Rick Perry's proposals for constitutional amendments, as outlined in his book "Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington," include abolishing lifetime tenure for federal judges, allowing Congress to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote, repealing the Sixteenth Amendment to eliminate federal income tax, and defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Critics argue that these proposals undermine the checks and balances of government and could lead to increased political power over judicial decisions. The discussion reflects a strong skepticism towards Perry's understanding of governance and the implications of his suggested changes.
PREREQUISITESPolitical analysts, constitutional scholars, and individuals interested in the implications of proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution, particularly in the context of Rick Perry's candidacy and broader political discourse.
WhoWee said:The Black Panther voter intimidation case comes to mind...'
The various immigration battles can be cited - basically, the states claim they have the right to enforce immigration laws - even if the Federal Government chooses not to:
Whatever the result, the panel's decision is the first step on a long road: legal experts expect the case to reach the Supreme Court. It is unclear when the panel will rule.
The Justice Department lawsuit, filed in July, triggered opposition from Republicans but praise from civil rights groups"
SW VandeCarr said:Afaik, Congress can authorize federalizing the National Guard and did so in 2005. I don't know if that's a standing authorization or if it must be renewed from time to time. "Normally" Guard units are under the control of the states. Clearly, National Guard troops are currently serving in the US military and therefore under the actual control of the Executive . Congress can delegate and recall authority to and from the Executive when that authority is not specified in Article II of the Constitution. Also, only Congress can authorize funding to the executive and can influence policy this way. However afaik, Congress does not directly administer any enforcement unit. I don't see how it could.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453
http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspxArticle I, Section 8; Clause 15 tells what the grounds are for calling up the Guard.
Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.