The discussion revolves around proposed constitutional amendments suggested by Rick Perry, as outlined in an article referencing his book "Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington." Participants explore the implications of these proposals, which include changes to judicial tenure, congressional powers, taxation, election processes, and social issues such as marriage and abortion. The conversation encompasses various perspectives on the feasibility and desirability of these amendments.
Participants generally disagree on the merits of Perry's proposed amendments, with various competing views expressed regarding their implications and feasibility. No consensus is reached on the desirability of these changes.
Some participants highlight the historical context of Senate elections and the existing constitutional mechanisms for Congress to influence Supreme Court rulings, indicating a complexity in the proposed changes that is not fully resolved in the discussion.
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.