Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.

The proposal, dubbed the “Repeal Amendment,” if approved and ratified, would be only the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution in more than 220 years, out of only 33 amendments approved by Congress for ratification. More than 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress since the Constitution itself was ratified, but barely any actually hit the floor for a vote.

The Repeal Amendment calls for allowing states to band together to repeal, or overturn, federal legislation. As it is written now, if approved and ratified, two-thirds of states’ legislatures would need to vote in favor of a repeal.

The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

...

“Overall, the Constitution was written with the idea of providing some kind of balance. Between the states and the federal government, there’s a vertical balance and, with the three branches of the federal government, there’s a horizontal balance,” Bishop told TheDC. “To me, it’s not about power. It’s about balance.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I note that a more "originalist" solution than this would be to repeal the amendment requiring direct election of senators. If the senate represented the states as originally intended, then dumb ...laws requiring 2/3 of the states to reject them would not be passed as often to begin with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I note that a more "originalist" solution than this would be to repeal the amendment requiring direct election of senators. If the senate represented the states as originally intended, then dumb ...laws requiring 2/3 of the states to reject them would not be passed as often to begin with.

I always find it amusing when Constitutionalists want to repeal something in the Constitution that is not to their liking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

So just what is your issue?  Or were you just wanting to sound snarky and self-rightous?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

So just what is your issue?  Or were you just wanting to sound snarky and self-rightous?

snarky and self-rightous

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I note that a more "originalist" solution than this would be to repeal the amendment requiring direct election of senators. If the senate represented the states as originally intended, then dumb ...laws requiring 2/3 of the states to reject them would not be passed as often to begin with.

I always find it amusing when Constitutionalists want to repeal something in the Constitution that is not to their liking.

Let's see. . . the proposal in the article would give us a 28th amendment.  My alternative would give us a 28th amendment.  So either way there would be a 28th amendment.

So just what is your issue?  Or were you just wanting to sound snarky and self-rightous?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

So just what is your issue?  Or were you just wanting to sound snarky and self-rightous?

snarky and self-rightous

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Quiet down Firmy, when I want your opinion I'll ask Treasure for it.

quote:

Comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Quiet down Firmy, when I want your opinion I'll ask Treasure for it.

Despite your strong desire for a domme in which to be inferior, I'm not it.  Look elsewhere. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Oh damn!

But you do already have your submissive, so I understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

It's truly amazing to me that you don't see the irony.

But I find conservatives to be generally that way.

Conservatives want to defend the Constitution at all costs............. expect when they don't like something in the Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Can you imagine the unmitigated good that would come from this?

The western and appalachian states would band together to repeal mining safety regulations because the mining corporations really can be trusted to keep their workers safe. West Virginia and Wyoming's state legistlatures are completely independent on the issue, really.

A coaltition of "business friendly" states coming together to repeal all federal consumer protection laws would stimulate "business" and "only" harm lawyers. Just trust the state legislators paid for by GM, GE, the utility industry and the importers of cheap crap made in China they wouldn't support the repal if it was bad for the common folk.

Maybe after this passes we can start letting individual states enter into treaties and otherwise conduct their own foreign affairs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Obsequious? inferior?