UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT
Posted on 01/02/2011 10:46:36 AM PST by Navy Patriot
You would think the smartest guys in the room of American politics would have figured out the tea party by now.
But you would be wrong. Abundant proof was just provided on the opinion pages of The New York Times in an indignant editorial entitled “The Repeal Amendment.”
The Repeal Amendment is a proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to enable the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to repeal a federal law they find objectionable. It comes as a surprise to no sentient being who has witnessed the grass-roots rebellion, aka the tea party, against expanding federal power.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfexaminer.com ...
King George didn’t understand the American Colonists either. It happens from time to time. That’s how the tree gets watered.
I believe the NYT understands the Tea Party all too well and it scares them to death.
lol who knew?
The new House would be wise to remember the Tea Party Movement that swept them into office. It can sweep them out as well should they turn into and become the arrogant Elitists that are spawned in DC Sewers.
They have. Unfortunately, none of them hold political office.
That’s how the tree gets watered.
Tea Tree Oil.
Some of my pondering points are whether to only allow the total repeal of a particular law; or allow the repeal of various sections or parts therein.
Also, whether to allow repeal of two or three statutes and various sections therein under a single “repeal” action similar to an omnibus bill or Christmas tree bill.
Further, should the “repeal” action be limited to “germane” law, or to be wide open for any combination of various bill on various topics.
If wide open, that would create political wheeling/dealing between the states which is a double-edged sword.
Just thinking ... but the Repeal Amendment has mountains of upside on the freedom/liberty scale.
UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT
I'm sure it's a simple a matter of Perspective. For example, here is my . . .
Definition of U.S. 'Federal Government':
[fed-er-uh l] [guhv-ern-muh nt, ‐er-muh nt] Noun:
Of, relating to, or being an entity that demands absolute power and control over the ruled. Collection of Laws, Rules, Regulations, Fines, Fees, Penalties, Taxes, Taxes . . and more Taxes. Usually divided into 3 often times overlapping areas of responsibility.
Legislative & Investigatory Branch: Tyrants, Liars, and Thieves responsible for creating (in the dead of night behind closed doors) above mentioned laws, rules, regulations, etc.
Executive Branch: A collection of thousands of Departments, Agencies, and Government Organizations administered by Bureaucratic Despots charged with the selective enforcement of above mentioned laws, rules, regulations, etc.
Judicial Branch: Activist Jurists tasked with the responsibility for justifying the constitutionality of blatantly unconstitutional laws, rules, regulations, etc. Must be Ivy League educated and brilliant enough to read "Penumbra" (The gift for clearly seeing things in the U.S. Constitution that do not exist.)
Still Think You're Free?
This is a major constitutional change, as currently it takes three-quarters of state legislatures to amend the Constitution. Not sure if I like this one.
They want us to bow down and obey their rule "or else" and we plan to stink up the room until they "listen to reason" and/or make an undignified exit in 2012. Let's get to talkin'
I'm not sure why. Can you lay it out for me? They're not talking about making it easier to amend the Constitution, merely provide a framework for the States to force repeal or overreaching legislation.
“I am warming up quite nicely to the “Repeal Amendment” concept.”
I like it as well. It restores some federalism. It is hard to argue that a law that two thirds of the States reject should be kept on the books.
Well, it is an alternative and even more radical action now in the Constitution. The same number could compel the calling of a convention of the states to consider an amendment.
This is one of those things for which merely the “threat” and the fear of it actually happening may be important.
This is one of those things for which merely the “threat” and the fear of it actually happening may be important.
So, it would allow for the states to pass resolutions like, "Public Law 63-43 is hereby rescinded," or "United States Code, title __, chapter ___ Section ____ is hereby rescinded," or even "Code of Federal Regulations, ... is hereby rescinded."
Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.
This does take the US Congress and the President out of the loop, but the requirement is very high (legislatures of 3/4ths of the states), similar to the requirement for state legislatures to amend the United States Constitution.
Overall, I like it, and it's one of several amendments I would like my state legislature to pass resolutions in favor of in an attempt to move them forward.
Messing with the language of the Constitution is like messing with the equipment in a 765 kV substation.
I don’t even want to take the padlock off the gate.
Talk about the six blind men trying to describe the elephant.
It will take one more landslide to teach them.The last one was just the 2x4 upside their head to get their attention.
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.