Posted on 11/26/2010 1:29:20 PM PST by 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:
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
I'm hoping I can spread this message around: “make laws repeal themselves after 3 years.This way only the laws that are really needed will be kept.”
At most the Republican Congress will try to repeal one or 2 laws like Obamacare .But what about the thousands of other similar laws that authorize the EPA, TSA, FCC,FEC, dept of Education, dept. of Energy, The FDA, etc.?
Make laws repeal themselves after 3 years.This way only the laws that are really needed will be kept.”
...the Repeal Amendment... would allow the states, by a two-thirds majority vote, to repeal objectionable federal legislation and regulations.Thanks ForGod'sSake.
“The problem is the U.S. has too many laws.
99% of laws increase the size and power of government.”
Not sure i ever heard of the 1% that doesn’t increase the size and power of Government.
But otherwise I completely agree, we need to find away to abolish laws that is easyer then passing them. Thats why i support state nullification and repeal as long as it is EASIER the it was for congress to pass the laws in the first place.
the burden of support should NOT be on the side of repeal but on the side of the law existing.
I also agree with the contention that every act of congress should not be authorized to last more then a generation. 3 years is perhaps a bit too close, but I would gladly accept such a restriction. Of course if we simply made it so that 30% of the legislators could repeal any offensive act of congress we might just end up with a 3 year life span for acts of congress anyway. (God willing shorter).
How about raising the normal voting age to 21 (or 25), but extending franchise to citizens who enlist in (or are conscripted into) the armed forces beginning at the age of 18?
“How about raising the normal voting age to 21 (or 25), but extending franchise to citizens who enlist in (or are conscripted into) the armed forces beginning at the age of 18?”
I am against the Federal Government setting any kind of voting age. The Federal Government is best left out of matters of elections, as to keep such matters as decentralized and therefore difficult to permanently hijack as possible.
If a State is to raise the voting age a matter I fully support it should be at least 25 as the human mind is not fully developed until that time.
I agree FG’sS: In fact I think this amendment would only cause unintentional problems that were not forseen! I do NOT support a “Repeal Amendment”-this is just another wacky scheme.
J.S.
(The 10th fully covers this issue anyway, WE just need a governor and state leg. with the ‘balls’ to stand up to the Federal Government).
Trouble is the tenth isn’t really followed anymore.
Repeal the 17th amendment (direct election of senators) instead. Give the states more direct control over intrusive federal legislation. Stop people like Harry Reid establishing little political empires.
Too hard to get 2/3 of the states to do it and too easy for the Feds to simply pass new legislation.
The lobottoman empire must be crushed.
This is the problem. And when the humans are politicians, or influenced or controlled by politicians, it's even worse. I proposed letting private entities, banks, commodity depositories, or anyone issue their own currencies and, even though each one might take years, or even decades, to develop enough of a reputation, if they really managed the currency carefully enough to develop a following, such currencies would have the tightest controls of all -- verrry hard-earned reputations and competition. Just musing. Wuddya think?
That’s why you and I have to elect the right people!
I do not trust anything that is backed up by Eric Cantor. This guy is a opportunist and a spinmeister.
Thank you for heads’ up. I don’t think this goes nearly far enough, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Is this so unreasonable?
There is nothing in the original Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote. Likely because most white men weren’t allowed to vote (naturally most, if not all, black men, Asian men, Indian men, and women weren’t allowed to vote either). Generally the franchise went to those who could vote in elections in Britain, which is to say to educated property owning white men belonging to the established church and over 21 years of age. The 2nd Amendment further restricted it by excluding anyone who was not in the militia. Ideally voting should be restricted to those who are capable of selecting effective and honest politicians. Of course restrictions on the franchise are highly unlikely to be adopted, since anyone who would be dropped from the elctorate would strongly oppose their removal.
There is nothing stupid with this idea.
Mary Landrieu for one
Private currency has been done in the US before, although it was more like a license than the actually ability to print money. The problem is that the all-important reputation is diluted as you move spatially away from the issuing bank. While this is less of a problem these days than say even 20 years ago, multiple currencies always injects a higher level of uncertainty into a transaction, especially if that transaction may span long periods of time (e.g., a 30-year mortgage). Personally, I’d be real nervous about giving a private entity the right to issue their own currencies.
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.