[Nicodimas]

So a Texas governor brought this up and proposed the following amendments ---->

Rule of Law Amedments:

1) Prohibit congress from regulating activities occurring within one state.
2) Require congress to balance its budget.
3) Prohibit unelected official officials from creating federal law.
4) Prohibit unelected officials from prempting state law.
5) Allow 2/3s states to over-ride a Supreme Court decision.
6) Require a 7 justice super majority to invalidate a congressional law.
7) Restore the balance between state and federal governments.
8) Give the ability for states to address grievances to the federal government.
9) Allow 2/3 states majority to override a federal law.


As we all know once corruption grabs a empire very soon the fall comes. I think it's times to invoke this very powerful status to address the sheer power of the the federal government...

[Terez]

1) What is the point of this?
2) Seems unconnected to the rest.
3) This is already true; the only need for this stipulation rests in interpretative ideas about what it means to "create law" (i.e. the idea that judges "legislate from the bench" when interpreting and determining the constitutionality of written law).
4) Same.
5) This is pointless; state representatives in US Congress can already override a SCOTUS decision by passing a constitutional amendment. The only difference in this suggestion is that the governors of the states would have that power rather than elected representatives in Congress.
6) This gives too much power to Congress.
7) Well, that's an oversimplification of...something.
8) They already have that.
9) See 5. We already have that.

Not surprised a governor came up with this.

[Silencer]

From outside the States; this sounds like a typical regression-based scheme designed to pander to the paranoid sector of the US that thinks being a nation, instead of 50 nations, is somehow a bad idea and that having a consistent set of laws in said nation is also somehow a bad idea.

Basically: secessionist garbage.

But then, I come from a "socialist" utopia, so what do I know?

[Terez]

Silencer, on 09 January 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

I come from a "socialist" utopia, so what do I know?

On that note, I was going to mention that on a relatively diverse global forum, it's polite to keep stuff like this confined to the US Politics thread.

[Silencer]

Terez, on 09 January 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 09 January 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

I come from a "socialist" utopia, so what do I know?

On that note, I was going to mention that on a relatively diverse global forum, it's polite to keep stuff like this confined to the US Politics thread.

Perhaps. Then again, considering the role the US plays on the world stage, something a little bit more extreme than the stuff Nico's listed (or hell, even that) could have global consequences. But yes, considering the scope of the discussion it probably should be moved to the US politics thread, especially as it's never going to happen. XD

[Gorefest]

As a non-American, I stopped reading after the phrase 'Texas governor'. Experience learns that anything after that tends to turn a bit loopy.

[Andorion]

Urm isn't the Senate the forum for states ventilating their grievacnes? isn't that why each state has 2 Senators, so they have equal representation?

Also all this 2/3rd stuff... isn't that the majority needed for a constitutional amendment?

[Obdigore]

Useless legislation designed to destroy this nation.

Good job Texas, you've elected another one.

The only realistic one is number 2, and to do that you should require all legislation to go through CBO for cost analysis, then they would have to write into the legislation, before it could be voted on, where the money would come from.

But then you wouldn't need to amend the constitution to require that.

[Primateus]

A better amendment would be a total ban on attaching additional and unrelated addendums to bills currently being considered. THAT would be something, I think, you americans sorely need.

[Obdigore]

Primateus, on 09 January 2016 - 05:42 PM, said:

A better amendment would be a total ban on attaching additional and unrelated addendums to bills currently being considered. THAT would be something, I think, you americans sorely need.

They are called 'riders', and I agree, but again, you don't need an Amendment to the constitution, you can simply pass a law at the state level for state level legislation and a law at the federal level for federal legislation about how the legislative bodies handle legislation.

[nacht]

Silencer, on 09 January 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

Terez, on 09 January 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 09 January 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

I come from a "socialist" utopia, so what do I know?

On that note, I was going to mention that on a relatively diverse global forum, it's polite to keep stuff like this confined to the US Politics thread.

Perhaps. Then again, considering the role the US plays on the world stage, something a little bit more extreme than the stuff Nico's listed (or hell, even that) could have global consequences. But yes, considering the scope of the discussion it probably should be moved to the US politics thread, especially as it's never going to happen. XD

Well, if US has 50 states instead of one federal humungocracy controlled by a few hundred people, they wouldn't be interfering so much in other nations.

[Primateus]

Obdigore, on 09 January 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

Primateus, on 09 January 2016 - 05:42 PM, said:

A better amendment would be a total ban on attaching additional and unrelated addendums to bills currently being considered. THAT would be something, I think, you americans sorely need.

They are called 'riders', and I agree, but again, you don't need an Amendment to the constitution, you can simply pass a law at the state level for state level legislation and a law at the federal level for federal legislation about how the legislative bodies handle legislation.

Well, that'd work too.

[worry]

nacht, on 09 January 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

Silencer, on 09 January 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

Terez, on 09 January 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 09 January 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

I come from a "socialist" utopia, so what do I know?

On that note, I was going to mention that on a relatively diverse global forum, it's polite to keep stuff like this confined to the US Politics thread.

Perhaps. Then again, considering the role the US plays on the world stage, something a little bit more extreme than the stuff Nico's listed (or hell, even that) could have global consequences. But yes, considering the scope of the discussion it probably should be moved to the US politics thread, especially as it's never going to happen. XD

Well, if US has 50 states instead of one federal humungocracy controlled by a few hundred people, they wouldn't be interfering so much in other nations.

This wouldn't change that. It would allow state governors more power, which is awful for a large number of states internally (think Kansas), and give more power to the House of Representatives, which is awful for the nation and the world at large. It's a great lie that "small government", as defined by actual Republican policy, means less intrusion. It simply means concentrated power.

[Cause]

Can we please have a Govennor from a Northern state remind Texas they lost the Civil War!

In all seriousness it is my understanding in regards to point 5) that: The point of the supreme court is decide on matters which may have some linkage to the constitution of the United States. For example the American Constitution protects equal rights and freedoms for all. The Supreme Court therefore must uphold, again for example, Gay marriage. The majority opinion of the states therefore holds no sway, the countries greatest legal scholars have interpreted the constitution. The constitution could be amended but not simply ignored because 2/3rds of the states agree they don't like it. The point Terez makes is therefore more important than simply who overrides the supreme court, what's important s how. An amendment, a changing of the principle legal document which governs the rules and behaviour of the USA. It should be a matter debated for months, with input from thousands. Not decided overnight in a ballot with 51 men. Also importantly constitutions are designed to protect minorities from the rule of absolute democracy and to protect the people from tyranical governments, these protections are so important that I see to amend the constitution requires a 75% majority.

[worry]

You're right. But Article V (hence Nico's thread title) also says that the states (if enough of their legislatures call for it, 34 ie 2/3 to be exact) can amend the Constitution w/o Congress. This is so unlikely that it has literally never happened, though it is what Gov. Abbott -- and Marco Rubio, I might add -- are calling for. It is a Constitutional process.

But its unlikelihood and the specific people calling for it should clue you in that it has absolutely nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with politics.

EDIT: Just to clarify - 2/3 of states to call for a convention, but 3/4 vote (38 states) necessary to actually approve amendment.

This post has been edited by worry: 09 January 2016 - 11:46 PM

[worry]

This breaks down the math: http://blog.constitu...nal-convention/

[Terez]

worry, on 09 January 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:

You're right. But Article V (hence Nico's thread title) also says that the states (if enough of their legislatures call for it, 34 ie 2/3 to be exact) can amend the Constitution w/o Congress. This is so unlikely that it has literally never happened...

I didn't know that. Agreed that it's highly unlikely; legislatures are by nature slow-moving beasts by design. Nico's wording "the states" was very vague, so I figured since a governor came up with it, the implied meaning was state executives.

[HoosierDaddy]

Texas is as Texas does.

Less border for Trump's wall.

[Maark Abbott]

I'm guessing this is because people are still sore that those pesky gays can wed?

[Terez]

And guns.