Proposed Amendment Would Enable States to Repeal Federal Law

[FriendlyFire]

'Repeal Amendment' Propelled By Tea Party Would Enable States To Overturn Any Act Of Congress

The same people driving the lawsuits that seek to dismantle the Obama administration’s health care overhaul have set their sights on an even bigger target: a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of the states to overturn any act of Congress.

Under the proposed “repeal amendment,” any federal law or regulation could be repealed if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so.

The idea has been propelled by the wave of Republican victories in the midterm elections. First promoted by Virginia lawmakers and Tea Party groups, it has the support of legislative leaders in 12 states. It also won the backing of the incoming House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor, when it was introduced this month in Congress.

Still, the idea that the health care legislation was unconstitutional was dismissed as a fringe argument just six months ago — but last week, a federal judge agreed with that argument. Now, legal scholars are handicapping which Supreme Court justices will do the same.

The repeal amendment reflects a larger, growing debate about federal power at a time when the public’s approval of Congress is at a historic low. In the last several years, many states have passed so-called sovereignty resolutions, largely symbolic, aimed at nullifying federal laws they do not agree with, mostly on health care or gun control.

Tea Party groups and candidates have pushed for a repeal of the 17th Amendment, which took the power to elect United States senators out of the hands of state legislatures. And potential presidential candidates like Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin have tried to appeal to anger at Washington by talking about the importance of the 10th Amendment, which reserves for states any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

Marianne Moran, a lawyer in Florida who runs RepealAmendment.org, said that legislative leaders in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, as well as Virginia, were backing the amendment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/us/politics/20states.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/19/repeal-amendment-tea-party_n_798888.html#comments

How convenient this occurs on the 150th anniversary of secession.

Canada, please save me!

Why stop at the states? Let's allow cities to repeal the actions of state legislatures? Or townships of country boards? Just think of the fun we could all have

OMG cant breath laughing too much

 

[JerichoHill]

Because as well all saw in California, Propositions do wonders.

 

[Camikaze]

To be honest, this isn't as bad as I thought it would be, judging from the thread title. I thought it would be that any state could simply vote to exclude itself from a federal law. But this is far more reasonable than that. I would still think it quite silly, but I don't think it'd be the end of the world (or the end of the United States, for that matter).

 

[Bugfatty300]

Everyone would start smoking pot and sawing off their shotgun barrels.

It will be the end of mankind as we know it.

 

[bombshoo]

Why not just quit beating around the bush and have all the states secede from the union?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I personally think that allowing such a form of state nullification could be a good idea. It is better to allow states to act as a check on the power of congress than to give disproportionate representation to smaller states in congress and the electoral college. I would suppose passing this and getting rid of the senate, or better yet reforming the senate into a body that represents the nation as a whole rather than individual constituencies. I would propose treating the whole nation as a single multimember district that uses rewighted range voting to select about 5 senators each election cycle. I'd also use simple range voting to select the president, doing away with the electoral college.

 

[FriendlyFire]

To be honest, this isn't as bad as I thought it would be, judging from the thread title.

1/6 of the US population in the least populous states could effectively veto any legistration, overturn any exisiting law.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

1/6 of the US population in the least populous states could effectively veto any legistration, overturn any exisiting law.

Or in short, the uneducated real America recieves a permanent veto right. I used to think that America deserved a rough economy for its economic policies, but when reading stuff like this I start to hope the opposite, and before Obama's term ends. If the economic recovery happens after his term, it could be a disaster. The world needs a politically sane America, well fairly sane at least.

 

[Cutlass]

There goes the Civil Rights Act.

 

[downtown]

There goes the Civil Rights Act.

You couldn't get 2/3 of the states to vote against that. I'd be surprised if more than 8 would.

 

[Tani Coyote]

You made it sound like nullification.

When this is very different, and very American: it's just like the Amendment process but without the fed gov't and with 2/3 rather than 3/4.

Sounds perfectly fine by me! It's a qualified supermajority, which is the American way.

Won't pass anyway, so non-issue.

 

[Cutlass]

You couldn't get 2/3 of the states to vote against that. I'd be surprised if more than 8 would.

I know. But that's now. What of then? Just an example of how idiotic the idea is. Congress has so many checks on it that it barely functions as it is. Adding another one is just an attempt to further cripple the government. I'm sure the same corporate special interests are behind it that back the tea party.

 

[Formaldehyde]

1/6 of the US population in the least populous states could effectively veto any legistration, overturn any exisiting law.

And quite coincidently, those are all "red states".

The notion that states should be able to veto federal laws enacted by elected representatives is patently absurd. It is no surprise it is being driven by the same people who want to revert to the state legislatures picking the Senators instead of having them elected by the populace and restricting voting to landowners.

Perhaps it is time for the US to split into at least two countries. It would virtually eliminate our global warmongering and meddling in foreign politics. And it would give the reactionaries the ability to try to turn back time without affecting everybody as they attempt to become the Western Hemisphere version of the Taliban.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I tend to think that congress could function much more smoothly if we abolished the senate in exchange for letting a supermajority of the states overturn laws.

 

[amadeus]

And quite coincidently, those are all "red states".

Vermont.

 

[KOJohnson]

People. The Senate was constituted as a body of direct ambassadors of the states, selected by the state legislatures. It is, in the Constitution, empowered to ride herd on the government, to hold back the House when it gets out of bounds, to supervise the President on treaties, appointments, and the like. Read the Constitution! Read history!

The only thing necessary to fix all of this is the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

It's silly to propose, and to waste time proposing, a new amendment to further complicate what needs to be simplified.

And it distresses me no end to see that NOBODY in the United States, not even those governors and attorneys general, has any idea of what the Constitution is. That terrifies me.

The only thing necessary to fix all of this is the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

 

[Cutlass]

The 17th Amendment was created because the lack of it had ceased to work. Returning to something that had ceased to work over a century ago isn't going to make things better.

 

[amadeus]

Is a repeal of the 17th Amendment, however, compatible with our existing system of over-reaching federal control? I fear that if the 17th were repealed, it would make no difference in protecting the right of states to govern themselves.

 

[Bill3000]

People. The Senate was constituted as a body of direct ambassadors of the states, selected by the state legislatures. It is, in the Constitution, empowered to ride herd on the government, to hold back the House when it gets out of bounds, to supervise the President on treaties, appointments, and the like. Read the Constitution! Read history!

The only thing necessary to fix all of this is the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

It's silly to propose, and to waste time proposing, a new amendment to further complicate what needs to be simplified.

And it distresses me no end to see that NOBODY in the United States, not even those governors and attorneys general, has any idea of what the Constitution is. That terrifies me.

The only thing necessary to fix all of this is the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

No, the main purpose of the 17th amendment was to allow senators to be appointed (via direct election) without the gridlock of the legislature hampering it. For example, Delaware failed to elect a senator for four years between 1899 and 1903. There were also numerous cases of bribery. There were 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905. Repealing the 17th amendment would do nothing, and wouldn't increase the power of the states relative to the federal government. Try again.

 

[Cutlass]

Is a repeal of the 17th Amendment, however, compatible with our existing system of over-reaching federal control? I fear that if the 17th were repealed, it would make no difference in protecting the right of states to govern themselves.

The states never did have the right to rape away basic American Constitutional rights.