Thoughts on the Texas Plan

My views on the U.S. Constitution are a little different from most people. I am openly favorable of secession, so it should be clear that I don't mind trading the constitution for something more relevant to my home state. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that I support actions such as using the "living constitution" argument to circumvent the constitution.


I am not a right wing nutcase who believes that the founding fathers were perfect and psychic. They had a lot of good ideas, but there is no way they could have known the exact impact the constitution would have on the 21st century. Among their best ideas were ways to update the constitution when problems arise or when the document becomes dated. For some reason, a lot of people who love the constitution hate that part of it.

Yesterday, the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, proposed something that he calls the Texas Plan. The idea behind the Texas Plan is to call for a Convention of States to address some of the constitution's problems. For the most part, the proposed amendments strengthen existing components to the constitution that I personally support. Although I am not an expert in constitutional law (I have something in common with Obama), I thought that I would share my thoughts regarding this proposal.

Let me start by mentioning the actual convention. This is something that has never been done, so there are uncertainties as to how this works and what legal rights such a convention has. Most concerns seem extreme and unrealistic.

Although I would like to see the convention happen, I would not expect much to come from it. We are living in an era that is highly resistant to change. It would not be easy to get a 3/4 majority to agree on any changes.

Now on to the proposed amendments:

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

This would probably need to be tweaked. If a state is clearly violating constitutional rights, the federal government should have a right to become involved. This could include congressional action (although such action should target the problem rather than the specific state). This amendment could be viewed as redundant. The 10th amendment already protects state rights. Unfortunately, an abused commerce clause has given liberals a way to work around the 10th amendment. It's kind of interesting that the constitution has been interpreted as though a previously written article of the constitution is supposed to completely negate more recent clarification.

2. Require Congress to balance its budget.

This is another one that I think would need to be tweaked. In cases of a legitimate emergency, I think that it's acceptable to take out loans without having to rush decisions regarding how those funds will be repaid. Those instances should be quite rare, and we do need the government to be accountable for the money it spends.

3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

I suspect that this amendment is aimed at the executive branch (although I could be wrong). Over the years, this branch has expanded to include various agencies. Since they are under the executive branch, they have been given certain executive powers, essentially allowing them to create and alter laws. I actually have slightly mixed feelings on this one. I actually agree that the president should be able to delegate some responsibilities. After all, the president will never be an expert on everything. Personally, I think this amendment should still work. It's one thing to allow these agency to develop basic guidelines for how things could work. It's something else to actually create and alter laws. If the president wants to put his name on an executive action, he can sign it himself. Additionally, this could make it more difficult to rush through too many changes from a branch of the government that was never meant to legislate.

4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

This is similar to the previous amendment, but it's geared toward the executive branch's prevention of state law rather than introduction of federal law. Again, this could be redundant since state rights are already supposed to be protected.

5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

The supreme court is perhaps the most corrupted component of the government. Justices look for flimsy connection to the constitution to justify pushing political agendas. They were supposed to rule on constitutionality. This was an oversight in the constitution, and this is the branch with the least protection against corruption. This proposed amendment adds a much needed option to address a corrupt judicial ruling.

6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

Among the problems with the Supreme Court is that their rulings determine how laws can and should be interpreted. If the Supreme Court simply doesn't like a law, it is far too easy for them to reject it. This amendment should make it more difficult (but not impossible) to eliminate laws unless there is a legitimate constitutional concern.

7. 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.

I keep talking about how it's redundant to protect state rights. Compare this one to the 10th amendment (see below). How did things get so bad that anyone would consider amending the constitution to repeat what is already stated? Also, why do so many liberal comments I have read insist that all of the proposed amendments are bad? Do they honestly believe that restating an amendment goes against the existing constitution?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

This is another amendment designed to protect state rights. It provides an option to take action when the federal government violates the constitution. This could be viewed as common sense.

9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

This provides another tool to counter congress when they take questionable actions. As someone who believes in state rights, I like the idea that the states can have options to hold the federal government accountable. If the federal government goes against the interests of the states, the states should have tools to fight back.