Texas Plan for Convention of the States

Here is a copy of Gov. Abbott's announcement of the "Texas Plan" for amending the Constitution via a Convention of the States (link):

Governor Greg Abbott today delivered the keynote address at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Annual Policy Orientation where he unveiled his Texas Plan to restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose. In his plan, Governor Abbott offers nine constitutional amendments to rein in the federal government and restore the balance of power between the States and the United States. The Governor proposes achieving the constitutional amendments through a Convention Of States.
“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” said Governor Abbott. “We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way. To do that I am adding another item to the agenda next session. I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our Constitution.”
Governor Abbott went on to explain that dysfunction in Washington, D.C. stems largely from the federal government’s refusal to follow the Constitution. Congress routinely violates its enumerated powers, while taxing and spending its way from one financial crisis to another. The President exceeds his executive powers to impose heavy-handed regulations. And the Supreme Court imposes its policy views under the guise of judicial interpretation. Governor Abbott urged action by Texas – and other states – to restore the Rule of Law in America.
Governor Abbott offered the following constitutional amendments:

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
2. Require Congress to balance its budget.
3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
7. 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.
8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

To view Governor Abbott's full plan, click here.

Judicial Review and the Rule of Law

What is the Rule of Law?

Are the decrees of an unelected Ruler, such as a King or an Emperor or a Dictator part of the Rule of Law?

The Rule of Law, of course, “is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.”

“Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. In this sense, it stands in contrast to an autocracy… dictatorship, or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law.” [Wikipedia]  

It is the difference between Lex Rex (the law is king) and Rex Lex (the king is law). In other words, the Rule of Law affirms “the law’s supremacy…in contradistinction to the rule of man.”

[The Rule of Law “avers that no man is above the law and the law’s supremacy (lex  rex) in contradistinction to the rule of man (rex lex).” Li-ann Thio, Lex Rex or Rex Lex?, 20 UCLA Pac. Basin L.J. 1 (2002)]

In the context of federal courts and the Rule of Law, the idea is that judges should apply the law, but not make the law.

Thus, the idea of judicial review in Marbury is that federal courts have the power to apply the Written Constitution; but the doctrine of judicial review does not give federal courts the power to make law or to effectively amend the Constitution by fast and loose “interpretation.”