FERGUSON: Texas governor has some big ideas

In past columns I have stated my support for a "convention of the states" to propose amendments to our Constitution to rein in the size and scope of our federal government. Our Constitution provides for such a convention if two-thirds of the states call for it. Thirty-two of the required 34 state governments (including Georgia's) have officially proclaimed their support for such a convention to this point.

In those previous columns I urged that the scope of such a convention be limited, since in theory absolutely any amendment can be proposed and that makes a lot of people nervous. Many supporters of the convention of states have suggested limiting the number of new amendments to two: one providing for term limits for U.S. congressmen and one requiring the federal budget be balanced every year.

But some of those who support this effort are more ambitious than that. The current governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, made quite a splash when he proposed a much longer list of amendments in a speech he made last week. The list startled a lot of people with its aggressiveness. It's fair to say that Gov. Abbott would like to bring about a basic reorienting of the relationship between the federal government and the states.

Here are a few of the amendments the governor proposed:

Congress should be prohibited from regulating any activity that occurs solely within a single state.

Federal agencies should be prohibited from creating federal law or preempting state law.

Allow a two-thirds majority of states to override a federal law.

Allow a two-thirds majority of states to override a Supreme Court decision.

Require a super majority of seven votes for the Supreme Court to invalidate a democratically enacted law.

I admit I was tempted to dismiss the governor's proposals out of hand at first. What he was suggesting seemed way too radical. But after the shock wore off, I found I had a hard time coming up with many good reasons to oppose his suggestions. After all, if you are at all familiar with the history of how our system of government has evolved over the years, you know that a federal government with strictly specified and limited power over the states is exactly what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote our Constitution. The founders would no doubt be shocked at how much power the federal government has accumulated over the decades.

The states have become completely subservient to the bureaucracy in Washington D.C. When the federal government speaks (and lately it mainly speaks with the voice of the president and the Supreme Court rather than our do-nothing Congress) the states have little recourse but to do as instructed.

I don't think the concentration of power at the federal level has been healthy for our nation. The federal government is too big and tries to do too much. With no effective checks or balances on its power it has spent us to the brink of financial ruin and it dictates laws that may make sense in one part of the country but an anathema in another. One size may fit all, but it doesn't fit very well.

I'm afraid the convention of states thing still seems a bit far-fetched, especially if it looks likely that radical proposals like Gov. Abbott's would be on the agenda. But a year ago who would have believed that Donald Trump would be leading the polls for the Republican nomination this close to the start of the primary process?

We live in interesting times, and anything seems possible. It's encouraging to know that we still have civic leaders like Gov. Abbott who think outside the box.

Bill Ferguson is a resident of Warner Robins. Readers can write him at fergcolumn@hotmail.com.