Breaking News: Power to the People! Repeal Amendment Gaining Strength

Right Side News ^ | 11/26/10 | James Simpson

[RightSideNews]

Yet another unanticipated fastball has been hurled directly at the radical left’s destructive agenda. It is called the Repeal Amendment. Brainchild of Georgetown Constitutional Law Professor Randy Barnett, the proposal has gotten legs with the help of Florida attorney Marianne Moran, Executive Director of RepealAmendment.org.The proposal calls for a constitutional amendment that would allow the states, by a two-thirds majority vote, to repeal objectionable federal legislation and regulations. Virginia Representative Eric Cantor, slated to be Majority Leader in the upcoming Congress, has gotten behind the movement, as has Virginia’s governor, and lieutenant governor, leaders in the state legislature and Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Cantor articulates the justification well:

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks Army Air Corps! I have mixed feelings about this effort. It may send a message to DC that the natives are becoming MORE restless and that could be a good thing if it ALSO were to draw out heretofore non-participants in the electoral process. IOW, if it could somehow animate the couch potatoes to become involved enough to increase the pressure on Dimtard controlled states in particular. Possible I suppose, but conservatives have GOT to figure out a way to get to these people. That is, we need to develop a sales stragegy that hits the bread basket of those that believe as long as they have 150 channels to choose from on their teevee, everything's cool.

I believe our current Constitution contains all the tools we need to fix this mess. It's obvious to even the most casual observer our feral government has ZERO interest in Constitutional limits and have been using it as a doormat for decades. I think few would argue it has grown into Frankenstein's monster. But the fault is NOT in our Constitution, it is with us; we the people for allowing this to happen; and to only a slightly lesser degree, the states, who allowed themselves to be bribed into submission.

My misgivings are this: The states, individually or in collaboration presently have amongst other powers, the power of nullification of feral laws or regulations they deem unconstitutional. Recall that the states and the people were the creators of the federal government and that places the states and the people in a superior position to the federal government. If a solid majority of any state's or states' populace supports that notion and any act of nullification, what are the federales going to do about it? Start another Civil War? Cut off federal(theft from taxpayers) funds, which could possibly end with the same result? The problem as I see it is if a "Repeal" amendment were to somehow get ratified, it could, and probably would, take an individual state's inherent power away to act on their own; in the best interests of that state and its people or a group of states and their people by requiring a vote of three fourths of the states. IOW, the individual states will be giving up something not gaining something. FWIW...

New Repeal Amendment; yes or no?

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

CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES

.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Thanks for a sensible post on gold backed currency. One issue is that “money” includes all checking and savings accounts and all loans. Banks, by loaning money, create money. We need to monitor and control the amount of loans and the reserves required by banks and other lending institutions. This is the real source of booms and busts in our economy. We loan too little during depressions/recessions and loan too much during inflations and booms. Hence the boom and bust cycles we’ve seen throughout history.

[The Comedian]

Dude, at 16, I was running 2 businesses, attending college full-time, and was exactly the same person I am today.

I would have made an outstanding judge at 18, because I was completely dedicated to life's intrinsic logic and its superiority to emotion.

I blame Mom's pre-natal X-rays.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[FARS]

The exception which proves the rule? (smile)

[frog in a pot]

After thinking about it for 30 seconds, it appears to have merit; and it is supported by several good legal minds.

You comments correctly suggest the amendment would have a sensible “leveling” feature similar to what the electoral college provides which would almost certainly lead to a greater role for the states. That should be enough to generate sufficient support by the voters.

[anniegetyourgun]

He always hears the prayers of His people....and He executes His plans. I am grateful for that, because His plans are better than all the striving & schemes of mankind.

[American Constitutionalist]

The only negative thing I can see in this seeing how the left and Democrats cheat and steal elections, would be ? what would happen when the majority of those states turn liberal/Democrat ? what then ?

[kennyboy509]

The 2nd amendment protects the rest of the constitution.

And I’m tried of turning the other cheek.

[TCH]

If you want a restoration of states’ rights, the REPEAL THE 17th AMENDMENT... End the popular election of U.S. Senators. Return that power to the State Legislatures, as it originally was designed (Violates the Constitution’s provision that the “PLACE” for electing U.S. Senators SHALL NOT BE CHANGED).

While were at it, repeal: the 16th (Violates the 5th), the 22nd (Upsets the balance of powers), and the 23rd (Electors are only to be drawn from U.S. Senators and Congressional Representatives—Washington D.C. has neither, and therefore is prohibited from having any electoral votes).

[A_Former_Democrat]

Power to the People . . . Right On!

[zeugma]

I get your point, but I’m sorry. If you’re willing to ask a young man to die for you, the least you should be willing to also do is allow him to vote. Sure, young folk may well make bad decisions, but then again, so do much older folk (see Obama and his fellow socialists).

[SeattleBruce]

Thanks for your thoughts Forgiven. (great screen name.)

“We need to monitor...”

The first part of the solution to our money supply is an accountable government, and as the article I quoted suggests the rule of law. As of 11/2 we have begun to truly fight for both. We may have a chance to really make some sound changes in this area, but it will require us to think soundly about money, the money supply, what works and what doesn’t work in this area. Again, it’s about who controls the supply. Ideally, the money supply would be controlled by the American people, through our accountable Representatives (Congress - Article 1, Section 8 of the USC).

This may seem like a tall order, but the developed world is bankrupt at the hands of the private bankers and central banks and it’s ABOUT TIME we took back control of our nations. We have no choice but to take back control of our money supply.

[A Navy Vet]

I believe you are thinking of Constitutional Convention. This is not the case. If (2) thirds (66%) of the Senate and House vote for (1) Amendment and ratified by (3) forths of the States, it becomes Constitutional law. It's another gift our Forefathers gave us to amend our Constitutional compact without the States calling for a Constitutional Convention.

May have the numbers wrong - I have the flu and the mind is at 66%.

[A Navy Vet]

"...make laws repeal themselves after 3 years.This way only the laws that are really needed will be kept."

Totally agree, and on my list of reducing fedgov power. Make all legislation (other than defense bills) have a sunset clause. Think how busy that will keep the professional politicians in DC and doing less harm.

My other main points on my list are:
1. Term limits;
2. Reduced Congressional sessions.

[Monorprise]

““Too bad we need an Amendment to support the existing 10th Amendment.”

It’s being ignored by Congress and the SCOTUS. Perhaps it needs to be restated. Anything that will limit the federal monster, I am for. This was the beauty and logic of our nation’s founding documents. Anything that will strengthen states relative to the feds, I’m for.

As to RightSide’s comment about the implication of this for CA and NY, it’s not the limiting of federal laws and power that’s the problem for those ‘insane’ majorities.”

The majority demanded by their proposal is regardlessly large, by the same measure the States could call a constitutional convention, and yet even that has not happens.

2/3rd is absolutely insane, who ever set that limit must intend it never to happen.

To preserve our INDIVIDUAL rights the Constitution’s prohibitions cannot be subject to the arbitrary enforcement of even a majority or we are no more then a constitution-less democracy.

The majority will as it currently does in the lawless realm of self-bounded(unboned) government rob the rights of the minority to benefit itself.

No amendment to our constitution, that either invest in government the the enforcement power of the same constitution, or provides to the majority which control government the discretion of its enforcement will render that constitution to be worth anymore then the paper it is written upon.

If we are to protect the rights of the minority with any constitution of limited government, then that constitution must be enforceable by that minority.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

‘what would happen when the majority of those states turn liberal/Democrat ? what then ?’

If a 2/3 majority of all the states became liberal/Democrat the choices would be either emigration, suicide, or civil war. When you remember that the liberal states tend to be larger, this would mean more than 3/4 of the people becoming liberal/Democrat.

[Monorprise]

“‘what would happen when the majority of those states turn liberal/Democrat ? what then ?’

If a 2/3 majority of all the states became liberal/Democrat the choices would be either emigration, suicide, or civil war. When you remember that the liberal states tend to be larger, this would mean more than 3/4 of the people becoming liberal/Democrat.”

If they had only the power to veto acts of congress then the effect would be negligible. Democrats would be capable of advocating for smaller government. lol

Seriously I can’t restate it enough, 2/3rd majority is insanely high! If you could get 2/3rd to of the state legislators to act on anything then they could just as easily call a constitutional convention and hold everyone there until 4 more state delegations swing over to a compromise with them.

This is a token jester at best. Reduce the majority to 1/3 or less and you have a realistic chance of the amendment making a difference.

State legislators do not act like people, indeed a great many of them only meet for a short time once every 2 years.

[KTM rider]

it would be far simpler to just adhere to the constitution as it was originally intended

the entire problem is the perverse stretch of the Interstate Commerce Clause ( the pandoras box of socialism )

[Monorprise]

“it would be far simpler to just adhere to the constitution as it was originally intended

the entire problem is the perverse stretch of the Interstate Commerce Clause ( the pandoras box of socialism )”

Simple only as the enforcement of any law is depended upon enforcers of the law being among the victims rather then the criminals who would break that law.

In the case of a Constitutional law who’s chief object of restriction is the government it authorizes the Government in question is the only possible criminal, while the victim is the people and, in the case of the Federal Government, their States as well.

Therefore logically speaking the enforcers of the Constitution must be the same party’s named in 1798 by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. This is the key “flaw” that has been sense the “Civil War” incorporated by presumption of the Federal government itself into our system.

It is this presumption that must be abolished, or there can be no amendment to no constitution which will ever permitted truly constitutionally limited government.