Posted on 09/17/2010 2:08:47 PM PDT by Stonewall1
In its next session beginning in January, the legislature of Virginia will consider proposing a constitutional "Repeal Amendment." The Repeal Amendment would give two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation. Its text is simple:
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Sounds very interesting. And, it may have a chance of passing.
We already have nullification. We just need to start using what we already have. We can go back to the case law where states did use it and the courts backed it.
An intersting proposal for a Constitutional amendment, indeed.
If we can’t repeal the 17th amendment - and I can’t imagine the political carnage involved with doing so - then this is the next best thing for states’ rights. I like it!
I'm for it!
That was the whole point of having Senators appointed by their respective state legislatures, rather than just being a slightly more exclusive version of the House of Reps.
On a related matter, I just received this via email, (Have seen it before, maybe on FR):
Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree with the message please pass it on. An idea whose time has come!
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform ... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.
I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.
A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed. There is talk out there that the “government” doesn’t care what the people think. That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me. Think about this...
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I’m asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .”
Keep it going. We need a strong showing!
Repealing the 17th will acheive similar goals.
"Congress shall not impose or enforce any individual mandate."
Done. Clean-up on Aisle 4. Yes, Obama may get up from watching ESPN long enough to veto it, but that will just add to his problems.
I’m also for it! This is very necessary and will serve to keep the federal beast on a much shorter change.
Then we need earmarks outlawed.
>Repealing the 17th will acheive similar goals.
We could do both...
The legislative process, in terms of its structure, would remain the same. It’s just that in the probably rare circumstance that Congress totally shoved crap down the people’s throats, the people could go through another process — likely involving their voting directly in their states — to repeal that garbage.
I have a feeling such an amendment would have STOPPED something like Obamacare, especially the way Obamacare was passed, before it ever became law. Sort of like the threat of veto by a President? A credible threat of veto by the people under the Repeal Amendment could be very prophylactic!
Let’s do it all in one go:
Repeal 16 & 17.
Redefine interstate commerce, public use, general welfare and all the other corrupted language back to their original meanings.
Sounds like a great idea, and makes me wonder if such a measure were discussed before, perhaps by the Anti-Federalists.
Sounds great to me. Would love the opportunity to work on getting on the CA ballot as an initiative.
Good idea, although I would lower the threshold to a majority or less, otherwise your talking about a Constitutional convention threshold.
Which is already 2/3rds of the States.
Instead of numbering it Amendment 28, it can be numbered as 10.1
“We already have nullification. We just need to start using what we already have. We can go back to the case law where states did use it and the courts backed it.”
Nullification is only applicable to unauthorized acts of congress. An amendment to the constitution would be applicable to authorized acts of congress, which are simply oppressive to the people or the states.
For example: The tariffs of Abomination(1832).
But again you need to lower the threshold to a majority or less, for such a thing to be effective.
If we are to be so sure about our criminal conviction system as to prefer to let a guilty man go free then an innocent man be in prisoned for a crime he didn’t commit, we should be at least as sure about the laws passed by our in-excapeable congress.
What Virgina has proposed is a good idea to address the other problem. But it must be easier to repeal a law then it is to pass one. 2/3rd is better then nothing but still too high, and too impractical. For a State legislator to act it is a lot harder then for congress to act.
Frankly speaking congress could easily pass 10 laws in the time it took a majority of our legislators to agree to repeal 1.
I like this one also
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.