Posted on 01/02/2011 10:46:36 AM PST by Navy Patriot
You're right, the Repeal Amendment needs to be scrutinized very carefully, it cuts both ways, 2/3 to amend in our favor or against it.
Since the rise of the administrative-judicial state, amendments have become unworkable - they can regulate and issue decisions much faster than we can ratify amendments.
I like the Repeal Amendment (perhaps it should be 3/4 instead of 2/3), and I think we need another amendment to allow states to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Interesting metaphor; care to elaborate for us non-electrical folks?
It's a very unforgiving environment. One mistake and you're gone. There's no such thing as a "small error." Except in this case, it would be our country that would be gone.
No, amending the Constitution requires 3/4ths of the States and that will not change under the proposed Amendment.
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
But whatever version, all seem to be quite open as to the scope of the repeal. I do not like the requirement proposed for identical wording. That adds an unnecessary and burden to the process. It is sufficient that the provisions to be repealed are described with specificity or as this version puts it "particularly described".
Well, you basically give states a de facto veto with a 2/3rds majority, when, in order to amend the Constitution, you need three-quarters of the states. So this gives powers to the states below that which was put forth to amend the Constitution, and I don't know if I want to mess with those numbers. Instead, we should work to make the 10th Amendment mean something again. No changes to the Constitution needed.
If the wording stays the same, but there is already talk of dropping the 3/4ths to 2/3rds in the bill, and we have seen bills wording changed many times, it is the oldest of tricks.
You comment doesn’t make any sense. This proposed amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with changing the Amendment process in any way, let alone messing with the number of States required to ratify.
Nothing whatsoever.
The proposed amendment does nothing whatsoever to change, alter, or revise any aspect of the process of Amending the COnstitution. This ONLY has to do with repeal of legislation or regulation. To repeat, ONLY legislation or regulation. NOT the Constitution.
In my opinion, all this would be made unnecessary if the 17th Amendment were repealed so that the Senate could fulfill its intended purpose as the voice of the respective States in the Federal legislative process.
The proposed amendment does nothing whatsoever to change, alter, or revise any aspect of the process of Amending the COnstitution. This ONLY has to do with repeal of legislation or regulation. To repeat, ONLY legislation or regulation. NOT the Constitution.
In my opinion, all this would be made unnecessary if the 17th Amendment were repealed so that the Senate could again fulfill its intended purpose as the voice of the respective States in the Federal legislative process.
At a threshhold LOWER than that of amending the Constitution.
How about we instead work on getting the 10th elevated back to its proper place? We already have checks and balances on federal power - that are ignored - the solution IMO is not to create another check that will be ignored, but to get the existing checks and balances restored.
We don’t need a repeal ammendment. The 10th ammendment, State Soveriegnty takes care of that. The states just need to stand up and take back their right to nullify Fed laws they don’t agree with.
Certainly lower. Repealing legislation and obnoxious regulations ought not be as burdensome as amending the Constitution. If we had Senators who were appointed by the governors and legislatures of their respective States, perhaps they would be more effective at representing the interests of the States, and not just serve as some sort of super-representative. Then this sort of nonsense would be unimagined. And yes, I agree with you about the Tenth. The problem is that we have created all this as a result of 100 years of unchecked progressivism. These misled cretins have been disassembling the Constitution since long before I was born and I'm nearing 70. Unwinding their damage would be ideal, but I fear the best we will be able to do is to repair it as best we can now and go for the cleaner fix when it finally becomes possible to do so.
It sounds a lot better than repealing the 17th amendment, but it is not. We need to return to the concept of state legislatures controlling the appointments of Federal Senators. Unfunded mandates would be a thing of the past. Health care, education and farm subsidies....forget about it. I will never believe that the 17th was ever ratified, how could that many states believe that it made for a better govt?
Yes, originally the People and the States were represented in the Congress, rights were reserved for both, and the Federal Government was restricted.
Since direct election of Senators, States have lost representation, and the people have gained representation.
Sadly, the result moves the society toward entitlement mob rule.
I don't know how we go back without a complete collapse.
I have a bridge you would be interested in buying.
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.