Posted on 12/19/2010 7:00:55 PM PST by Libloather
Amendment Would Enable States to Repeal Federal Law
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: December 19, 2010
The same people driving the lawsuits that seek to dismantle the Obama administration’s health care overhaul have set their sights on an even bigger target: a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of the states to overturn any act of Congress.
Under the proposed “repeal amendment,” any federal law or regulation could be repealed if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so.
The idea has been propelled by the wave of Republican victories in the midterm elections. First promoted by Virginia lawmakers and Tea Party groups, it has the support of legislative leaders in 12 states. It also won the backing of the incoming House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor, when it was introduced this month in Congress.
Like any constitutional amendment, it faces enormous hurdles: it must be approved by both chambers of Congress — requiring them to agree, in this case, to check their own power — and then by three-quarters of, or 38, state legislatures.
Still, the idea that the health care legislation was unconstitutional was dismissed as a fringe argument just six months ago — but last week, a federal judge agreed with that argument. Now, legal scholars are handicapping which Supreme Court justices will do the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ahem. They're called real Americans. (And we're comin' for that DADT repeal repeal, too.)
In other words, a vote of no-confidence towards the state-elected federal congresspeople.
Isn't this the type of thing Article I, §3, Clauses 1 & 2 of the Constitution originally established, and the 17th Amendment overturned?
The states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws like ObamieComieCare right now.
It’s the “We The People” part of the Constitution that is troublesome to the NY Slimes, and those coastal enclaves of limp-wristed Liberals.
And how has the Tenth Amendment protected the states and teh people from the excesses of the federal government so far?
What’s sad is that there is already language in the Constitution for these types of bad laws and for repealing them, and yet we need more laws to fight for what’s constitutional.
We have been in a civil war for some time now. The enemy figured out they don’t need to fire any bullets. They win by the slow death of our culture and values.
We can’t fight the same way they do. They’ve already taken over the schools, media, courts, and government.
1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments are already invalid or only half valid.
a better idea is to just repeal the 17th amendment and let the state legislatures appoint a senator that would truly represent their ideas and ideals and if such person failed in that task, recall him. .
Yep, that's worked out well hasn't it?
Yep. I’ve been saying that for at least the last 8 years now.
High time for this to happen. It would return us to being "these United States," instead of "the United States."
The answer is the states and the people need to exercise their Constitutional rights. Waiting for the Libtards and the federal government to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution is useless. The people and the states must do it or it won’t get done. Obviously the Libtards and federal government ignore the Constitution - passing more redundant laws won’t change that.
The answer is the states and the people need to exercise their Constitutional rights. The people and the states must do it or it won’t get done. Here, the states need to nullify the unconstitutional ObamieComieCare. This country is based on the states delegating certain powers limited by the Constitution to the federal government. The federal government has broken that trust. The states are not bound by a rouge unconstitutional federal government.
The amendment that allowed popular election of state senators upset a wonderful balance built into the constitution by the founders...
The people were to be represented by their Congress critter.
The States were to be represented by their Senator (appointed/elected by the State Legislature).
And the POTUS was a hybrid....popularly elected, but subject to the Electoral College.
Popularly electing Senators removed the STATES as power wielding entities, as they have little to no say at this point.
Look at Missouri for example...with a state legislature that is 60%+ Republican, there is no way they'd allow a Dem shill like McCaskill in the Senate. There are other states in similar predicaments.
>>The states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws like ObamieComieCare right now.
Tell that to SCOTUS. Some egregious precedent (e.g. Wickard v. Filburn, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, etc) has been in place for over 70 years.
Bump
Does anyone know, would it be easier to repeal the 17th amendment rather than pass a new amendment?
It's fallen into dormancy. Believe it or not, there's a similar provision in Canada's constitution that's fallen into disuse: unsurprisingly, it involves repealing laws.
Those of you who thought that Canada was like America except for a few quainteries and the "eh?" will get a surprise out of this one:
(From Canada's Constitution Act - sect. 56):
Where the Governor General assents to a Bill in the Queen's Name, he shall by the first convenient Opportunity send an authentic Copy of the Act to One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council within Two Years after Receipt thereof by the Secretary of State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such Disallowance (with a Certificate of the Secretary of State of the Day on which the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor General, by Speech or Message to each of the Houses of the Parliament or by Proclamation, shall annul the Act from and after the Day of such Signification.
The above is formally known as the Royal Prerogative of Disallowance. Once invoked, if done so within the two-year timeframe, a properly passed federal law goes into the toilet. Although gone into dormancy, it's still there.
Thank you. The 10th Ammendment provides for the states to nullify laws they believe are unconstitutional. The US Constitution has already been ammended enough. Lets just utilize what we already have.
All Jan Brewer in AZ had to do was stand up and tell that Federal Judge that she does not have jurisdiction over the sovereign state of Arizona and she could have put that AZ Immigration law into effect the day it was passed and she signed it into law. Only the SCOTUS has the jurisdiction over a sovereign state. What are the Feds going to do? Send in the military? I don’t think Bam Bam has the boom booms to do it and even if he did most of the military is out of the country. These governors need to get a backbone and start standing up.
There are nos states rights to speak of and you will find very few judges who will enforce them. When was the last time a judge rules specifically that the federal government had violated the 10th Amendment?
The federal government has used the interstate commerce clause to eviscerate the 10th Amendment claiming (with the Supreme Court’s blessing) that, with few exception, pretty much anything affects interstate commerce.
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.