SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A Hard Look At Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (7628)2/8/2017 1:49:57 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 47277
 
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states' right



This was published a year ago. And guess what it's STILL a great idea.


Republicans have the federal government - do we see signs government is going to be shrunk? That the federal government is going to respect limits on its power? No, we see plans for a trillion dollar pork spending program, Presidential threats to invade Mexico and Chicago to control street crime and drug gangs.



Written by Brandi Grissom, Austin Bureau ChiefConnect with Brandi GrissomOn Twitter Email

Gov. Greg Abbott, aiming to spark a national conversation about states' rights, said Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government "run amok."

"If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of ... then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America," Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience. He said he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States.

Along with the speech, Abbott released a nearly 70-page plan - part American civics lesson, part anti-Obama diatribe - detailing nine proposed constitutional amendments that he said would unravel the federal government's decades-long power grab and restore authority over economic regulation and other matters to the states.

"The irony for our generation is that the threat to our Republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes, in part, from our very own leaders," Abbott said in a speech that took aim at President Obama, Congress and the judicial branch.

The proposal for a convention, which has been gaining traction among some among conservative Republicans, comes just as the GOP presidential candidates begin to make forays into Texas ahead of the March primary election. The state, with 155 delegates up for grabs, will certainly be a key player in the party's nominating process.

Abbott hasn't endorsed a candidate, though the field includes Sen. Ted Cruz, who was one of Abbott's top employees when the governor was attorney general. Abbott is likely hoping to boost his national profile within the GOP as eyes turn to the state.

This week, presidential contender U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., published a piece in USA Today endorsing the idea of a convention to amend the Constitution and restore limited government. In April, 27 active petitions had been filed with Congress seeking a convention to amend the constitution to require that Congress adopt a balanced budget.

Congress would be forced to act once 34 states joined the effort. So far, Cruz hasn't endorsed the idea.

By this point, you may be wondering just what a constitutional convention or Convention of the States is and why it would be a big deal. A convention is one of two ways that the U.S. Constitution can be amended, and it's described in Article V. One way is that Congress can propose amendments approved by two-thirds of the members of both chambers. The other method allows two-thirds of the state legislatures to call for a convention to propose amendments. Republicans backing the idea are confident that because they control state government in a majority of states, their ideas would prevail.

In both cases, the amendments become effective only if ratified by three-fourths of the states.

So far, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. None of those were amendments generated by a constitutional convention.

Critics say there's a good reason. In an editorial lambasting Rubio's plan, USA Today's editorial board warned that such a process could invite mayhem and further poison the nation's vitriolic political scene. It would also raise unresolved questions about the years-long process of ratification. And some conservatives who otherwise agree with Abbott and Rubio on many issues fear a convention could lead to greater restrictions on guns and money in politics and greater overall power for the federal government.

Abbott, in his plan, dismisses many of those criticisms, saying that he would call for a limited scope to the convention.

The plan lays out nine specific proposed amendments that would:

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.


A convention, Abbott wrote, would force the federal government to "take the Constitution seriously again."

"The only true downside comes from doing nothing and allowing the federal government to continue ignoring the very document that created it," Abbott wrote.

James Henson, director of UT’s Texas Politics Project, said Abbott's posture aligns well with the prominent stream of thought in the Republican Party that it is time to resuscitate state power as a check to the federal government.

"I would find it fairly unlikely that this would get traction on the national level," Henson said. "On the other hand, it's not the first we've heard of this."

Democrats were quick to denounce Abbott's plan Friday, saying the governor has misplaced priorities.

“America added 292,000 new jobs in December. But under Abbott, Texas fell to sixth in job creation, remains the uninsured capitol of the nation, wages and incomes remain far too low for hardworking families, our neighborhood schools are still underfunded, and college education is slipping out of reach," Texas Democratic Party Deputy Executive Director Manny Garcia said in a statement. "Texas families deserve serious solutions, not Tea Party nonsense.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas issued a statement with similar sentiment.

"Governor Abbott, as Texans, we prefer the Framers’ plan. Don’t mess with the Constitution," said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas.

But Democrats haven't been the only ones to chide the idea of fiddling with the Constitution.

Last year, House legislators filed measures calling for such a convention. State Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, unleashed a screed against the proposal when it came before the Senate State Affairs Committee in May. He compared the idea to "a petulant teenager who’s lost a few basketball games and plans to burn down the gymnasium."

"The constitution has served us well for over 200 years. The problem is not the constitution," Estes said, adding that the solution is to elect more conservative lawmakers. "Slap a bumper sticker for Ted Cruz on your car and get after it and knock yourself out."

Estes went on to promise a filibuster if the measure came to the Senate floor.
dallasnews.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (7628)2/8/2017 1:52:43 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 47277
 
Trump Makes Up Murder Stats to Push for More Government Power

16 HOURS AGO Ryan McMaken

Donald Trump appeared deeply confused this week as the president declared today that "the murder rate in our country is the highest it's been in 47 years."

Perhaps Trump confused the word "highest" with "lowest" since he would be far closer to the truth if he said the homicide rate in the US is "the lowest it's been in 47 years."

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly claimed that crime and murder rates are at historic highs in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Trump is likely able to get away with this because, although homicide rates have declined substantially over the past twenty years, Pew reports that 45 percent of Americans polled think that crime and homicide are increasing.

RELATED: " FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low"

Nevertheless, in 2014, the homicide rate in the United States hit a 51-year low, coming in at 4.5 per 100,000. To experience a lower homicide rate than this in the US, one would need to travel back in time to 1957 when the homicide rate was 4.0 per 100,000.





Trump may be reacting to the fact that homicide statistics show an increase from 2014 to 2015 (the last year with year-long data available).

However, even with the increase from 2014 to 2015 — a sizable increase of 11 percent — 2015's rate of 4.9 per 100,000 still puts it at approximately half of where it was in 1991 (9.8 per 100,000) and less than half of where it was in 1980 (10.2 per 100,000).





In other words, it's extremely difficult to see how these numbers could be spun to look like homicides are at a 47-year high.

But, perhaps Trump is talking about homicides in Chicago?

After all, Trump has fixated on Chicago homicides and has suggested he'll send in federal officers to take over local law enforcement in Chicago is the government there cannot reduce homicides. But even in the case of Chicago, homicides are near (at least) 20-year lows. They are increasing, however.

Given Trump's usual M.O., it may be that the whole affair is just another case of Trump attempting to pander to a specific interest group. These remarks came in a speech to the National Sheriff's Association, a lobbying group for sheriffs. In addition to claiming that homicides are at historical highs, Trump also vowed to seek retribution against a Texas legislator who has introduced legislation to curtail the government's power to seize private property without due process (i.e., "asset forfeiture"). Trump declared: "We’ll destroy his career.”

These comments suggest that Trump, like much of the American population, is hysterical over crime and homicides when there is no indication that these problems are at unusually high levels. This doesn't mean all is perfectly well, of course. As noted in this article, the homicide rate is increasing, but is driven by only a handful of cities. Homicide rates in some cities remains alarmingly high, even if most of the country enjoys very low rates by nearly any measure one can muster. If the growth in 2015 represents the beginning of a new trend, it is cause for concern. Needless to say, Trump doesn't exactly capture the nuance of this situation, nor is it likely he even knows anything about the situation other than the bullet point some staffer fed to him before today's meeting.

Leftwing and Rightwing Attempts to Explit Crime Stats Trump is not alone in attempting to play homicide data for political gain. The Left has long hinted or implied that crime is surging as part of the left's efforts to increase gun control. To its credit the left knows how to use Google — unlike Trump, apparently — and so never claimed that homicide rates are at historically high levels. The furthest the Left has generally been willing to go is to suggest that "mass shootings" are increasing the homicide rate and that homicide rates are higher in the US than in the rest of the so-called "developed" world.

Both of these claims are themselves extremely sketchy and rely on twisting the data or conveniently ignoring data that contradicts their position. In this US, a nation of 320 million people, the odds of being a homicide victim in a mass shooting are so vanishingly small as to be essentially zero.

RELATED: " Guns: How The NY Times Manipulates Data" and " 5 Tricks Gun Control Advocates Play"

Whereas the left exploits homicides to increase federal gun control powers, it seems Donald Trump seeks to exploit homicides to increase federal powers to engage in a sset forfeiture and to increase federal anti-immigrant legislation.





Whatever the politician's agenda, the fact remains that homicide rates are low by historical standards, and this is in spite of rapid increases in gun ownership over the past twenty five years, and in spite of continued immigration.

Trump's behavior on this matter demonstrates a continued knee-jerk preference for increasing government power to address every perceived problem.

.........

https://mises.org/blog/trump-makes-murder-stats-push-more-government-power