Texas Tribune: Abbott asserts unprecedented budget powers

[Winehole23]

If you want to make big changes without raising too much attention, make them boring.


For an example, look at how some serious power over the state budget shifted from the Legislature to the governor. Taking his veto powers where previous governors have feared to go, Gov. Greg Abbott (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/greg-abbott/) knocked out several spending items that state lawmakers had composed not as “appropriations,” but as “informational items.”


The lawmakers’ idea, a common tactic in Texas state budgets, was that the spending part of a budget — the part where the governor’s veto pen is a threat — is where the money is set aside. Everything else, as practice has it, is for informational purposes only.


Abbott challenged (http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/22/analysis-challenge-vetoes-and-agovernors-power/) that after the 2015 legislative session, vetoing some of the Legislature’s spending plans by dipping into the fine print and saying the finance people couldn’t block him with its use of “magic words.” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/dan-patrick/) unexpectedly sided (http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/22/patrick-backs-abbott-line-item-veto-dispute/) with the governor instead of with his own senators. Comptroller Glenn Hegar was confounded enough to ask the attorney general (http://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/26/hegar-punts-abbott-vetoes-asks-ag-decide/) for a legal opinion. And Ken Paxton (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/ken-paxton/), the AG, opined (http://www.texastribune.org/2015/12/21/attorney-generals-office-abbotts-budget-vetoes-sho/) that the governor is right.


Paxton’s opinion isn’t a legal ruling; push can still come to shove. But for now, the governor is enjoying power over the budget that his predecessors never asserted.

http://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/04/analysis-battle-too-complicated-rouse-most-voters/

[Winehole23]

Abbott has a line-item veto, meaning he can strike any single item from a budget that he doesn’t like. This legislative trick of using line items is designed to thwart governors. If you put all of the funding for a university in one line and then list the services the school should provide without numbers, the governor can either keep the whole school or lose the whole school.


So far, no governor has been so bold.


But lawmakers also want to hold the agencies of government accountable. They like to make sure money is spent the way they want it spent. It forces them to be specific, even in their so-called informational items, and the more specific they get, the more they expose themselves to vetoes.


Several targets of Abbott’s vetoes had dollar amounts attached to them, and have helped him make the case that those were, as the lawyers put it, “Items of Appropriation.”


Eyes glazing over a bit? That could be a sign that something momentous is going on. Instead of talking about how many people get what kind of nursing home care, or whether police officers have solid pensions or whether the schools are great or good or fair or poor, they can talk about numbers, items of appropriation, informational items, and whether the governor can or cannot have a meaningful say in how the state operates.


Budgets are not just piles of boring numbers. If you pay attention, they are the government’s operating instructions. This is an argument about who gets to write them.

[boutons_deux]

Texas is fucked and unfuckable.

[Winehole23]

go sit on a fork and spin, boutons

[DMX7]

Texas is fucked and unfuckable.

This line isn't sticking.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This line isn't sticking.

Nope.

[boutons_deux]

Abbott Calls on States to Amend U.S. Constitution

In a fresh — but long shot — assertion of states’ rights, Gov. Greg Abbott (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/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.

When Texas lawmakers meet in 2017, the governor will ask them to approve the constitutional convention — one that would have to be agreed to by other states to actually occur. In 2015, a similar bill (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HJR77) passed the Texas House but ultimately died in a Senate committee.

“When measured by how far we have strayed from the Constitution we originally agreed to, :lol

the government’s flagrant and repeated violations of the rule of law amount to a wholesale abdication of the Constitution’s design,” Abbott wrote in the 90-page proposal (http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/21829?utm_medium=social&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=20160108_txgov-p-restoringtheruleoflaw_01082016_twitter&utm_content=txgov), which he was set to announce in a 1 p.m. speech before the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Abbott said President Barack Obama's administration had infringed on states’ rights and individual liberties, specifically mentioning an executive order Obama announced this week on gun control.

“The president took action that threatens Second Amendment rights, :lol

even though the entire point of the Bill of Rights was to protect Americans from invasions of their liberties,” Abbott said in his prepared remarks. :lol

The 27 existing amendments to the U.S. Constitution were all approved by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress. A constitutional convention would be a different, untested route to passing new amendments. By law, if 34 states ask for a constitutional convention, they may meet to consider changes. Any amendment would require the support of at least 38 states to become law.

http://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/08/abbott-calls-states-amend-us-constitution/?mc_cid=f39225cadf&mc_eid=d070f58998

Texans fuck themselves to unfuckability.

Repug MISgovernance, there's is no other kind.

[boutons_deux]

Texas governor jeopardized secret investigation of Islamic State suspect: sources

Two Texas politicians made public details of an investigation into a terrorism suspect while it was still in progress, potentially jeopardizing the inquiry, three sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick released details on Thursday night contained in documents that were still under court seal, the sources said. Spokesmen for Abbott and Patrick declined to comment on Friday.

The suspect, Omar Faraj Saeed al-Hardan, 24, appeared in court on Friday accused of providing material support to Islamic State overseas. He entered the United States as an Iraqi refugee in November 2009 and lived in Houston, according to a court document.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/texas-governor-jeopardized-secret-investigation-of-islamic-state-suspect-sources/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

:lol

[FromWayDowntown]

Abbott's complaints about executive overreach in other governmental contexts are rich in vitamin I.

[boutons_deux]

It’s Indisputable – Republicans Hate America’s Democracy And Its Constitution

there is a mountain of evidence that although they love the 2nd and 10th Amendments more than they love their god, bible, and corporations, they have absolutely no use for the rest of the Constitution.

A few Americans may be aware that Republicans hate the Constitution primarily because it forbids religious and corporate tyranny, but what they really hate is that the Constitution exists in the first place.

In fact, since the people elected an African American as President, Republicans have stepped up their calls for a new Republican Constitution contrived by Republicans to serve Republicans and their masters in the religious and corporate world.

Now, for the second time in five years, a Republican governor is calling for the United States Constitution, the one conservatives claim to love and cherish, and the conservative Supreme Court, to be nullified according to the whims of Republicans and their religious and corporate masters.

On Friday past, Texas Governor Greg Abbott decided it was his turn to make a stand against the U.S. Constitution, neuter the Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress, and create a Republican paradise where a minority rules America. Abbott, like all Republicans, truly believes the Founding Fathers and Constitution’s Framers were nasty tyrants because they created a secular representative democracy by including Article VI, Section 2 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause) in the founding document; the simple clause that prevents America from fracturing into several separate fiefdoms.

he proposed a few nullification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis) fixes that 155 years ago precipitated America’s deadliest war. Abbott’s proposals parrot the Confederacy’s deep hatred of the Constitution and America that have become the Republican Party’s defining traits today.

Mr. Abbott revealed his nine-point plan (https://mobile.twitter.com/brianmrosenthal/status/685538980029444096/photo/1) to remake the Constitution in the Koch-evangelical image, and along with the typical ‘balanced budget’ nonsense were two or three specific items that would spell the end of America’s representative democracy, and the beginning of Republican minority rule over Congress and the Supreme Court.

Most of the nine conservative fixes ban federal legislation that Republicans hate, but two are particularly specific in legalizing Republican-state nullification.

one of the Republican constitutional amendments “allows a two-thirds majority of states to veto any Supreme Court ruling they do not agree with.”

Another similar amendment (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-gop-s-new-constitutional-amendment-give-states-veto-power-over-federal-laws) being reintroduced by Abbott allows “a two-thirds majority of states to abolish any federal law or regulation” they or their corporate or religious supporters don’t like.

Republicans have easily taken control of two-thirds of state legislatures and governorships. What is even more telling is that the 32 states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors) Republicans control make up about 100 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population) Americans out of a population eclipsing 320 million.

For the arithmetic challenged, that means much less than one third of the population would have absolute control of the country and veto power over the President, Congress and the Supreme Court.

those 100 million people in 30-something states do not all support Republican policies and would mean that much less than a third of the population would control the direction of the country; it is not what the Founding Fathers intended for America but Republicans could not care any less about the Founders than they do the Constitution or America’s once-renowned representative democracy.

Over the past seven years, especially the last four, Republicans have expressed great interest in eliminating much of the Constitution that prevents them from ruling like dictators. For example, there is little doubt Republicans, particularly religious Republicans, hate the 14th Amendment that prevents religious Republicans from legally discriminating against the non-compliant and non-believers.

They also seriously hate the idea of birthright citizenship and want it abolished as much as they want equal rights under the law eliminated for anyone who is not a white Christian conservative male guaranteed to religiously vote for Republicans.

Republicans also detest the 17th Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution) that was arguably the last piece of the Constitution that actually brought America a little closer to being a representative democracy.

Since Republicans have demonstrated they oppose democracy out of hand, they want to ban the people from electing representatives to serve in the United States’ Senate; they want Republicans to appoint Republicans to the Senate.

as a bonus for conservatives, it will wipe out any semblance of a representative democracy; something the Koch brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) openly support.

Actually, Republicans know the key to increasing their power over the entire nation is possible if they can just be done with vote-suppression and abolish the 15th Amendment; the amendment (https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/15thamendment.html) they hate with religious passion because it provides African Americans with the right to vote.

With their conservative racists making up a majority on the Supreme Court, Republicans in the mostly Southern states have successfully chipped away (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html) at African Americans’ right to vote. It is not a stretch to imagine they are unwilling to wait patiently for the next time the conservative Court finds a means of completely banning people of color from voting, so a much-touted Republican constitutional convention would certainly include abolition of the 15th Amendment and the end of America’s fragile representative democracy.

Republicans hate the U.S. Constitution as much as they hate the American people. That Texas Governor Greg Abbott is the latest Republican with the audacity to make a stand and call for deconstructing the Constitution is not stunning.

Especially if it gives Republican-governed states authority to veto legally-passed federal laws, eliminate several constitutional amendments and clauses, and overrule decisions handed down by the Supreme Court that do not toe the evangelical, oil industry, and gun fanatics’ line.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/11/its-indisputable-republicans-hate-americas-democracy-constitution.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

Repugs have fucked America and will continue to fuck it up even more.

Thanks, Texians and other slave, red states!

[boutons_deux]

Billionaires BoyToy Rubio also wants to destroy the Constitution and the United State

==============================

A few weeks ago, however, Rubio’s far-right worldview came into sharper focus when he endorsed his most outrageous idea to date. The GOP senator has, with great enthusiasm, thrown his support behind a constitutional convention, touting his position in speeches, interviews, and this (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/06/marco-rubio-constitutional-convention-editorials-debates/78368672/) USA Today op-ed published last week.


The framers of our Constitution allowed for a constitutional convention because they knew our citizens were the ultimate defense against an overbearing federal government. They gave the American people, through their state representatives, the power to call a convention made up of at least 34 states, where delegates could then propose amendments that would require the support of 38 states to become law.

This method of amending our Constitution has become necessary today because of Washington’s refusal to place restrictions on itself. The amendment process must be approached with caution, which is why I believe the agenda should be limited to ideas that reduce the size and scope of the federal government, such as imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court and forcing fiscal responsibility through a balanced budget requirement.


Rubio keeps referring to an “Article V convention of states (https://twitter.com/TaylorSCHouse/status/685864998745313280).” What does that mean?

Ordinarily, proponents of constitutional amendments look for two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate. There is, however, an alternative route: Article V of the Constitution says (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html) two-thirds of the states can call for a convention to consider amendments, which would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Do 34 states currently support a convention?

Estimates vary on exactly how many states are on board, but just about everyone agrees that proponents are not yet close to 34.

Since the Constitution’s creation, how many of these conventions have we seen?

None. This would be the first since the original constitutional convention in 1787.

What does the president have to do with the convention process?

Actually, nothing, but Rubio is looking for ways to pander to far-right extremists, who’ve quietly tried to build support (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/12/chris_kapenga_mark_levin_and_article_v_the_secret_ campaign_to_pass_conservative.html) for a convention, so the senator has stumbled onto this, vowing to become an “Article V convention of states” cheerleader if he’s elected to the White House. As a procedural matter, however, he would have no real authority in making a convention happen or what would unfold if such a convention took place.

Is Rubio alone in supporting the idea of a convention?

Occasionally, progressive leaders (http://www.vox.com/2014/5/3/5678112/vermont-calls-for-constitutional-convention-to-get-money-out-of) will push for a convention as a way to circumvent Congress on campaign-finance reform, but most proponents are on the far-right fringe. The religious right movement, in particular, has pushed aggressively (https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/cos-play-religious-right-groups-launch-effort-to-rewrite-the-constitution) for the idea. Among 2016 candidates, however, Rubio is the only major contender pushing the idea.

How, exactly, would this work in practice?

No one can say with confidence how such a convention would play out since there is no precedent for such an event and the relevant constitutional language adds little clarity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/21/a-constitutional-convention-could-be-the-single-most-dangerous-way-to-fix-american-government/). Probably the most significant question is scope: Rubio says he wants a narrow convention focused solely on the amendments he likes, but there’s a real possibility that once the constitutional door is open, convention delegates could consider literally any changes, “even if it included overhauling the entire constitutional system (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-08/bernstein-constitutional-convention-is-a-terrible-idea)” of the United States.

Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe wrote not long ago that convening a convention would be “putting the whole Constitution up for grabs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/21/a-constitutional-convention-could-be-the-single-most-dangerous-way-to-fix-american-government/).”

How would convention delegates be chosen?

No one knows for sure; it’s generally assumed that Congress would have to establish some kind of rules for the process. Many scholars fear, however, that a radicalized Congress would stack the deck, effectively rigging the process to ensure far-right outcomes.

What’s more, there’s no reason to assume a convention would be bound by congressional guidance. The late Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once wrote, “[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.”

Rubio says this is the only way to get a balanced-budget amendment and term limits added to the Constitution.

Perhaps, though a balanced-budget amendment is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/kasichs-poor-choice-signature-issue).

As for term limits, we already have them: they’re called elections. What Rubio is pushing is a system in which the government places new restrictions on who Americans can vote for: if we want to re-elect officials we believe are serving us well, Rubio wants to change the Constitution so that our choice is taken from us. In other words, he wants to impose an arbitrary mechanism that artificially blocks Americans’ right to re-elect our own representatives, regardless of our wishes, in the hopes of keeping experienced policymakers out of government by legal fiat.

Weren’t these ideas considered and rejected 20 years ago?

Yes.

Why would a politician who claims to be focused on the future invest so much energy on proposals discredited decades ago?

It’s this contradiction that strikes at the heart (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/candidate-old-american-century) of Rubio’s entire candidacy.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-most-radical-and-dangerous-idea-rubios-platform?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

Abbott will ROLL OVER this pushback against ignorant, authoritarian state Repugs denying local control of school districts

Bill Of Rights For Schools Parallels Abbott’s Push For Constitutional Change

A member of the State Board of Education is proposing a public school Parent Bill of Rights that echoes a series of constitutional changes announced by Governor Greg Abbott on Friday. The plan asks that school boards be given the same power to override state legislative and judicial directives deemed unfit at the local level.

State Board of Education member Thomas Ratliff is offering up a plan that he says fits in with the Governor’s proposal for increasing states’ rights, but focuses on how well school districts are represented by state legislative and judicial leaders in Austin.

“It’s hard to get much closer to the people you represent than your local school board. And if we truly want individuals to have a voice, I don’t know how you get much better than the local school board, especially when you consider any other body at the state or federal level,” Ratliff said.

Data compiled by Ratliff shows, Texas Senators make up a 1 to 850,000 representation to constituent ratio, versus a local school board member in Texas who represents an average of 3,500 parents and teachers.

And while the Parent Bill of Rights comes off as a satirical parody to the governor’s plan, Ratliff says he stands behind Abbott’s efforts to restore a balance of power. :lol

Ratliff’s seven legislative proposals range from constitutional changes that would prohibit Texas lawmakers from regulating school activities that occur wholly in one school district to prohibiting the Texas Education Agency from creating new state laws. Part 1 of Ratliff's Bill of Rights is here (https://www.scribd.com/doc/295159019/Parental-Bill-of-Rights). And Part 2 is here (https://www.scribd.com/doc/295159051/Parental-Bill-of-Rights-Part-2).

http://tpr.org/post/bill-rights-schools-parallels-abbott-s-push-constitutional-change

[boutons_deux]

tax revenues are way down from oil and gas, so this is the perfect time for Abbott to cuts BUSINESS taxes :lol

Texas-Sized Tax Cut: Governor Abbott Signs Total Relief Tax Package Of $3.8 Billion

the governor shored up Texas’ positive reputation even further this week, by securing a new business tax cut (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20150603-with-business-tax-cut-abbott-plans-to-sell-texas-to-the-world.ece). In the legislative session that ended in Austin last week, legislators approved a 25 percent reduction in the state business franchise tax.

Texas is also making new investments in roads and education. :lol

http://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbrown/2015/06/08/texas-sized-tax-cut-governor-abbott-signs-total-relief-tax-package-of-3-8-billion/#2715e4857a0b1aa8b4e046ea

Abbott's ON A ROLL!

Texas is the one of the nation's biggest polluters and is near the bottom on education spending per student. Does Abbott give a shit?