Governor Greg Abbott Calls for Constitutional Amendments Convention

Here is what he wants:

If we had done this we would be in a depression. Debt can grow just at a control reasonable rate.

 

Can we remove the right to bear arms, since we're opening up anyway?

 

Good luck with that, Grigori!

 

At least define it in the way the framers meant...




Just when I thought the Maine governor had taken the reigns for most bat**** crazy, Abbott pulls this one out to retain the title.

 

I don't have a problem with people wanting a Constitutional convention in theory, but some of these ideas are just stupid.

A 7 justice super majority to overturn a law? That is plain dumb. We'd still have segregation today.

 

Agreed. As a living document, we should regularly review the document to keep it current and relevant.

 

At least he's giving lip service to the proper procedure.

Better than the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who decided the Supremacy Clause doesn't apply any more because "the Bible".

If he can get the momentum to change the Constitution, more power to him.

 

"Constitutional Convention" is the new "Secession" among right wing dip****s.

 

Agreed. He is at least playing along by the rules, even though almost all of his ideas are horrible.

 

Hmmm, let's take this one at a time.

That sounds like something that ought not happen, but I'd be against an amendment saying so.

I'd be for this in theory, but the problem is that you'd have to have some kind of mechanism for emergencies, and before long congress would just declare everything an emergency so that they could continue spending their way into bankruptcy.

Either way, I'd support having this as the law and deal with those trying to go around it when it arises.

These two are basically the same general idea and it's an interesting idea, but I don't see it passing and I'm not sure I'd support it.

Nupe.

Nupe

No chance in hell this passes, Congress won't give up that much power.

This is really unworthy of an amendment IMO

Now there's no chance this would pass, but I'd support it. It would basically be bringing back nullification only this time it would require a super majority of the states. The last time nullification was used, it caused a civil war, so I doubt they'd be keen to bringing it back.....but it would be a good idea IMO.

 

LMFAO at #2.

Someone's trying to rile up the troops for the big one in November.

 

I'd figure there'd be more against environmental regulation or federal immigration law, but between Lawrence v Texas, Roe v Wade, Sweatt v Painter and Texas v White you can see why they'd want a hedge against someone keeping their continued dickishness in check. I miss the '80s and early '90s when Texas politicians had come to accept integration, but were still too corrupt to give a **** about anything else. Honestly just let the oil and tech money and NASA/TI talent roll in like it has for the last two-thirds century, count your blessings and shut the hell up.

 

I think we'd be in a depression if we tried to pay down the debt; but $2 trillion in taxes should be enough to run any government. If we'd fully appreciated the defense savings of the Soviet Union collapsing and hadn't let mortgage bankers turn into Amway salesmen we'd probably be running a surplus every year, have single-payer healthcare and privatized social security.

 

I'm sure he's betting on a lot more latitude on both if he got his way on the Constitutional amendments. But, it'd be a rhetorical mistake to mention either of them when he's talking high-minded ideas about states' rights.

 

I wonder would this include all the lobbyist and corporation that are currently writing bills and having the congressmen rubber stamp them

Rocket River

 

The FDA and the EPA can't write bills on their fields. That's something much better done by the lobbyists for food, drug, and energy companies. Makes sense.

 

Can we do away with electoral college system?

 

I'd love to see his reaction if the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to invalidate Obamacare under this system. I'm pretty sure he'd be screaming for a Constitutional Amendment to require only a simple majority to invalidate a law.

 

You have to give him credit. He's thinking they take the oval office and retain both houses in Nov. Or of course, it's just a dog and pony show.