Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Constitutional Convention -- What is it and why should you care?

Debate over balance of power has raged since 18th century.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has called for a Constitutional Convention to propose nine new Amendments to the Constitution. This is his right as a state governor under Article V of the Constitution, which allows the states to hold their own convention to change the Constitution, when needed. Abbott was prompted to make the call after President Obama's announcement on new gun control enforcement measures, which has alarmed many conservatives. The call also includes several other conservative proposals, such as a balanced budget amendment.

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) - On Friday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called for a constitutional convention under Article V, which would allow two-thirds of the states to agree on new amendments to the Constitution. Such amendments cannot be overridden.

Abbott proposed nine new Amendments in a document called, "Restoring the Rule of Law."

- Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
- Require Congress to balance its budget.
- Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
- Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
- Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
- 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.
- Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.

The framers of the Constitution understood the document would need to be flexible and that future needs and considerations would change. They therefore wrote rules into the Constitution that would allow future governments to make changes. Indeed, several changes have been made throughout history with time, there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Abbott proposes to add nine more.

They also realized that Congress would be several times removed from enforcement of these rules, so they permitted enforcement agencies to create laws to enforce the greater laws. Presidents and courts are both permitted to create law under narrow circumstances.

For example, as the chief executive, the president can issue a memorandum to an enforcement agency, directing them on how they should enforce a federal law. Alternatively, a judge can create law b interpreting an existing law to mean something particular. Both of these powers exist because laws are first created broad and flexible, and there needs to be a mechanism to enforce the spirit of the law while preventing lawyers from "gaming" the system. The problem of course, is these powers, which are both Constitutional and necessary, are often abused.

There are some problems with Abbott's proposal. For example, a balanced budget amendment would make it difficult for the government to deficit spend. Such spending is essential in wartime, particularly in national emergencies when costs are unanticipated. It would make it nearly impossible for government to deficit spend in a fiscal crisis to stimulate the economy, as it tends to do to jumpstart the economy during a recession. Such hurdles are not easily dismissed. Just as many households often need to unexpectedly borrow or use credit at some point, depriving the nation of this ability could be very dangerous.

Yet, can these proposals be any more dangerous than the status quo? The federal government, from the President on down, has routinely abused these powers for its own nefarious ends. The president unilaterally enforces an unpopular agenda, despite being told no by the American people and Congress. Meanwhile, Congress continues to blow borrowed money on graft and corruption, money that will impact the next generation as crushing debt. Congress fails to represent, or even grasp the problems confronting the American people. Our states are wholly in thrall to the Federal government which has used the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) to regulate and even micromanage what happens in each state.

The debate over the balance of power between the federal and state governments has always been a contentious one. It was the exact cause of the Civil War. How much regulatory power may the Federal Government exercise in the state? The problem is that the Constitution can be subjectively interpreted.

For example, the Constitution was framed in a period of mass disenfranchisement. Women and blacks were forbidden to vote. Since then, it has been reinterpreted and amended to permit these groups to participate in the Republic. Other parts have been interpreted to allow women to obtain abortions, despite the fact that abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution. Should this be a state decision?

There are some people who prefer to live in liberal places, and those who prefer a conservative living. Allowing the states to retain great sovereignty would permit people to choose to live in states that best suit their politics and represent their philosophies. There are 50 different states, after all, and they're called states because the framers assumed they would have substantial sovereignty.

But even the framers fought over this problem. Who gets the power?

Abbott's proposal may not be accepted by enough state governors to matter, but it should serve to open debate on this important, and often neglected topic.