Here, per the document, are the nine constitutional amendments Abbott is backing:
I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
II. Require Congress to balance its budget.
III. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
IV. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
V. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
VII. 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.
VIII. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
IX. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
The Texas Plan
Wow, Tex. Your governor really gets it.
Yes! And strip all government officials of absolute immunity, reducing it to good faith immunity. (Assuming I understand those terms properly.)
ReplyDeleteCouple things: the Commerce Clause already achieves I (yes, I'm ignoring existing case law; the Court has corrected other of its errors, and it can correct these errors); and Art I, Sect 8, together with the 10th Amendment, already achieve VII; which bring me to
ReplyDeletethe other thing: the Constitution, as it stands (which I favor, other than my term quasi-limit Amendment) or as Amended along the lines of my Governor's proposals, is utterly meaningless in the hands of a government populated by men who disregard it at convenience.
That last has to be corrected before it can even remotely become fruitful to amend the Constitution.
Eric Hines
There's a point to be made there. On the other hand, pushing for this agenda -- and the debates it will cause -- may be the catalyst for finding and developing the replacements we need.
ReplyDeleteThese are solid enough to be valuable even if watered-down a bit.
ReplyDeleteActually, nothing in the Constitution achieves any of this, and I have no faith in the Supreme Court on these matters.
ReplyDeleteYour second point is quite valid, but there I'm more optimistic than you are. They don't simply disregard the Constitution. They wear it away bit by bit. It's taken decades to wear the Commerce Clause to nothing, for example. The first cut was back in 1935, I believe, and then decade by decade the edges were pulled this way and that, making it larger and larger, until it was torn away and forgotten.
If these amendments were passed today, I don't think we would see judges and politicians and bureaucrats immediately ignoring them. I think we would see the slow wearing away of them, as we've seen in the past.
However, this time it would be harder for them. III, IV, and VIII amount to good limitations on bureaucratic power, so the bureaucrats would find it much harder to get around the Constitution. V and VI bring the power of the USSC back into balance with the other two branches and limit their power to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate the Constitution and laws. I, II, VII, VIII, and IX together provide serious limits to the federal ability to ignore the Constitution.
Sure, we might have to do it again in a hundred years, but passing these tomorrow would be immediately helpful to our cause.
YES!
ReplyDeleteLarry: " passing these tomorrow would be immediately helpful to our cause."
ReplyDeleteHeck, putting these up for discussion is immediately helpful to that cause. Shift the window. In particular, we can discuss how the "War on Booze" seemed to require the 18th amendment, but the "War on Drugs" has not needed an amendment. We can discuss why the "War on _Assault Weapons_ and _Saturday Night Specials_" has progressed despite the un-repealed 2nd amendment. We can discuss how the 17th amendment was intended to solve the problem of "deadlock" (now called "gridlock"); and since it hasn't, wonder whether a return to appointment by state legislature (hell, nomination by governor and ratification 'by the people' might be worth another try. ) We can review the advantages of the Electoral College -- maybe that body ought to nominate Supreme Court judges, hmmm?
Why not? Open the idea up for discussion that the "Living Document" is not the playground of the elites but the serious and meaningful social contract that incorporates the wisdom of the past, addresses the fears of the present, and secures our present blessings for ourselves and our posterity.
J Melcher said* ...
ReplyDelete> Larry: "passing these tomorrow would be immediately helpful to our
> cause."
Indeed.
> Heck, putting these up for discussion is immediately helpful to that
> cause. Shift the window.
I'll assume by "window" you mean a structure like the "Overton Window" as I understand it.
I have for quite a while now said that Mr. Trump's qualifications, capabilities, and experiences are not, up to this point nearly as interesting to me as his ability to shift the window back toward a sane view of reality.
It may well be that he will no longer be in the window at the finals (I will confess to developing a feeling of sorrow that which might be the outcome. I think he might succeed, as Eisenhower did, not by working miracles, but by selecting staff, empowering and supporting them, and getting) the hell out of the way. But is he is not in the window, history will owe him for reversing the arrow, away from doom and back toward our unique destiny.
> In particular, we can discuss how the "War on
> Booze" seemed to require the 18th amendment, but the "War on Drugs" has not
> needed an amendment. We can discuss why the "War on _Assault Weapons_ and
> _Saturday Night Specials_" has progressed despite the un-repealed 2nd
> amendment. We can discuss how the 17th amendment was intended to solve the
> problem of "deadlock" (now called "gridlock"); and since it hasn't, wonder
> whether a return to appointment by state legislature (hell, nomination by
> governor and ratification 'by the people' might be worth another try. ) We
> can review the advantages of the Electoral College -- maybe that body ought
> to nominate Supreme Court judges, hmmm?
> Why not? Open the idea up for discussion that the "Living Document" is
> not the playground of the elites but the serious and meaningful social
> contract that incorporates the wisdom of the past, addresses the fears of
> the present, and secures our present blessings for ourselves and our
> posterity.
These two 'grafs trigger a torrent of loosely related opinions in me--I'll probably fail to get my thoughts organized--please feel free to pick through them to find any of value.
Starting at the bottom and working up--I reject out of hand the notion that the Constitution is a "living document". I don't know what that means, but when I try to attach meaning to it, I keep coming back to my mirror and seeing "obese", "arthritic",increasingly "impotent", and "dependent".
The Constitution is a foundation and foundations are supposed to be solid, stable and un-moving, supporting the structures (laws, regulations, treaties) that adapt it to the needs of a vibrant society.
Finally, attacking the part that starts "In particular, we can discuss how..."...
There are at two broad areas of error here. I don't know if I have an opinion on which is the worst.
Yeah, I think I do. The worst has to be the successful conversion (by Woodrow Wilson and his followers--in the several senses of "followers") of the United States of America from a constitutional republic (as I understand the term) to a socialist democratic dictatorship of the proletariat. A glaring example: federal legislature was designed to be of two houses--the House of Representatives (of the people of the several states) and the Senate consisting of representatives of the State Legislatures.
The other, and I'm not now sure IT isn't the worst of the two, is the conversion of the Constitution from a list of things the federal government can not, must, should not do; to a laundry list to things it must do for one or another special interest group.
*indicated by ">" at the left margin, my comments are unmarked.