Greg Abbott introduces a plan to repeal the 20th and 21st centuries

In a 70-page, annotated treatise entitled, “Restoring the Rule of Law with States Leading the Way,” Abbot spells out his strategy and goals in further detail, while alternately attempting to preempt arguments about their legality. He also levels some political attacks, including an accusation that Obamacare proponents in Congress were responsible for “abandoning, ignoring, and eroding the strictures of the Constitution.”

Speaking as but one citizen, I’m sick to death of Right-wing zealots believing that their God by rights should be our government and that claiming the Constitution is being trampled doesn’t mean actually having to provide examples of said trampling. Gov. Abbott’s nine “amendments” are a joke, an unserious and extralegal initiative that would lead to the destabilization and perhaps even the eventual dissolution of this country. That may seem alarmist, but a reading of Abbott’s amendments is a recipe for chaos of a sort not seen since the Founding Fathers still had to worry about attacks from natives.

If you think I’m kidding, how about we take a look at what Gov. Pander McCrazy Abbott is proposing, one amendment at a time:

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

On the surface, this seems like an idea with some potential…but what happens when a state is controlled by a cabal of ultra-Conservative theocrats bent on governing via “Biblical principles?” What happens when a state government decides to blatantly violate personal freedom in an unconstitutional manner? Where are the checks and balances? This amendment is a recipe for exactly the sort of tyranny Gov. Abbott professes to hate…’course, it’s not tyranny when you’re doing it to someone else, eh?

II. Require Congress to balance its budget.

Conservatives are wont to use the “a family has to balance its budget” argument to buttress their belief that government must balance its budget. The problem with this argument is that it’s an apples-and-oranges comparison. Government is in no way like a family, and to treat it as such hamstrings its ability to provide needed services and/or react appropriately to emergencies (wars, natural disasters, etc.)

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

“[A]dministrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats” DON’T make federal law; that’s Congress’ bailiwick. What agencies and bureaucrats do is to implement laws by creating rules and regulations governing aspects of their sphere of influence. If they were prevented from doing this, the federal government would cease to function effectively, and Congress would be overwhelmed. An already inept and dysfunctional deliberative body would become even more overburdened and impotent (if that’s even possible). The result would be a government unable to respond in an appropriate and timely manner to all manner of things citizens expect their elected representatives to address. This amendment would literally create chaos across the board.

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

States being allowed to pass laws with no effective system of checks and balances would be a recipe for chaos and exactly the sort of tyranny Gov. Abbott purports to despise. Part of the role of the federal government is to reign in states when necessary and maintain a baseline standard of constitutionality. Take away that function, and you’d have states like Texas believing they’re free to do whatever they damned well please whenever it happens to please them.

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

One of the functions of the Supreme Court is to deliberate issues in an environment focused on the rule of law free of political or emotional considerations. Of course, here in the real world, politics and emotion absolutely play a role in Supreme Court decisions, but our current system of checks and balances generally succeeds at keeping the legislative, executive, or judicial branches from going off the reservation. Introducing yet another layer seems nothing if not a recipe for gridlock as well as unnecessary discord and turmoil.

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

Part of the Supreme Court’s mandate is to override state and local laws that run afoul of the constitution. If a state passes a law requiring students and workers to publicly pray to the Christian God every morning, that’s a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. This amendment would eliminate the Court’s ability to overrule such unconstitutional (state) government overreach. Beyond that, it also means that states don’t get to do whatever they please, the Constitution be damned.

VII. 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.

We live in a world altogether different than the one the Founding Fathers inhabited in the 18th century. Government now deals with issues even the most prescient 18th-century intellect could never have imagined. Yet Conservatives like Gov. Abbott want to continue to hamstring government by forcing it to continue operating as if we live in 18th century America. There’s some insightful, principled leadership, eh?

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

This would seem to depend on how one chooses to define “overstep their bounds.” In the case of most on the Rabid Right, that means not being allowed to do what they choose whenever they desire and in whatever form or fashion strikes them as appropriate. If that isn’t a recipe for government overreach, I don’t know what would be. Of course, if you’re a true Conservative like Gov. Abbott, it’s not “government overreach” when your side is the one making the rules. Not that states shouldn’t be able to air legitimate grievances, of course, but there are already mechanisms in place which allow for that sort of thing. Increasing costs to taxpayers over ideological conflicts

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

This is the only one of Gov. Abbott’s nine amendments that has any basis in sound reasoning. Then again, states are already able to contest a federal law or regulation through the courts. They can bring a case before the Supreme Court if necessary and attempt to convince the justices that a federal law or regulation is unreasonable, unnecessary, and/or overly burdensome.

In the main, Gov. Abbott’s amendments seem just the ticket…if the goal is to create less efficient, more expensive government. Truthfully, Conservatives like him have never been about orderly, efficient and cost-effective govenance. They want to be the ones in control, with political power being a higher priority than efficient, responsive, constitutionally sound government. It’s the same old dog-and-pony show, Conservatives trying to find new and different ways to seize and maintain power, which they then use to line the pockets of the wealthy benefactors who fill their campaign coffers.

I do find it interesting that Gov. Abbott, who’s all sorts of upset about the “breakdown” in the rule of law wants to amend to Constitution by going outside the law. There’s no legal mechanism available which would allow for the sort of Constitutional convention of states he’s proposing. No one can say how it would work, or even IF it would work…because nothing of the sort has ever been attempted. The constitutionality and legality of such a convention appears at the very least to be highly questionable…but the rule of law appears to be less important to Gov. Abbott than having the right and ability to manipulate it to serve his agenda.

Gov. Abbotts’ treatise is characteristic of many Conservative arguments not based in facts or empirical truth. The assumption seems to be that burying the reader in a blizzard of thinly supported claims and poorly-supported arguments will ispo facto translate to abject, undeniable truth.

Unfortunately for the Governor, 70 pages of bullshit is still bullshit. To use a folksy aphorism popular in Texas, no matter how much lipstick one puts on a pig, what you have when it’s all said and done is a pig.