[Logical me]

I’m getting real tired of what the States can do. You fools, do it. Start the ball rolling and while your at it, work on impeachment for our communists black Muslim leader.

[screaminsunshine]

Hot Damn.

[PubliusMM]

Not too sure this one makes a lot of sense. Keep in mind that this could cut both ways...

It’s time to take back the country. This might not be the way to start.

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[PaleoBob]

It does not really matter what a law or even the Constitution SAYS.

If we do not have honest, moral, patriotic, conservative people in the key elected offices, we’re doomed to watch even our best laws be manipulated and used as weapons against us.

While a nation of laws is an ideal, a nation of people is an inevitability. The people who rise to power will determine what is ideal and what isn’t.

[r9etb]

What a great idea! If only we had a way to deal with Congress when it over-reaches.....

Oh, wait. We do!

[The Bronze Titan]

Can the Republicans in the House craft a new law, call it say, “Insurance Reform” (which is what we need - not ‘healthcare’ reform), whereby once passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law > would have it automatically replace/repeal the old law - without having to actually vote to repeal the old law?

Reason I say this, is that once you put a proposed law in front of everyone, then it can gather steam and momentum to actually have it replace the old one.

[Monorprise]

2/3rds is way, way too high!

Sheesh with 2/3rds we can call a constitutional convention, whats the point of such a vote?

Make it 1/3rd for the rights of the minority are essential, and the practicality for state legislators.

I think if 1/3 of the State legislators were to act on anything particularly on the abolition of any federal act that speaks far more strongly then a super majority of Congress.

All that being said passing an amendment to give states a direct path to repeal an act of congress compromises our cause for nullification of unconstitutional acts.

[Quix]

Am all for it.

Maybe God will give it some legs.

However, we have the basic script for the next several to at least 7+ years.

Tyranny will advance to a global tyranny worse than the world has ever seen or ever will see again.

I suspect any advances patriots make toward such an ammendment will be more or less milk sop to distract us while the oligarchy tightens more nooses elsewhere.

[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

.

[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!

[Brad from Tennessee]

Two thirds of the states couldn’t agree on free beer and pizza.

[John Leland 1789]

This could have the affect of negating the elitism in the U.S. Senate that was created (or greatly enhanced) by the Seventeenth Amendment.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment might be better, but either way, we want the U.S. Senate more responsible to the states.

U.S. Senators should be much more answerable to the legislatures of their own states, as it was before the Seventeenth Amendment. But short of that, being answerable to a body of 3/4 of the States could be a great help.

[dr_who]

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.

[Locomotive Breath]

Too hard to get 2/3 of the states to do it and too easy for the Feds to simply pass new legislation.

[klimeckg]

I do not trust anything that is backed up by Eric Cantor. This guy is a opportunist and a spinmeister.

[Bitsy]

Mary Landrieu for one

[JSDude1]

Yeah:

#1)
The Tenth Amendment already covers this.

#2) It may have unintended consequences

A) Being that it implicitly gives supremecy to the Federal government (reocognizes this authority becuase STATES have to overrule acts of the Federal Government),

B) That is stops the efforts of individual states from acting to nullify (or confront the Federal govenment) on their own (or in a group of states less than a majority); power which they already have under the 10th Amendment.

C)..i am sure there are others.

D) It is stupid!

J.S.

[Artemis Webb]

I can't find a downside to this Amendment.