Constitutional Convention?

#127
#127
Texas governor calls for constitutional convention

The nine proposed amendments are:

· Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

· Require Congress to balance its budget.

· Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

· Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting 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.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#128
#128
Need to include getting rid of lifetime appointments for Federal Judges and the 17th amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#129
#129
I'm in the minority here. I favor a CC.

Does this entitle me to anything special?
 
#132
#132
This is another symptom of the demographic marginalization of the GOP. At the national level, they cannot compete, simply because of the numbers and the fact that white people are slowly losing their majority status and power. Currently, the GOP relies on Gerrymandering to control state legislatures and Congressional districts. The proposal to let states override federal law is a ploy to end around their dwindling power at the federal level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#134
#134
Sandvol said:
Well because you only stated your objections against the Tea Party because of their ties to social conservative issues but didn't say you had any problem with the liberal activist judges they are reacting too. The Tea Party is a reactionary movement. First it was about unconstitutional government bail outs of the banks and GM. Since then they have reacted to other issues like liberal judges circumventing state legislatures and declaring bans against gay marriage unconstitutional when it is nothing of the sort. There is no constitutional right to marriage that I know of. It is solely a states' rights issue. And, the Tea Party has remained mainly a reactionary grass roots movement.
Click to expand...

There is a right to equal treatment under the law.
 
#136
#136
We don't need a Constitutional Convention. What we do need is a reaffirmation to the existing one.

It works when you don't have politicians and the courts dicking around with it.
 
#137
#137
hog88 said:
Need to include getting rid of lifetime appointments for Federal Judges and the 17th amendment.
Click to expand...

The result wouldn't be good. Federal judges shouldn't be beholden to anyone or any agenda. People think this would be a good idea, but would hate the results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#139
#139
Grand Vol said:
We don't need a Constitutional Convention. What we do need is a reaffirmation to the existing one.

It works when you don't have politicians and the courts dicking around with it.
Click to expand...

It's written word which will always require interpretation.
 
#146
#146
ClearwaterVol said:
You're interpreting the constitution and who says you've got it correct? All written word is subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...


You are not paying attention. Everybody condemns interpretations of law with which they disagree as judicial activism, but applaud as obviously correct literal reading those with which they agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#147
#147
lawgator1 said:
Interesting.

You seem to be perfectly fine with the Supreme Court reading the militia wording right out of the Second Amendment in Heller.
Click to expand...

I seem perfectly fine with reading the words as they are written, not as how "I think this is what they meant" as our SCOTUS does.

And of course, I'm smart enough to know what purpose a comma serves.

Even retired Justice Stevens admitted it in a very vague way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#148
#148
lawgator1 said:
You are not paying attention. Everybody condemns interpretations of law with which they disagree as judicial activism, but applaud as obviously correct literal reading those with which they agree.
Click to expand...

Well, now let's discuss that.

Is there some hidden meaning in the 3rd Amendment that we should be aware of? Or is it pretty clear cut?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top