Tag Archives: constitutional law

Greg Abbott Wants a Convention to Undermine the Working Class

Politics, Uncategorized, ,

Spoiler alert: these amendments would solidify power in the hands of states which consider themselves mini-states and fiefdoms, like Texas.

Summary:

“Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state. Require Congress to balance its budget. Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law. Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting 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.”

Yet, none of this would be extended to cities. The gall of state-supremacists like Greg Abbott.

If rights belong naturally to us, then why are laws containing rights subject to a popular vote for repeal or approval? If rights belong naturally to us, why were the Bill of Rights and other parts of the 1787 constitution subject to votes by two-thirds of state legislatures? If rights belong naturally to us, why is it that we’re realizing new rights at the state and local levels which are not contained in the federal constitution and are ballyhooed as “I don’t see a right to x in the constitution”? Are those rights really inherent? Or are they really the result of claims which are militated, resisted and negotiated before they are enshrined? My “natural” rights had to be validated by white people. Women’s rights had to be validated by men. Your right to vote without a property requirement was validated by old-money landowners. Maybe this idea that rights are “inherent and natural” is an ahistorical crock.

Oregon: A State for Women

LGBT, To Export, , , , , , , ,

Two things I noticed today:

I find it gratifying that women in Oregon are making such strides, particularly to enshrine such “equality under the law” on the basis of sex into their constitution.

Unfortunately, even after the unsuccessful fight for the federal ERA in the 1970s and after so long since the Nineteenth Amendment’s passage in 1920, these 22 states (and their various extensions of protection from mere employment to full equality under the law) stand alone out of so many states which have not constitutionally-enshrined gender anti-discrimination law. We don’t have such protection which could greatly benefit the future of half the U.S. population enshrined into the majority of constitutional documents in this country.

Why can’t we in the other 28 states spell out equality in the sexes to our states’ residents through the second highest laws of our states? Why are we so reticent to spell out gender equality? Do we even believe in the government recognizing our equality, or are we still ruled by people who represent the interests and privileges of half the population of our states?

And then we wonder why New Hampshire can’t bring forward a constitutional amendment to define equality for all sexual orientations?

Our collective mindset is our most potent enemy. We must change that mindset at all levels.

Congrats to Oregon and Gov. Kate Brown!