Abbot against the world...

[SBFORDTECH]

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/21829

[46Tbird]

That's actually pretty awesome. I support it.

[lowfast]

I support this as I feel the time has come for a warm control-alt-delete before we go down the road to a required hard reboot.

[F8LSVT]

That's great! I hope more states jump on board so something can be done.

[helosailor]

[diablo rojo]

Very well said. I agree.

[silverhatch]

This is great.

[CJ]

Article V meeting of the states to force an amendment. A little known clause the federal government (and left) doesn't want you to know.

[Sgt Beavis]

There is a lot I agree with but I need to see some more details. For instance, there are times that deficit spending is going to be needed (like wartime) so I need to see the details and exceptions behind that proposal.

However I'm dead set against number 6 requiring a super majority from the court to overturn a democratically enacted law. We would still have Jim Crow laws if this were the law of the land back in the 50s.

All that said, I think everyone should carefully consider the ramifications of a full on Constitutional Convention. That convention wouldn't be limited to the "Texas Plan" everything is up for grabs. You could see a real attempt to amend or repeal the 2nd amendment or other parts of the Bill of Rights. You could even end up with a new Constitution...

Do you really want to risk it?

[CJ]

However I'm dead set against number 6 requiring a super majority from the court to overturn a democratically enacted law. We would still have Jim Crow laws if this were the law of the land back in the 50s.

All that said, I think everyone should carefully consider the ramifications of a full on Constitutional Convention. That convention wouldn't be limited to the "Texas Plan" everything is up for grabs. You could see a real attempt to amend or repeal the 2nd amendment or other parts of the Bill of Rights. You could even end up with a new Constitution...

Do you really want to risk it?

We do not want a court which has no elected officials appointed by the people to be making laws, and killing laws. That's just not how the constitution was designed. It has been exploited for decades as a backdoor to take rights away from the individual, and place more power into the hands of the government. Laws are meant to be created and voted upon by the people, not by unelected officials. As of right now, elected officials assign hard line political activists to populate the courts to push their agenda through. If one person dies, it's a free meal ticket to get your guy in, and force a shitload of laws not approved by the people.

You're not going to see the 2nd amendment repealed. The purpose of the convention, and the docket for the convention is established beforehand.

[Sgt Beavis]

You're not going to see the 2nd amendment repealed. The purpose of the convention, and the docket for the convention is established beforehand.

There is nothing in Article V saying that there has to be a docket for such a convention. I don't think Abbot can get 2/3rds of the state legislatures to agree on only considering his 9 proposed amendments. I think there is a much higher chance that they'll have an open floor.

However it still requires 3/4ths of state legislatures to approve each amendments (or a hypothetical new constitution)

[LANTIRN]

CJ is right, I believe. Now if they were calling on a convention for a new constitution we would have worries. What Wheels (and several other states who have voted in favor of a convention) have been in favor of is restricting the feds and empowering the states more. Not worried in that scenario about the bill of rights.

[Jimbo]

Constitutional convention to strengthen states rights? Sign me up.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/greg-abbott-texas-rubio-constitutional-convention/index.html

[LANTIRN]

Also I believe there are about 27 who have voted in favor of a convention for a balanced budget amendment; 34 are needed to get a convention going. My understanding that is if 34 vote on that alone, then that is all they can work on. What the Professor has proposed should start that over as 34 would need to vote in favor of that proposal so they could tackle more than just the single issue voted on recently. I am no expert on this but that is the way I understand it.

[Tremor14]