the State's Rights people either don't realize, or choose to ignore we tried, and quickly abandoned a weak Federal Government. The Constitution replaced the State's Rights heavy Articles of Confederation, which quickly proved to be inadequate even back then.

Don't say all. I'm huge on states rights and I think this is a stupid and improbable idea.

[DSUrocks07]

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

Might as well rip up the entire Constitution

It just amazes me that you would say that. You would be amending the Constitution in a way that provides for some accountability when it comes to Constitutional interpretation, not ripping it up. What rips up the Constitution is this attitude that whatever the Supreme Court says goes regardless of how ridiculous it is.

You might think they've never done anything ridiculous. But even then there is no mechanism in place to correct the situation if they do. THAT is ridiculous.

Example "Dred Scott"

It took over a century to correct that one.

But then again this is all political bluster anyways.

The pendulum swings back and forth.

[HI54UNI]

No mention of a line item veto? We wouldn't want that because someone could eliminate our favorite pet projects.....

[JohnStOnge]

You know I think that if you just gave people a generic description of government process and asked them if they'd want that it could be interesting. Here it is:

"Ok. Here is how it's going to work. The people are going to elect representatives and the representatives are going to be accountable to the people. The representatives are going to make laws. But then we're also going to have this council of 9 elders. This council of elders is not going to be accountable to anybody. They're not elected and they can't be removed from office unless they commit high crimes or misdemeanors. Anyway they can't be removed from office for the decisions they make.

And this council of elders can say the laws that the elected representatives make mean anything the council of elders want them to say. Doesn't matter what the laws actually say in English. Doesn't matter what the elected representatives have in mind when they make the laws. The council of elders who are not accountable to the people can totally change the meaning and effect of the laws the elected representatives make. They can say laws say things they do not say. They can say laws don't mean things they do say. Whatever they say goes."

It's hard for me to believe anybody would want that in the abstract. Yet that's what we have and it's like people are so accustomed to hearing that it's the way it should be that they don't stop and think about what's actually going on.

[Chizzang]

Four Pages into this thread and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is that "States" can't do that the Federal Government is stopping them from doing..?

What is so important that they CAN"T do..?

Somebody explain it to me like I was a child

[JohnStOnge]

Four Pages into this thread and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is that "States" can't do that the Federal Government is stopping them from doing..?

What is so important that they CAN"T do..?

Somebody explain it to me like I was a child

Well, you may not consider it important but most recently it'd define marriage in the way they wish to define marriage. Another one is to have the voter ID laws they want. Or maybe they might decide it's important to have voters know what the hell is going on so they would have a poll test if they could. All sorts of stuff.

[Chizzang]

Four Pages into this thread and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is that "States" can't do that the Federal Government is stopping them from doing..?

What is so important that they CAN"T do..?

Somebody explain it to me like I was a child

Well, you may not consider it important but most recently it'd define marriage in the way they wish to define marriage. Another one is to have the voter ID laws they want. Or maybe they might decide it's important to have voters know what the hell is going on so they would have a poll test if they could. All sorts of stuff.

Well firstly the Federal tax advantages would have to be removed from marriage
After that - no problem

Voter ID laws..?
That's what this is all about well okay you got me - I'm on your side now

LET THE CONVENTION OF STATES BEGIN
we've got really important business the Federal Government is stopping us from doing..!!!