Abbott and the Constitution

Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas, thinks we should amend the Constitution. He wants to call a Constitutional Convention to add not one, not two, but nine amendments.

1.Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
And then spend thousands upon thousands of hours in court arguing over what is or isn't "activity that occurs wholly within one state?

2.Require Congress to balance its budget.
So that when we go to war we can't engage in any deficit spending? Actually, add some sort of escape clause that requires a two-thirds majority of Congress and I might go for this one.

3.Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
They don't create law. They create regulations. Why? Because they're supposed to be experts in the area they're regulating. Besides, you don't need an amendment. Congress can always limit the scope and authority of any federal agency.

4.Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
See answer to #3 above.

5.Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
See "Tyranny of the Majority." Such an amendment would essentially cripple the court. Besides, It's not necessary. If the SCOTUS does something that no one likes, either Congress can pass a new law or the Constitution can be amended. Why add a way to go around the current Constitution?

6.Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
See answer to #5 above. This just allows the country to be held captive by three judges.

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.
There never was any "balance of power." See the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

8.Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
I'm pretty sure they can already do that.

9.Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation. 
And here I thought the process was to vote out the bums that passed that law and replace them with people in Congress and the presidency that will rectify the situation. Again, why add another process when one already exists?

This is an example of someone who has decided that he can't win based upon the current rules so he wants to change the rules to something he thinks will work out better for him.

If you can get two-thirds of the states to agree on these things then electing the right Congress and President to do what you want shouldn't be that hard.

Why not just go back to the Article of Confederation if you want a system that doesn't work?

So here are Conservatives,  the people who always claim to be defending the Constitution, even though most of them haven't even read it, looking for a way to change it so extensively it would cease to be the Constitution.

I have a better idea. Texas, you keep talking about seceding, so GTFO already.