Texas Governor Calls For Constitutional Convention To "Wrest Power" From Obama
When it comes to Texas' relationship with the Federal government, the word "rocky" comes to mind. And nobody embodies said rockiness better than Texas governor Greg Abbott, who recently made headlines after announcing that irrelevant of D.C.'s demands, Texas would refuse to accept any Syrian refugees.
This followed his announcement earlier this summer 2015 when fears over nebulous Federal intentions with operation "Jade Helm" were running high, that "to address concerns that Texas citizens and to ensure that Texas communities remain safe, secure, and informed about military procedures occurring in their vicinity, I am directing the state guard to monitor Operation Jade Helm 15."
Prior to this, Abbott was again in the news back in June when he signed a bill into law that would allow Texas to build a gold and silver bullion depository, which would allow Texas to repatriate $1 billion worth of bullion from the New York Fed to the new facility once completed.
In short: the Federal government and the state of Texas have been on collision course of many months, one which culminated on Friday when Abbott called for a Constitutional Convention of states, spearheaded by Texas, and which would amend the U.S. Constitution to wrest power from a federal government "run amok."
To achieve that, Abbott proposed nine amendments to "restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose."
“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, cited by the Dallas News, 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.
According to the Hill, Abbott said that "the increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” said Abbott in a statement. We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way.”
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.
Abbott's nine proposed amendments are:
- 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.
For those unfamiliar, a Constitutional 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. Indicatively, of the 27 times the Constitution has been amended, none was generated by a constitutional convention.
Abbott is not the first to propose a convention: the idea has been gaining traction among some among conservative Republicans, comes just as the GOP presidential candidates begin to make forays into Texas ahead of the March primary election. The state, with 155 delegates up for grabs, will certainly be a key player in the party’s nominating process.
Earlier this week presidential contender Marco Rubio 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.
A convention, Abbott wrote, would force the federal government to “take the Constitution seriously again... The only true downside comes from doing nothing and allowing the federal government to continue ignoring the very document that created it,” Abbott wrote.
To be sure many conservatives agree with Abbott's posture that the only way to limit the powers of the Federal government is to resuscitate state power .
Of course, whereas Republicans are seeking to limit the role and power of government, Democrats demand just the opposite, and were quick to denounce Abbott’s plan Friday, saying the governor has misplaced priorities.
“America added 292,000 new jobs in December. But under Abbott, Texas fell to sixth in job creation, remains the uninsured capitol of the nation, wages and incomes remain far too low for hardworking families, our neighborhood schools are still underfunded, and college education is slipping out of reach,” Texas Democratic Party Deputy Executive Director Manny Garcia said in a statement. “Texas families deserve serious solutions, not Tea Party nonsense.”
What Manny Garcia did not add is that while oil was above $100, Texas was the state that had generated the most jobs under the Obama administration, and if it hadn't been for the Kerry-Saudi Arabia secret meetings which put into play the collapse in the price of oil, meant to cripple Russia but crushing US shale instead, Texas would continue to create record numbers of jobs.
However, since this is high politics, facts be damned, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas issued a statement with similar sentiment. “Governor Abbott, as Texans, we prefer the Framers’ plan. Don’t mess with the Constitution,” said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas.
A small but vocal Republican minority has also opined against the idea of a constitutional convention: last year, House legislators filed measures calling for such a convention. Texas senator Craig Estes unleashed a screed against the proposal when it came before the Senate State Affairs Committee in May. He compared the idea to “a petulant teenager who’s lost a few basketball games and plans to burn down the gymnasium.”
“The constitution has served us well for over 200 years. The problem is not the constitution,” Estes said, adding that the solution is to elect more conservative lawmakers. “Slap a bumper sticker for Ted Cruz on your car and get after it and knock yourself out.”
Estes went on to promise a filibuster if the measure came to the Senate floor.
Whether Abbott's proposal will gain steam and ultimately succeed is unknown, but it is virtually certain that the more the Obama administration governs via executive orders and other means to bypass the Legislative and short circuit the US government, the more powerful the grass-roots response at the state level will be, until eventually there is enough anger at the dysfunctional U.S. government at the 34 required states to do precisely as the Texan wants... that, or Trump is voted into the Oval Office as a protest against everything that is broken with the current political status quo.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -




So, ummm, any ideas on why they manufacture all cell phones now that don't allow the owner of the phone to turn of "Presidential Alerts"?
Jus checkin ;-)
Dark Pools
lol...yeah, it's still kinda cool that they think they're tracking "the folks" with them though.
For instance, right now they think I'm in Omaha ;-)
Private Equity?
Where there's a will, there's a way (to turn the GD thing off).
Yeah, I think there is too...unfortunately it involves an EMP strike. But on the bright side I won't be getting a "Presidential Alert" telling me about ït ;-)
What is this Alert, you speak of ?? Thanks in advance.
Partially. Participating wireless carriers may offer subscribers with WEA-capable handsets the ability to block alerts involving imminent threats to safety of life and/or AMBER Alerts; however, consumers cannot block emergency alerts issued by the President.
Why can't consumers block WEAs issued by the President?In passing the WARN Act, Congress allowed participating carriers to offer subscribers the capability to block all WEAs except those issued by the President."
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-emergency-alerts-wea
As the MSM hacks at NBC like to say, "the more you know"...lol.
And...BitCoin...or sumpin ;-)
There is no politician in the US who is trustworthy enough to allow near any change to the US Constitution.
We citizens have to take back the government first and clean all of the Deep State and Israeli-Neocon influences out of the social, busiiness and government worlds. Then we can decide what to do with the Constitution, which clearly needs some improvements in citizen's ability to push back against over-reach.
We don't need to change it ... Just abide by it
+10000
"A convention, Abbott wrote, would force the federal government to “take the Constitution seriously again..."
Exactly how? They already ignore the Constitution. Do stricter gun laws keep guns out of criminals hands? Do laws keep jihadis from going to fight for ISIS? So exactly how?
He wants amendments, then propose them separately without a convention.
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com
There are lots of solutions, none of which will ever be allowed to happen or actually work. I tend to agree that the best we can hope from government at this point is nothing....nothing at all. A do nothing congress and an absentee president would be the very best.
AS it is, Obama does as he wishes and then tells us..."Sue Me", and as we have seen, even when he loses the suite, he just ignores that ruling and tells them to sue him again. It is hopeless at this point and at best we can all hope for a dictator of OUR dreams.
You may be on to something...what's your state governor's proposal?
Senators. Please channel Rome re Caesar.
Proposing a Constitutional Convention indicates he’s someone’s tool because his proposal is the equivalent of new gun laws. The criminals violate existing laws so what’s the real purpose of new laws?
What .gov is doing now (e.g. President acting as judge and jury executes US citizens without trial) is clearly unconstitutional yet it’s permitted. WTF? Seriously, WTF?
A CC is too risky given the tremendous level of corruption that also exists at the state level. Remember, a CC puts EVERYTHING up for grabs, including the Bill of Rights (de jure at least.). So what's the real purpose of opening up the Constitution to wholesale change?
I'm sure it's for the children, but still . . .
Why not recall your 2 worthless senators that allow criminal invasion in the millions and have given Texas more COP debt than CA?
Guns to the Mexican mafia-pass
Muslim immigration pass
Ebola immigration pass
MDR-TB immigration pass
TED Cruz is sub prime wallpaper, ugly Canadian wallpaper, a member of a body that's outright hostile to the constitution and Americans.
Then there's the declining TX job market, air quality and "invasion drought" (invasion caused drought).
Coming soon widespread manufacturing closures on account of carbon taxes.
Gotta love a guy in LA throwing rocks at Texas.
ooh, ow ! and stuff like that....
term limits and money, supreme courts interpretations. his proposals tries to address some of this.
so uphill,,,
so depressing,,,
cause what should happen never seems to happen.
GOV Abbot - you have the laws you need to do what's right.
Start with the 10th Amendment, and go from there.
You free TEXAS, I'll take my tax dollars there.
States, like everyone else, have found themselves dependent upon the corruption that most hate. They (and we) can make empty demands and proposals that we know will never be fulfilled to make us FEEL like we have principles, but we do not. Few if any will actually make sacrifices for principle, and if they do so, in many cases it is only in hope of higher returns in the future. The whole world has been turned into a casino, where profits are to be made through speculation, not labor, not productivity or even innovation, unless it is a new innovative way of duping others into surrendering the rights to their remaining productivity.
We must understand and ACCEPT that we are an integral part of the corruption, that none of it can work without us. And even those who do understand this are still waiting for everyone else to actually take actions to stop it first.
This has been a long course of choices with each opportunity to choose for freedom rejected for wealth or convenience or simple desire to enjoy the illusion of the warm and secure embrace of the greater power, be it in the form of government or corporations. Judicial systems to protect us from law breakers, agencies to protect us from ourselves, corporations to provide secure and mindless job security. Anything accept actually taking care of ourselves. We even feel we must "invest" in the stock market rather than ourselves...for security. And when the warm embrace starts to feel a bit restrictive and somewhat less safe than we first believed, we jerk away, to only find the warm embrace has turned into violent grasping and restraint.
Why is this guy not running for President?
Chains to people!
Money to bankers!
Space to astronauts!
Water to fish!
And I can go on and on and on...
Texans are just idiots, they gave us Bush and then tried to give us Perry, what is wrong with them, they elect pure idiots...
Obama is terrible, but only because he is too much like Bush with his push for war and "signing statements".
LOL, 'elect'. You are a fucking moron
The controlling illuminati gave you both Bush's and Obama.
You're an idiot.
Texans don't send people into national office. People just like YOU do.
Asswipe. Learn to read. Then take a civics lesson.
Governor Abbott is not telling it like it is: Why didn't Governor Abbott say anything about the US Congress' failure to convene the Constitutional Convention, as required under Article V? Or about the fact that the Constitution of 1789 is not in effect because US Congress has declared a state of emergency continuously since 1861, or that the states have taken away citizens' property?
anyways, almost everyone in north america will die from radiation soon unless e.t. decides to help. hello! we are beyond human repairs now.
Secede already, many will follow suit
lot unintended consequences on those ideas. Ain't never going to happen but I'm curious what is the representation numbers wise? Every state get 2 votes? 1 vote? or what?
Good for him, maybe someday the Feds will get the message that they are universally despised.
No predator, human or otherwise, pays any attention to ink smeared on paper or parchment. They do whatever they can get away with.
The only solution is to dissolve government. More precisely, that is actually just recognition that so-called "government" is a fiction, does not exist, has never existed, inherently cannot exist, and is simply an absurd adult version of "Simon Says" called "Uncle Sam Says".
Would life be better in north america if the predators-DBA-federal-government adhered to the ideas presented by the ink patterns on the parchment called "constitution"? Of course. But human predators ALWAYS control powerful fictions like "government", so smearing more ink on more pieces of parchment is a waste of time.
The only solutions are:
#1: Refuse ALL demands human predators make.
#2: Exterminate ALL human predators who attempt to force/harm anyone.
Anything less is worse than pointless (especially because it makes people think they are accomplishing something, and thereby misdirects their efforts into something other than what works).
-----
BTW, look how silly this proposed effort is. The problem is "Obama pays no attention to the ink smeared on certain pieces of parchment". The proposed solution is "to smear some ink on some more pieces of parchment". Exactly what about the new ink and parchment will prevent Obama (and others) from ignoring the new ink and paper?
Answer: NOTHING.
Good.
Also don't forget that drones with missiles are legal in the US now. A Const. Convention would be a tempting target for sky-murder.
Glad to see that I am not the only straight-out anarchist around here...
Ah, but calling a Constitutional Convention is the perfect way to dissolve the current government. It's LEGITIMATE. It follows the laws as set forth by the Founders. It will quickly end up in a quagmire of competing agendas that demonstrate the folly of trying to maintain a unitary government over such a disparate population. It allows we the People to legally dissolve an incompetent and overreaching government without violence, by forcing it to obey its own rules.
"Require Congress to balance its budget."
Couldn't help think this guy is wasting his talents and should apply for a job with the Onion.
Surely everyone knows the billionaires across the Western hemisphere are just aching for balanced budgets and an end to Corporate Welfare.
THE DANGEROUS PATH
Big Money’s Plan to Shred the Constitution
There is a threat to our democracy so severe it is shocking it has gone unnoticed this long, or been dismissed as impossible by the few who know about it and should be sounding the alarm. Given the current hyper-partisan environment of U.S. politics, the power of special and corporate interests in the post-Citizens United era, the call for a convention poses a huge threat to the nation.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Acknowledgments
Introduction: The Threat
The Balanced Budget Amendment
Other Convention Proposals
Opposition From Across the Aisle and Across the Spectrum
Conclusion: An Article V Convention Would Invite Constitutional Chaos
Yes, indeed. The Powers That Be are scared shitless of a Constitutional Convention; one should be called for that reason alone.
It's time to seriously update a system that was hacked together when black men were legally 3/5 of a person, and women of any race weren't people at all. The U.S. has one of the OLDEST democratic constitutions currently in practice, and it creaks audibly under any strain. Oh, and it's become totally dysfunctional? That's usually a good sign that it's time for a rehab.
An Article V Convention would invite consideration of issues that no longer bear any resemblence to conditions in 1776. Things like electronic voting (and vote counting), massive imbalances of wealth and population, instantaneous communication and the issuance of the "full faith and credit of the United States" by a cabal of private bankers. These things NEED to be discussed and reconsidered by today's citizenry, stripped of the accumulation of power in the hands of the obscenely wealthy and hereditarily well-connected. The past is in failure mode. It's time to reconstruct our future.
I've been involved with common cause for many years. You should spend some time reading the documents I referenced above, read them very, very carefully; and take everything into consideration.
If you do the research regarding this push for a "balanced budget", I think you may soon come to the same conclusion an accountant might, using the simplest basic accounting equation:
Assets = Liabilities + Capital
Where:
1. All current and future Assets and Capital will belong to big money
2. All current and future Liabilities will belong to YOU and ME, fellow citizens.
Liked your post, but make one correction: The United States has THE oldest democratic constitution in the history of the world.
Problem with that is that any such convention would be controlled by the squid and there would be fuckall we could do about that.
Besides, who the fuck wants to reform government? Let's abolish it instead...
How can you be so informed and yet so stupid? The same people that gave us the Constitution gave the states the power to amen it. As good as it is, there are a couple of areas that are being abused and need to be made clear....in writing....before the ass whoopin' starts.
The framers never imagined that the pricks we have running things would ever be so devoid of character or integrity or that the people would tolerate it to the extent we have. If they had, they would have nailed down certain areas that the king prick, Mr. Lincoln, made assumptions about. Like just who has the final say in the matter of states rights. They would have made it clear that no BS agency appointed by the President could make laws that the states had to follow. I could go on, but if you can't see the obviousness of the situation, you are a waste of time.
Catalonia makes deal for separatist government:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-09/catalonia-s-mas-stands...
All sounds real good, barring presidential ambition/grandstanding lip service.
I have one question...Were they successful in repatriating their gold?
Some logical fallacies:
And what does it mean to amend a constitution of an occupied country ... witness WTC7 falling down proving without doubt that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by those who occupy our government?
Repeat after me: There is no "political" solution to any of this, period.
It is the right thing to try, before we must resort to doing our duty, as spelled out in the Declaration.
Before you talk about our duty, I must ask this question: what are your intentions? If your intent is to depose the present ruling powers WITHOUT REPLACING THEM then I support your cause even though I think at this moment in history you ae doomed to fail. If it is your intention to install another tyrrany to replace the current one (all government is tyrrany) then I stand against you.