Texas Governor Wants To Amend The Constitution So States Can Ignore The Federal Government

[doggie]

Texas ya gotta love them. Lets cut off all their federal funding then. see how it goes. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/texas-constitutional-amendment_569018cce4b0cad15e64c589

Quote

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Friday proposed a series of amendments to the U.S. constitution that would permit states to override the Supreme Court and ignore federal laws. 

One of the proposed measures would allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override federal regulations, while another sets the same threshold for overturning decisions by the Supreme Court. The governor also wants to change the Constitution to block Congress from "regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state," and to require a supermajority of seven Supreme Court votes before a "democratically enacted law" can be overturned.

 

 

[PennySycamore]

God, what a fucking asshole!  FSM, we need to start requiring Civics in high school and maybe even require wannabe office-holders to ace it.  It's damn clear the Abbott has no clue about how government is supposed to work.

[FundiesInParis]

that's not how that works, that's not how any of this works.

[FloraKitty35]

40 minutes ago, PennySycamore said:

God, what a fucking asshole!  FSM, we need to start requiring Civics in high school and maybe even require wannabe office-holders to ace it.  It's damn clear the Abbott has no clue about how government is supposed to work.

I agree with you 100%.

[louisa05]

49 minutes ago, PennySycamore said:

God, what a fucking asshole!  FSM, we need to start requiring Civics in high school and maybe even require wannabe office-holders to ace it.  It's damn clear the Abbott has no clue about how government is supposed to work.

I can't speak for every state,  but it is a high school graduation requirement in my state. I taught it off and on during my 16 years in the classroom (usually when they needed an extra section and there were smaller groups in one of my other courses, it would get thrown on my schedule). It is typically called "American Government". The problem is not that it is not required, the problem is how school administrators, parents and even non-social studies teachers regard it. 

Administrators commonly feel that in a world where math and science is the MOST. IMPORTANT. THING. EVER., it is not uncommon for admins to "encourage" social studies teachers to dumb it down. One guidance counselor told me that "government is just not where we should be rigorous when those kids have hard subjects to master like chemistry and pre-calc". I was expected to make it the "down time in their schedule". My nephew's government teacher (I have subbed for her) was once told that "since it isn't STEM and isn't very relevant to their future", she should not really test or at least "keep it a multiple choice kind of thing". Social studies is not tested for all the high stakes tests that school funding (and sometimes teacher evaluations) are tied to, either, so most kids are getting very little background in American history or government in the early grades which makes it more difficult to teach in the upper grades. 

Then there are the parents. The parents are pretty sure that the act of teaching government is an attempt by the teacher (and probably the school) to undermine whatever political opinions they have shared with their kids. Both liberal and conservative parents lose their shit over everything in government class. I did my best to remain neutral while teaching about elections and discussing current issues. Even so, I got deluged all the time by parents accusing me of biases. My favorite incident that demonstrates that: in 2008, I showed my government class the acceptance speeches by McCain and Obama at their respective conventions. I showed each one the day after it took place. The DNC was held first and the RNC about a week later. I got irate phone calls from liberal parents complaining that I showed McCain's speech last to influence their kids to favor McCain. The previous week, I had taken irate phone calls from conservative parents complaining that I showed Obama's speech first to influence their kids to favor Obama. The explanation of showing them when they occurred did not sway any of these parents from complaining. One parent, in fact, asked me why I scheduled the conventions that way (bet no one here ever suspected that I am the person in charge of that!). Teachers have been raked over the coals for less in highly public ways and had their jobs threatened. Many have given up and begun teaching government with no connection whatsoever to any current issues which makes it difficult for students to relate to or to truly absorb. I'm not sure we can fault the teachers for essentially covering their own asses by doing it that way. 

The parents who are not busy losing their shit are so disconnected from the world that their kids can walk into an American government classroom with absolutely no knowledge of their own current government. I had a tenth grader ask in class on election day, 2000 (not a social studies class) "is there an election or something today? Is it for something important?" This was a private school with middle to upper middle class families--not an area in the depths of poverty by any means. I also see well meaning parents (my friends and family) contemplate on Facebook every single election year if they should "let their children know" about the election and its issues because it is "complicated" or "negative". And many of these people are adults who are at least somewhat engaged and who vote themselves. I end up gently trying to explain that they can't hide the world from their kids then flip a switch when they turn 18 and turn them into engaged citizens. These parents also call the government teacher (I took those calls) because they are worried that 16 or 17 year old Jilly is just too fragile to hear a discussion of the Second Amendment or whatever and they have kept those things from her. 

In short, don't blame the teachers. 

 

[doggie]

and we thought rick perry was bad.

[Howl]

Yeah, greg abbott is a year in office and already we're having this conversation about our governor -- is he worse than Rick Perry?  In terms of intelligence, Perry was off the charts in terms of, uh, emotional intelligence and he ran a crony-ocracy.  Greg Abbott is probably smarter (lawyer) and is busy throwing red meat to his followers.  This amendments relate somewhat to the Malheur occupation because it's all about a state's rights.  

Open carry in Texas (one of Greg Abbott's pet causes) began January 1 and unintended consequences are already popping up.  Because state psychiatric hospitals (that house Texas' most profoundly mentally ill patients) are not licensed by the state of Texas, open carry by all visitors is allowed in all parts of the hospital.  

statesman.com/news/news/guns-now-allowed-in-texas-state-run-psychiatric-ho/npztT/

[Mrsaztx]

Oh goody  I'm so very glad that I'll likely be able to get out of Texas soon. This place is so ass-backward it hurts. I just don't see why people need to be in chili's with a visible gun on their hip. And no, Greg, you don't get to say gays aren't married and you don't get to let any damn fool who wants one get a gun when they walk into Walmart. No one neeeeds a gun right now for any above board activities.

[AnywhereButHere]

8 minutes ago, Howl said:

...  

Open carry in Texas (one of Greg Abbott's pet causes) began January 1 and unintended consequences are already popping up.  Because state psychiatric hospitals (that house Texas' most profoundly mentally ill patients) are not licensed by the state of Texas, open carry by all visitors is allowed in all parts of the hospital.  

statesman.com/news/news/guns-now-allowed-in-texas-state-run-psychiatric-ho/npztT/

As if the inmates weren't already running the asylum...

My husband thinks the crazies should get their wish and just secede already. They've only been hinting at/threatening it for forever. These proposed amendments are just another shot across that bow.

[Mrsaztx]

7 minutes ago, AnywhereButHere said:

As if the inmates weren't already running the asylum...

My husband thinks the crazies should get their wish and just secede already. They've only been hinting at/threatening it for forever. These proposed amendments are just another shot across that bow.

The unfortunate part is a) the US kind of needs Texas for food supply, and b ) if they are allowed to secede they'll likely go bananas pumping oil and all manner of other things that will thoroughly wreck their environment and by extension the ecosystems of a large chunk of the remaining states. From what I can tell, people here are crazy short sighted when it comes to things like that, in no small let due to the fact that they're just really contrary. "Why can't I put 85 oil wells on my property? I'm gonna do it anyway because freedom! You can't tell me what to do!" And then they destabilize the economy and contaminate all the water and fun stuff like that

[Mercer]

Funny how right wing politicians are so in love with the Founding Fathers and the Constitution... until it becomes inconvenient, and then they want to throw it away.

[AnywhereButHere]

23 minutes ago, Mrsaztx said:

The unfortunate part is a) the US kind of needs Texas for food supply, and b ) if they are allowed to secede they'll likely go bananas pumping oil and all manner of other things that will thoroughly wreck their environment and by extension the ecosystems of a large chunk of the remaining states. From what I can tell, people here are crazy short sighted when it comes to things like that, in no small let due to the fact that they're just really contrary. "Why can't I put 85 oil wells on my property? I'm gonna do it anyway because freedom! You can't tell me what to do!" And then they destabilize the economy and contaminate all the water and fun stuff like that

I figure Texas will need an economy, so opening up trade for food items would work. Expensive probably, but since we wouldn't be supporting them in terms of federal grants/subsidies and the like, it could even out. The oil thing is scary though, and you're right. Just to be all contrary there will be oil wells in every back yard.  Hello libertarianism - goodbye ecosystems.

There would be a lot of interesting repercussions if it ever happened. I could see an enterprising Mexican leader seeing an opening for acquiring new territory for one.  I'm not sure what it would do to our global reputation. Would other countries see it as the failure of the US experiment or as a shining example of democracy in action? 

(This made more sense in my head - I've been up since 5:30 this morning, and the fog refuses to lift even after 3 cups of coffee)

[Miranda]

Well, we are talking about the same loon who sent the Texas State Guard out to "monitor" the troops during the Jade Helm training exercise to make sure the federal government didn't take over Texas, after all.

[FloraKitty35]

Cut off all of their federal aid and give them back to Mexico. 

 

 

 

[Handmaiden of Dog]

Kicking Texas (or Florida or Alaska or any other state) out of the union is not and never will be the answer.  Don't forget that there are plenty of people who live there who do not agree with the governor.  These are citizens of the United States who deserve to have all the rights and privileges protected. You can't just tell someone, "Sorry pal.  If you want to remain a citizen you have to sell up and move to another state."

 

There are plenty of legislators, Governors, Congress Critters, and even Senators who like to grandstand and bloviate about how the US Government is going to hell and we need to change the constitution.  It won't happen and they know it.  It is just a way to appear tough and keep their names in the news and their constituents riled up.  The Federal Government has the backing of the army, don't forget and if they decide...for example... that the schools need to integrate then the National Guard will be around to make that happen.  Governors are only tin pot leaders of their particular state and they don't have the power to do anything on a Federal level.

[salex]

8 hours ago, FundiesInParis said:

that's not how that works, that's not how any of this works.

Quote

As we detailed yesterday, dozens of states are considering bills that attempt to nullify federal gun laws. One such bill became a law last month in Kansas. It exempts “Made in Kansas” guns from federal regulation and makes it a crime for federal agents to enforce federal law. 

Attorney General Eric Holder recently wroteto Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, saying the law is “unconstitutional,” and that the U.S. is prepared to sue Kansas to prevent the state from “interfering with the activities of federal officials.”

Now, Brownback has fired back.

In a letter to Holder yesterday, Brownback wrote: “The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will. It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.”

Local news reports have highlighted an estimate from Kansas’ attorney general that defending the new law in court could cost the state $225,000 over the next three years. Attorney General Derek Schmidt did not immediately return a request for comment.

https://www.propublica.org/article/kansas-gov.-insists-its-ok-to-ignore-federal-gun-laws

 

 

 

This was from 2013--- not sure what the lawsuit or law is doing, but KS, like TX is now allowing more open carry in more places. I suspect a lot of states are or will follow suit 

Open carry laws and ongoing states calling for constitutional amendments to Balkanize the USA   limit federal government are also popping up in other states, often using ALEC boilerplate, 

Here is the ALEC boiler plate for calling for a convention of the states

http://www.alec.org/model-policy/article-v-convention-of-the-states/

I pcked out this quote from the model policy and googled it

Quote

WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the States to protect the liberty of our people— particularly for the generations to come—by proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States under Article V for the purpose of   restraining these and related abuses of power;

I got state after state who had this exact text in a proposed law in their state    

http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/10-states-line-up-to-limit-federal-power/ discussed 10 states last year pushing for the same thing, so they keep introducing it year after year. 

 

[Cactus]

I'm not an American and until thirty seconds ago knew nothing about this topic but the Supremacy Clause looks pretty clear-cut to me:

Quote

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

(emphasis mine)

Honestly I suspect the US would be better off ditching state governments entirely. They don't seem to do much good.

[Georgiana]

You know South Carolina passed a very similar law on December 24th, 1860.  Then a bunch of other states followed suit.

You should find out how that went for them.

[Jingerbread]

"One of the proposed measures would allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override federal regulations, "

Don't Senators already have veto power?  You know, like they have to approve stuff before it can even move on and maybe become a regulation?  And aren't Senators, uh, from individual states?

[freedomjesusfootball]

When I went to high school in Texas (early 2000s) we did have government/ civics as one of our required senior year courses. I thought that was a state-wide requirement. Maybe that was not required with Abbot was in high school. 

Does he not understand that there is effectively a "state convention" for many months out of the year every freaking year when congress meets? and that Congress has the ability to write new bills/ laws for the constitution? 

I mean, for fucks sake, this is the kind of shit you expect an idealistic but uninformed college freshman to write in the editorial of a school newspaper, or maybe just on their own personal blog. you don't expect the governor of a fucking state to think that all of a sudden, he has the capacity to influence national policy. 

very, very glad I left. 

[NachosFlandersStyle]

18 hours ago, Handmaiden of Dog said:

Kicking Texas (or Florida or Alaska or any other state) out of the union is not and never will be the answer.  Don't forget that there are plenty of people who live there who do not agree with the governor.  These are citizens of the United States who deserve to have all the rights and privileges protected. You can't just tell someone, "Sorry pal.  If you want to remain a citizen you have to sell up and move to another state. "

Yeah, I get so sick of this argument. When these guys talk about "federal meddling," what they're trying to say is "hey, I'm trying to screw over a big chunk of the population, and then the feds have to come stick their noses in and treat those folks like the American citizens that they are?!" Can you imagine if during the Civil rights era, instead of sending in the National Guard, the US at large had just said "eh, let them secede?" 

15 hours ago, Cactus said:

 

Honestly I suspect the US would be better off ditching state governments entirely. They don't seem to do much good.

At the very least, we need to find a way to make state government more transparent and get more people involved. Half the people I know hardly know the name of their state rep, papers are cutting statehouse reporters, and you don't often hear about state politics unless it's some blowhard angling for press coverage with a bill that's never going to pass. It's an alarmingly unsupervised process, at least in places I've lived, but they make so much of our law.

[Archer]

I've lived in Texas all my life, and we were required to take government/civics classes as well, and I found them, surprisingly, unbiased towards any one way of thinking.

It never ceases to amaze me how dumb so many of the people in this state are. I remember when Abbot was running, and I was hoping and praying that the backwards-thinking idiots here might overlook his policies and thing that he wouldn't be a good leader because of his disability. But of course he ran against Wendy Davis, so even a yokel would rather have a disabled man win over a woman. I was devastated at the outcome, of course.

I don't see how this will pass though, so I'm not overly worried. It's just one more thing that makes me wonder why I'm still here.

[bashfulpixie]

I understand where you're coming from @Archer on hating the outcome of your gubernatorial election.  I live in Florida where the dumbasses of my state voted for the love child of Voldemort and BatBoy Rick Scott not once, but twice.  Absolutely killed me to Skeletor elected again.  Not enough people care about state elections, which is how we end up in the mess we're in now.

[Toothfairy]

Texas. Nuff said. Can they get any worse? Come on Texas, really. 

[doggie]

12 minutes ago, Toothfairy said:

Texas. Nuff said. Can they get any worse? Come on Texas, really. 

well yes it can I mean women can still chose if they want sex or not.