“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” said Governor Abbott.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.As the SCIOTUS has become more and more partisan, is it really a bad idea?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.Guess you hate his ideas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am leery of messing with the supreme court. The court was created to counteract the tendency of politicians to bend the constitution to fit their own whims and to counteract the "tyranny of democracy" which allows such things as slavery and secession.
I don't hate the ideas at all, I just find them a bit grandiose. We don't need a law to balance budgets, and we don't need term limits if people actually get off their ass and vote. What I hear in that article is a favorite theme, Washington = cesspool of everything bad/ local states = bastions of freedom and unquestioned proper reason and goodness. You know my spiel Lou, we have the government that we elect and that we deserve, it is not a black hole that does not reflect our petty political fights that we all have away from Washington. This governor seems to believe that if we just create more rules, more conservative rules, it will end all liberal perversion of government. Good luck governor, good luck with that.
We shouldn't need an amendment to require a balanced budget but here we are today with 19 trillion in debt so one can easily make the case, yes we do need an amendment to balance the budget.Another alternative would be term limits for congress.As to the supreme court term limits should also be imposed to end the lifetime appointments. Everyone complains about the partisanship of the court, that would end it.
When it comes to the Supreme Court, I do have to say that I am in agreement with term limits. for eleceted officials, I will concede it is frequently very hard to unseat an incumbent, even one who sucks. Still, unlike the Supremes, an elected official does need to still face a competitor in an election. If the court becomes too stacked in one direction or the other, I don't think that is in the best interest of the country. I think 20 years is plenty of time. In advance, I acknowledge the flaw in my thinking that TS directly and indirectly hammers down all the time. There are some who believe, in the mindset of Scalia, that the constitution is a dead piece of paper. Ergo, what it says is ironclad and NOT open for interpretation. Unless there are enough votes to actually change the constitution, absolutley no law should be written, no money spent, and basically no intervention from the government on any issues and the states should be allowed to create a 180 degree opposite univers from every other state if that's what they want to do. From that perspective, there really is no need of a Supreme Court because if you can't change the constitution, then you can't create law. I see that as not realistic, but that's probably to be expected from someone who sees things,as I do. To me, it is best to not keep changing the constitution, and that is why we have the supreme court to decide when a law does not agree with the constitution. Again, my view, sharply rejected by many, is that times and opinions change and we should be able to, within reason, make laws that are appropriate to today's world versus the world that existed in the 1700's. With that in mind, I believe we should have limits on how long a Supreme can be on the court in order to keep reflecting to the present.
Supreme Court Term Limits would have the potential to allow for partisan court packing much worse than it is now. I guess that would suit some folks, until their ox was gored, then they would revert to crybaby mode.
Or Mick you end up with a partisan court for a lifetime with no chance of changing the direction of the country.
If we have a partisan court it is leaning right so what's your beef Lou. You would only be happy with 9 radically right justices that always rule to favor you. Because they don't rule everything you don't like to be unconstitutional doesn't mean they are a progressive court. Sometimes Louman just because you think something is wrong and maybe it is, it is not unconstitutional. And that is the mission of the SCOTUS and it's only mission, is the question being considered within the limits of the constitution. Because something isn't written in the constitution also doesn't make it outside the boundaries of that document. The proper and necessary clause written into the document by your can't do anything wrong founding fathers makes about anything that is necessary and proper constitutional. Now what is necessary and proper is a wide open question.Now I admit 19 trillion is an enormous debt and unlike you I don't blame that entirely on our current president who has actually cut the year to year deficits every year but 1 of his presidency. A federal Government cannot operate within the confines of a balanced budget. What happens if our country is attacked? Where is the money coming from to defend us when more is needed. And my friend according to you this is the primary and mostly the only function that our government has protect it's citizens. How do we do that if we have no extra money and no provision to borrow what it takes to accomplish this basic function. The fed must have borrowing powers for whatever it needs. The States can balance their budgets only because there is a federal government to take up the slack when they require more funds for whatever comes up like a billion dollar storm or flood. If they were responsible for these things they too would carry huge debts. Many of the states do anyway. Of course that is all Obama's fault too I guess you will say.
Is this what the founders of this once great nation intended for the justices to serve for 40 years?Somehow, I think not as longevity was a bit shorter than today.The debt is the accumulation of all presidents. Unfortunately stating with Bushie who doubled the debt and now Obama who will be close to or exceed a double again. When the debt was billions not a big deal however we are talking about real money, trillions which most people cannot fathom. The upside is the debt held by out out of control government makes it a bit more palatable. Unfortunately we will one day soon blow through that and it will then become a serious issue.A federal Government cannot operate within the confines of a balanced budget. ONLY BECAUSE THEY CHOSE NOT TO. States operate within the confines of a balanced budget. The whine, kick, scream and in the end, balance the budget. The Feral Government doesn't cover the shortage, just ask Detroit, Puerto Rico.And the last time I read the constitution the Feral Government had zero responsibility in matters of disaster recovery.
I agree with you Lou that I just don't think the FF's envisioned we would be having justices serve into their 80's.
They were lucky to make it to their 50's.
In the name of compromise I'd let the Supreme ' s and Fed directors rule the world till 60. Then they'd have to take an agreed upon poison pill.
You certainly have no argument from on Fed directors. The worship of Greenspan has helped enormously to create the most demanding and expensive group of dependents, namely our commercial banks. As for the age of supremes, I mean this as a serious answer. I think age 50-70 or 75 tops is a decent range. That's just beyond middle age, but not yet quite senior. I think someone in that age range will have a better range of opinion. That said, from the strict constitutionalist view, we can have a monkey in there as long as it take the view that there can be no modern "interpretation" of 1700's thinking.