“I am sorry, I am opposed to democratic government. I prefer a representative Republic.”
As do I which is why I very much favor a easy method for the repealing of laws.
State legislators are in general as slow and deliberate in their actions as is congress.
Geting one of them much less 34(2/3rds) of them to act on any one particularly thing is a feet of extraordinary coordination and agreement. No less so then that of the acts of Congress, indeed it can be much more difficult.
The point is even if it were the right that the majority should be allowed to imposed upon the minority without their constitutionally authorized consent.(democracy)
Using a majority of States to abolish something enacted by the majority of congress is simply using one majorty to abolish the abusive acts of anther.
We gain nothing except a more directly representative (and more expensive to pay off veto), and thats assuming they lowered the bar from 2/3rds to 50%+1.
At 2/3rds the “veto” is practically useless just as it is redundant.
If our veto is to have any effect at all and be reasonable consistering the nature of the way by which this “Veto” is to be implemented, (By vote of many different State legislators) the “majority” required to in-act such a veto to protect the must in fact be a minority if the “veto” is to have any hope of accomplishing the desired function of protecting the rights of the minority from the democratically elected and often tyrannically self-serving majority.
Something that is also necessary regarding the nature of the State legislators being as slow and deliberate in their actions as is congress.
1/3rd(17) or less of the States is both tenable, and functional.
Under what would amount to an extraordinary display coordination among the states, it is not unreasonable to expect that they might be able to repeal a few laws a year.
That is a few out of doesens that congress would enecact. (note Congress would be motivated to enact more numerous and smaller laws to hinder the same, just as they would also have to enact laws much more broadly agreeable to the whole of the union as to prohibit the possibility of 17 States finding the acts offensive to their rights.
But still it would take quite some time for even 17 states to repeal a signal law after it has been enacted. Seeing as a great many states meet only once every 2 years, most of our States would have to justify special secessions for the matter.
During which time congress would have a significant peroid probably several mouths to 2 years in which their acts would be in place.
I think that your proposal amounts to ‘tilting at windmills’ because you will never get three fourths of the states to agree to let one third of the states overturn the general will.