Posted on 01/09/2016 8:17:09 AM PST by Isara
MASON CITY, Iowa–Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz wants to add a number of amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He told reporters Friday at the Praise Community Church he would like to see amendments added pertaining to a balanced budget, term limits, and restoring power to state legislatures.
“We need quite quite a few constitutional amendments,”Cruz said. "I will fight hard for a balanced budget amendment including also a term limits amendment. I think a term limits amendment is absolutely critical. If you look at the abuses of power we're seeing in Washington-term limits for members of Congress and the Supreme court."
He added, "Beyond that, I've introduced a Constitutional amendment restoring state legislators to define marriage as one man and one woman. And there are many more amendments we need, in part because the federal government and the courts have gotten so far away from the original text and our original understanding of the Constitution."
Cruz first wrote about amending the Constitution back in July when the Supreme Court ruled for same sex marriage to be recognized in each state.
The Texas senator’s remarks come as Texas Governor Greg Abbot called for a Constitutional Convention to take back states rights.
"If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of ... then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America," Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Policy Orientation.
The Dallas Morning News reports Abbot will ask lawmakers to pass a bill allowing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States.
The Convention of States (COS) Project is organized in each states with almost one million volunteers, supporters and advocates, their website says. Alaska, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama passed the organization’s Article V resolution, which proposes amendments to the U.S. Constitution on issues pertaining to limiting the power of the federal government and establishing term limits for federal officials, since the project launched in 2013. In 2015, the COS Project filed their resolutions in 37 states.
I guess his first amendment better be to change the qualifications to become President.
And the next Congress would put pensions back --retroactively.
That's why Amendments are needed.
Congress will never propose a term limit Amendment. That's why a Convention of the States is needed. We need to fundamentally and institutionally correct the balance of power between DC and the states.
Except now they have turned 180 degrees because they need to pave the way for a less conservative man to be elected.
And when Trump proposes the same thing he will have thought of it first.
“Did it stop the corruption?”
That’s my point. Endlessly amending the Constitution is a poor idea. The Founding Fathers were a group of far sighted geniuses. The politicians that want to amend the Constitution 10 ways to the wind not so much.
We don’t need ANY more amendments.
We just need to give TEETH to 9th and 10th Amendments.
Here ya go....Cruz Tour DAY 5.....Powerful and effective....they’re defecting!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gc3jpOwvHk&feature=youtu.be
We all have our own crosses to bear.
But if you will propose amendments, the first thing IMHO is to look for a way to stabilize the Supreme Court. It is probably true that direct election of senators has been a big part of the leftward drift of the court, so that would be a good change if you could get it done. But IMHO it might be better to
- set the size of SCOTUS constitutionally. I would say, make it 11 justices.
- empower the POTUS to name two justices each time he is elected, with Senate approval or without Senate approval if he named them three months in advance of the presidential election. Thus, no POTUS would have any excuse for naming justices that his base did not want.
- Longest-serving justices would have to retire as necessary to limit the size of the court. Nominally a 22 year term. But retired justices could, as willing and able, fill in for recused or disabled non-retired justices.
The other thing that might be done in an ideal constitutional amendment would be to fix the media. Fix, as in neuter. The wire services (read, the AP) are an anachronism. They arose to exploit nascent electronic communication technology, conserving scarce/expensive communication bandwidth in the dissemination of news. Communications bandwidth is now basically free, or you would not be reading this on the internet. The deleterious effect of the wire services could have been predicted by Adam Smith: Â
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsThe wire services are nothing but continuous virtual meetings of journalists, not for diversion but exactly to decide what the news is. They are pernicious and should be outlawed.
If you want to believe rumors and innuendo that is your choice.
I chose to do more substantial research and liked what I found.
I agree. And if people want it, they will vote for it. They will create the conditions in which it flourishes. If they want something else, they will empower that. Those that want something else should sit silently when they get more of what they have.
“No union donations, no corporate donations, no PAC donations. Only donations from individual persons that can vote for them.”
Exactly what Trump is doing.
Good post!
Brave and happy warriors still go to battle even if there is a possibility they may not make it thru. It is time the attempts were made. Of course the chosen ones want to continue to ride the gravy train. They don’t wish to see their livelihood go by the wayside. WTP put them there, WTP can oust them out of their comfy cushy chairs. WE JUST NO LONGER VOTE FOR THEM. If they wish to continue to ride, they do so at their own risk. How to eat an elephant...one bite at a time!
Consider this an appetizer of things to come....like just desserts!! (big smile) Have you a sense that an entirely new feeling has swept across the fruited plains these past few days? One of excitement rather than fear? One of faith and hope rather than discouragement? I have and the feeling is remarkable. Just wonder if others feel the same. No mountain is too tall, even for those who suffer from heights. WE CAN DO IT AND THIS IS THE TIME TO SHOW WE CAN!!
He’s got a great video team.
In California (and several other states) that wouldn't help one bit.
It all depends on what kind of deal you're closing.
Obama, Reid and Pelosi are good at closing deals.
First principles. What are Trump's, besides "Making America Great Again?"
True. But let them do what they want. Any state in control of it’s senators is a plus. Eventually Cali and NY will either go along or be shut out by the rest.
I want to know what deal he closes with a GOPDNC united against him.
What I really want to know is how long Don or Ted last before the uniparty impeaches them. Because people are kidding themselves if they think the liberals they stupidly elected will stand for the will of those same people now that the libs hold power in congress.
“...Ted Cruz is a good guy, but he went to law school where they teach you (brainwash you with) UNconstitutional law...”
So Cruz is but a trained parrot, forever chained and enslaved to the legal philosophy of his lying law-school professors. A “Manchurian Candidate”, eh?
“...You have to manually and carefully sort out the truth from the lies they give you in law school. Few do that. (To the extent I have been able, I have, and continue to do so.)...”
You are asserting that Cruz lacks your special ability that only a blessed “few” have to “sort out the truth”? Where does one acquire this magical power? Barnes & Noble? The Internet? It’s certainly not at Law School where you say they “brainwash you” with “UNconstitutional” lies...
If you don’t want to vote for Cruz because you prefer another candidate, that is fine. There is no need to present yourself as one of the infallible and special “few” who with a mystical ability to “do that” (sort out the truth from the lies) as cover for why you don’t prefer Cruz. You can just say you don’t like Cruz. I’ll have no reason to doubt you, as will most others.
Best of luck with your candidate!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.