“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.
Thanks dynachrome! I'm more or less in agreement with Monoprise. At a 2/3 of the states threshold to effect a repeal, the bar is just set too high to expect any real agreement except on the most agregious feral power grabs. The slow march would likely continue IMHO.
Also, it seems to me the author conveniently(?) ignored the inherent power of the individual states to nullify overreaching feral law. Of course, the more states involved the better.
~pinging~ the 10th Amendment Division for additional thoughts and comments.
Virginia may be poking the federales again. Good on 'em!
Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
If you want on or off the ping list just say the word.
Additional Resources:
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
Firearms Freedom Act
Health Care Nullification