Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Eye of Unk

Maybe somebody here with better constitutional knowledge then me can answer, but if 2/3rds of the states reject the Obamatax is that not effectively a constitutional amendment?


5 posted on 06/30/2012 3:12:52 AM PDT by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Mechanicos

No.

There’s no such thing as effectively a constitutional amendment.

An exact, official process must be followed in order to amend the constitution.


7 posted on 06/30/2012 3:16:45 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mechanicos

I do believe you are right, hopefully this can be clarified.

There are so many avenues taking off on this.


10 posted on 06/30/2012 3:23:31 AM PDT by Eye of Unk (Is your state Obamacare free yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mechanicos

Constitutional Amendment Process

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/


12 posted on 06/30/2012 3:25:18 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mechanicos

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/03/06/jeffersons-arguments-for-nullification-and-limited-government/

by Gennady Stolyarov II

The doctrine of nullification, i.e., the idea that states have the right to unilaterally render void an act of the federal government that they perceive to be contrary to the Constitution, finds its origins in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, most notably his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, written to protest the Federalist Congress’s passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions claim that the U. S. Constitution was a compact among the several states-whereby the states delegated certain limited powers to the U.S. government; any undelegated power exercised by the U. S. government is thus void.
Furthermore, the general government is not the final and authoritative judge of its own powers, since that would make the government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers-but rather the parties to the contract, the states, have each an equal right to judge for themselves whether the Constitution has been violated as well as “the mode and measure of redress”-since there is no common judge of such matters among them.

Thus, every state can of its own authority nullify within its territory “all assumptions of power by others”-i.e., all perceived violations of the Constitution by the federal government.

The Kentucky Resolution uses the Tenth Amendment to justify a strict construction of the general government’s powers; any powers not expressly delegated to the U. S. government remain the province of the states or the people, and any exercise of those powers by the general government is void and can be struck down by the states on that basis.

Furthermore, Jefferson warns against construing the “necessary and proper” clause so broadly as to justify the assumption of undelegated powers by the general government; the intent of the clause was to only enable the execution of limited powers, not to indefinitely extend the general government’s scope. Otherwise, this part of the Constitution would be used “to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.”

Jefferson counsels the states to be vigilant against violations of the Constitutions and not hesitant to strike down unconstitutional measures by Congress or the President; he writes that “free government is founded in jealously and not in confidence” and therefore urges that “no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

In other words, the states should not trust federal officials with non-constitutional powers simply because those particular federal officials might be trusted to use those powers benevolently; this kind of “confidence of man” leads to the destruction of free government.


34 posted on 06/30/2012 4:38:17 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mechanicos
Maybe somebody here with better constitutional knowledge then me can answer, but if 2/3rds of the states reject the Obamatax is that not effectively a constitutional amendment?

No. 3/4 of states is required. Read Article V.

43 posted on 06/30/2012 5:42:23 AM PDT by matt1234 (Bring back the HUAC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson