Gotta love a politician's solution to problems.
Constitutional Conventions
are so complicated,
when the solution
by way of
the nullification of the
unconstitutional 17th Amendment
is so simple.
Must be job security.
The Con-Con (Constitutional Convention) proposed by Texas's Greg Abbott
means well, but neglects how easily we got into trouble at the federal
level in the first place and how easily it would be to reverse and repair the damage.
The same Article V of the Constitution Abbott says allows for a Con-Con
of the States, also clearly stipulates that the States cannot EVER have their vote taken
away from them in the U.S. Senate. PERIOD!!!
ARTICLE V: NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ALLOWED TO DENY STATES THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE!!
The totally fraudulent 17th Amendment (1913) stole the voting power of
the States in the federal government away from them and famously gave it to "the people of the
State".
As the Founding States knew, nothing could have been as destructive to the Constitution!
- No longer could the States block the President from making bad international treaties, bad
cabinet appointments, and bad judicial appointments.
- No longer could the States block the House of Representative from making bad laws and bad deficit bad
spending.
- No longer could the States use impeachment to rid
the federal government of bad federal officials, especially errant and
arrogant Supreme Court justices.
Here is why the Constitution
worked before 1913
State legislators
elected to States like Utah and New Hampshire are elected
on State issues and State concerns -- at best -- but are really elected
on local issues within the State congressional district they would
represent. There are far more state districts than even federal
districts. They are closest to the people and closest to representing
the people of their district.
They are not even remotely elected based upon "national interests".
In other words, they are not elected to address the concerns of New York City.
Better yet, only really concerned and informed citizens show up to vote on boring local issues.
So,
before 1913's 17th Amendment, state legislators tended to appoint politicians for
the U.S. Senate who stayed out of State and local issues for which they were responsible.
On the other hand, the national press ran by Jews in New York City are concerned only with
issues for their people in New York City or their people in Israel, so the national press in all the States favor
Senatorial candidates who favor New York City and Israel, while not so much favoring their
own State interests. Power gets sucked up to Washington which becomes a
proxy for power in New York City.
It is far easier for propaganda to work on what the left loves to call
"the masses", than for it to work on educated State politicians.
Reason being that being in control of the national media, they can
spread their propaganda evenly over all 50 States as easily as they can
over their own New York City.
If they actually had to go into all 50 States, even heaven forbid, "the
fly-over States", to lobby 50 State legislatures, that would be a much
more difficult proposition for them.
Evidence of this is the shape of the country prior to the enactment of
the 17th Amendment. No endless wars we never win (Vietnam, Korea,
Middle East, and yes, the World Wars where Stalin won), no Great
Depressions (1930;s) or Recessions (2001-present and beyond), no
spiraling national debt, no moral breakdown which began in the Roaring
20's.
None of this existed before the 16th, 17th and Federal Reserve of 1913.
Many blame the 16th and the Federal Reserve, but reality is that the
17th was crucial, since the other two would have been crippled from the
start without first emasculating the State power in the Senate.
The States would have blocked the power of the Fed to centralize
economic power into the hands of a few Jewish elites, and the States
would have blocked the immense taxing power of the 16th which allowed
for the immense growth of the federal government.
Best yet, the States in control of the Senate today would block the
power of the Jewish controlled monopoly power over freedom of the press
and freedom of speech, for the intent of the Founding Fathers was for
all of us to have a voice; not just one Jewish broadcaster at MSNBC
broadcasting to 300 million Americans at the same time.
Greg Abbott's
proposals
This website is not against putting all these failsafe proposals into
the Constitution. After all that was the idea of the Bill of Rights.
Notice, in his 9 proposals, he does not at all address the
biggest problem in this country -- that of the elitist
Jewish-controlled mass media who can propagandasize 300 million
Americans to their bidding, solely because they can tell better stories
and we all mindlessly gravitate to those stories.
But think about it. Which of these 9 sound proposals from Greg Abbott
would not get fixed with a simple repeal, or better yet, a nullification by
the States of the unconstitutional 17th Amendment?
1) Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
If the States were running the Senate part of Congress, would this really happen?
Indeed, a majority of industrial states could bully agricultural
states, or vice versa. Nothing is perfect, but right now, the federal
government bullies all the States.
2) Require Congress to balance its budget.
Did we really have a problem with this when the States were running that part of Congress
before 1913?
Or did we go off the gold standard after the 17th,
after the Fed induced Roaring 20's inflation and Great Depression 30's deflation; Federal
Reserve also created in 1913; 16th Amendment taxing to grow the federal government also created in 1913.
3) Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
Right
now, Congress writes laws to create these monstrous agencies, and in
their creation, Congress makes it law that the agency can create their
own laws for it to enforce its warlord territorial claims.
Better yet, the States running the Senate would simply write laws to
dissolve most of these agencies created since 1913, so there would be
few agencies to even create their own laws.
Prohibit administrative agencies from preempting state law.
Ditto for the States allowing this to happen to them. The States would just kill the agency. Period.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
How about giving the Constitution's impeachment power a chance?
Anyone who read Constitutional law prior to 1913 would be amazed at how
lucid, clear, fair and full of common sense Supreme Court rulings were
back then. Anyone reading rulings today, even if they could
understand the mumble jumble, are aghast at how far from the
Constitution the courts have moved. Constitutional right to kill
your own baby? Really?
Overriding an unconstitutional decision is like handing the money back
to the bank from which the bank robber stole from it, without punishing
the bank robber.
We need to take out federal officials who cannot abide by the Constitution.
The States, who are not inbred with the federal government would have
the oversight authority to do that and would not hesitate to impeach
illegal Supreme Court justices who decide cases based upon immoral and
unconstitutional principles.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
This should be there anyway.
We already have super majorities to override a Presidential veto, which
seems backwards to me, since the writing and enactment of laws should
be in the hands of Congress, not in the hands of one man as President,
able to override all democratically enacted laws at will.
This SC super majority would place the laws more securely into the
hands of the branch of government it was meant to be in, Congress, and
better yet, the State's representatives.
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.
We already have the 10th Amendment for this.
Talk like this is more like Democrats saying that more gun control laws
will fix the current gun control laws criminals are breaking. It's all
fantasy talk.
The problem is one of power.
Right now, the Feds have all the power because the States have had
their power totally taken away from them with the 17th Amendment.
Restoration of the Vertical Checks and Balances between the States and
the Federal government can only come with a repeal or nullification of
the 17th Amendment.
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
If the States ran the Senate, they would not have to sue, they would impeach to remove the errant federal official.
And with that sword dangling over them, you would be surprised how well they would do their job.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.
Better solution.
If the States ran the Senate again, the States would only need a simple majority to kill any federal law or regulation.
Simple solution instead of a complicated solution.
Gov. Greg Abbott,
aiming to spark a national conversation about states’ rights, said
Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention to amend
the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run
amok.”
“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 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.
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.
The proposal for a
convention, which 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.
Abbott hasn’t endorsed
a candidate, though the field includes Sen. Ted Cruz, who was one of
Abbott’s top employees when the governor was attorney general. Abbott
is likely hoping to boost his national profile within the GOP as eyes
turn to the state.
This week,
presidential contender U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., 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.
By this point, you may
be wondering just what a constitutional convention or Convention of the
States is and why it would be a big deal. A 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.
So far, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. None of those were amendments generated by a constitutional convention.
Critics say there’s a
good reason. In an editorial lambasting Rubio’s plan, USA Today‘s
editorial board warned that such a process could invite mayhem and
further poison the nation’s vitriolic political scene. It would also
raise unresolved questions about the years-long process of
ratification. And some conservatives who otherwise agree with Abbott
and Rubio on many issues fear a convention could lead to greater
restrictions on guns and money in politics and greater overall power
for the federal government.
Abbott, in his plan, dismisses many of those criticisms, saying that he would call for a limited scope to the convention.
The plan lays out nine specific proposed amendments that would:
•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.
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.
James Henson, director
of UT’s Texas Politics Project, said Abbott’s posture aligns well with
the prominent stream of thought in the Republican Party that it is time
to resuscitate state power as a check to the federal government.
“I would find it
fairly unlikely that this would get traction on the national level,”
Henson said. “On the other hand, it’s not the first we’ve heard of
this.”
Democrats 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.”
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.
But Democrats haven’t been the only ones to chide the idea of fiddling with the Constitution.
Last year, House
legislators filed measures calling for such a convention. State Sen.
Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, 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
|
