|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Abbott Calls on States to Amend U.S. Constitution
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a fresh — but long shot — assertion of states’ rights, Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday called for a convention of U.S. states to pass nine new amendments to the U.S. Constitution, measures meant to limit the powers of the federal government.
The amendments would require a balanced U.S. budget and prohibit Congress from regulating any activity “that occurs wholly within one state,” a category some conservatives say includes gun use and marriage. The amendments would also allow states to override federal laws or U.S. Supreme Court decisions if two-thirds of them disagreed and require a seven-justice supermajority for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate any law passed by state or federal legislators. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(1/9/2016)
|
What? You want to make it HARDER for SCOTUS to find anti-freedom laws unconstitutional?
Where would Dick Heller have been if 6 out of 9 was considered a loss for the public, and 3 out of 9 was considered a win for the tyrants? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
