Governor Abbott Unveils Texas Plan, Offers Constitutional Amendments To Restore The Rule Of Law

Originally Posted by donnay

So you don't think we will lose our rights overnight at the rate we are going? How do we peaceably reign them in, then?

I really want to hear some possible solutions.

The difference is one of time, most likely. An Article V convention would strip us to buck nakedness from one day to the next. Consider the interests of globalists. Consider the money and position they have and occupy. Consider what is at stake. Theye could literally make every man at such a convention an overnight billionaire and president/governor/chief dog catcher of all of them. They could guarantee all their children free educations at an school named, as well as position and status moving forward.

Imagine such people cam with, say, ten trillion dollars to spend and all the access they can give away as perks. Just how long does anyone think that convention would remain honest? It would be gone to conclusion in reality in ten minutes and the rest of us would then be faced with the decision of living with it or killing every last one of the bastards, neither choice being particularly appealing.

We could right this ship tomorrow, if we had the common knowledge, desire, and vision of what America should be. But we don't. We have a huge proportion of people who want something for nothing, courtesy of the neoslaves. That would include you, Ms. Donnay.

At this point I believe we will likely fall into open slavery. Barring that, the only likely path back will be warfare. People are simply going to have to die because their world views drive them to trespass upon the rest without pause or concern for the rights of anyone but their own. This foe of liberty is implacable and they will not stop in their demands, especially so long as the men with guns from the fedgov are there to bolster them.

Were the fedgov to step aside, the situation would alter dramatically with the neomasters then faced with the choice of either having to enforce the will of their desires upon you by their own hands, or standing down, getting some basic sense about them, and going to find jobs somewhere even if not for $15/hr at Burger King.

Barring all that and our choice to lay down, there will by all means be a fight and it will be fugly. But that is the only likely path back from the brink at which we now teeter so precariously.

Personally, I think we are heading into the abyss. I hope I am wrong, but I have a bad feeling about the immediate future. Keep an eye on the conventions for fireworks and if things go awry, do not be too surprised if the Kenyan declares martial law, even if only in regions.

Into a very bad corner have we been painted, courtesy of our own lassitude and will to stupidity. We believed that which was convenient to that lassitude and our corrupted desire to believe in the world of bunnies, light, and unicorn poo. Now we are reaping the bitter harvest of that which we chose to sow. Either we eat of the poison or we suck it up for a hard winter and start anew come spring, this time with our heads not ensconced deeply in our rectums and with smarter eyes, having seen the result we chose yesterday. Let us at least learn from our terrible mistakes.

But don't hold your breath in wait, and for God's sake don't bet the farm on it.

Originally Posted by William Tell

If Abbott was serious about defending liberty he would be advocating nullification. States and officials that don't have the courage to defend the Constitution as written certainly won't have the wisdom or courage to improve upon it. All the sellouts in state governments will be the ones to control a convention initially.

Repworthy.

Originally Posted by osan

The difference is one of time, most likely. An Article V convention would strip us to buck nakedness from one day to the next. Consider the interests of globalists. Consider the money and position they have and occupy. Consider what is at stake. Theye could literally make every man at such a convention an overnight billionaire and president/governor/chief dog catcher of all of them. They could guarantee all their children free educations at an school named, as well as position and status moving forward.

Imagine such people cam with, say, ten trillion dollars to spend and all the access they can give away as perks. Just how long does anyone think that convention would remain honest? It would be gone to conclusion in reality in ten minutes and the rest of us would then be faced with the decision of living with it or killing every last one of the bastards, neither choice being particularly appealing.

We could right this ship tomorrow, if we had the common knowledge, desire, and vision of what America should be. But we don't. We have a huge proportion of people who want something for nothing, courtesy of the neoslaves. That would include you, Ms. Donnay.

At this point I believe we will likely fall into open slavery. Barring that, the only likely path back will be warfare. People are simply going to have to die because their world views drive them to trespass upon the rest without pause or concern for the rights of anyone but their own. This foe of liberty is implacable and they will not stop in their demands, especially so long as the men with guns from the fedgov are there to bolster them.

Were the fedgov to step aside, the situation would alter dramatically with the neomasters then faced with the choice of either having to enforce the will of their desires upon you by their own hands, or standing down, getting some basic sense about them, and going to find jobs somewhere even if not for $15/hr at Burger King.

Barring all that and our choice to lay down, there will by all means be a fight and it will be fugly. But that is the only likely path back from the brink at which we now teeter so precariously.

Personally, I think we are heading into the abyss. I hope I am wrong, but I have a bad feeling about the immediate future. Keep an eye on the conventions for fireworks and if things go awry, do not be too surprised if the Kenyan declares martial law, even if only in regions.

Into a very bad corner have we been painted, courtesy of our own lassitude and will to stupidity. We believed that which was convenient to that lassitude and our corrupted desire to believe in the world of bunnies, light, and unicorn poo. Now we are reaping the bitter harvest of that which we chose to sow. Either we eat of the poison or we suck it up for a hard winter and start anew come spring, this time with our heads not ensconced deeply in our rectums and with smarter eyes, having seen the result we chose yesterday. Let us at least learn from our terrible mistakes.

But don't hold your breath in wait, and for God's sake don't bet the farm on it.

Thanks, Osan for replying. I am all out of rep, right now.

The globalists want a civil war--especially this racial dividing. I just hope many people wake up before it is too late.

Originally Posted by donnay

Governor Abbott Unveils Texas Plan, Offers Constitutional Amendments To Restore The Rule Of Law

Governor Greg Abbott today delivered the keynote address at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Annual Policy Orientation where he unveiled his Texas Plan to restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose. In his plan, Governor Abbott offers nine constitutional amendments to rein in the federal government and restore the balance of power between the States and the United States. The Governor proposes achieving the constitutional amendments through a Convention Of States.

“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” said Governor Abbott. “We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way. To do that I am adding another item to the agenda next session. I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our Constitution.”

Governor Abbott went on to explain that dysfunction in Washington, D.C. stems largely from the federal government’s refusal to follow the Constitution. Congress routinely violates its enumerated powers, while taxing and spending its way from one financial crisis to another. The President exceeds his executive powers to impose heavy-handed regulations. And the Supreme Court imposes its policy views under the guise of judicial interpretation. Governor Abbott urged action by Texas – and other states – to restore the Rule of Law in America.

Governor Abbott offered the following constitutional amendments:

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting 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.

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

The Governor of Texasnistan proposing a Constitutional convention hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

No, thanks.


.

Originally Posted by Origanalist

I wish him well on this, even though a convention of the state's makes me more than a little nervous.

I think we can alleviate fears if we don't just have them go focused on promoting a set of laws and NOTHING ELSE but those laws. Their performance will make them trustworthy enough to send them again if needed. We can't have them deciding to write new laws there we never had consensus on.

Originally Posted by osan

Repworthy.

Osan,

I recall you were in "favor" of Trump, so to speak, because we are, for all intents and purposes, $#@!ed and we should 'pick our executioner because if we don't someone will damn well pick one for us' (paraphrased).

Wouldn't a Article V COTS be more or less the same thing? That is to say, what have we got to lose? I would just as soon risk losing it all in an Article V convention than to wither this slow softkill-death which has been foisted upon us. If there is a smidgen of a snowball's chance in hell that such a convention could even marginally cede power from the PTB and back to the states and to the people, wouldn't such a risk be worth it? The worst that could happen (ie 'runaway convention') is that the curtain is fully drawn back on the globalist powers and we have to move straight to ludicrous-speed in fighting for our rights and our very lives. Such a convention would upset the apple cart one way or another and I think the damn cart needs some good god damn upsetting.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by jllundqu

Osan,

I recall you were in "favor" of Trump, so to speak, because we are, for all intents and purposes, $#@!ed and we should 'pick our executioner because if we don't someone will damn well pick one for us' (paraphrased).

Not really in favor. My point was that he was the only "viable" candidate with any unknowns about him. If I'm going to be part of this sort of clownery, I'd rather take my chances on the unknowns. It's like choosing which pistol you will use in your game of Russian roulette: the one with all six chambers loaded (Hillary/Bernie) or the one with only five (Trump).

Wouldn't a Article V COTS be more or less the same thing? That is to say, what have we got to lose?

Valid question, my answer being that I don't know. Actually, I do. If I consent to an A.V convention, then it can be taken that I consent to whatever result drops into my lap. I give no such consent. I would rather make Themme work as hard as possible for what it is they apparently want of me. That buys time, which is on nobody's side in affairs like this, but that at least gives some augmented possibility that enough people will wake up and say "no". Not likely, I admit, but still better than the alternative.

I would just as soon risk losing it all in an Article V convention than to wither this slow softkill-death which has been foisted upon us.

Again, a valid POV. I suppose the question boils down to which approach is most likely to stir people into some sense of self-preservation... assuming such is even possible anymore.

Such a convention would upset the apple cart one way or another and I think the damn cart needs some good god damn upsetting.

Thoughts?

You have provoked me into a different view. You may be onto something.

Bastard.



But what if the convention went quietly awry with subtle changes nobody would notice for some years until one day the real meat of it comes to the fore via "interpretation"? That is a prospect that should scare everyone because that is the way of the clever and patient tyrant.