But with the Congress made up of people elected from the states, doesn’t that mean the states (ie, the states’ electorate) are effectively in control anyway? Or is this just an attempt at an end around specific legislation by Congress the supporters don’t like?
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Under the proposed “repeal amendment,” any federal law or regulation could be repealed if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so.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.
[…]
The repeal amendment reflects a larger, growing debate about federal power at a time when the public’s approval of Congress is at a historic low. In the last several years, many states have passed so-called sovereignty resolutions, largely symbolic, aimed at nullifying federal laws they do not agree with, mostly on health care or gun control.
So, just like the Senate: South Dakota has the same clout as Cali. Plurality (of voters) may not be great, but ‘one state, one vote’ is a hell of a lot worse!
“But with the Congress made up of people elected from the states, doesn’t that mean the states (ie, the states’ electorate) are effectively in control anyway?”
Not when members of Congress are willing to ignore their constituents and risk losing re-election to vote for bills they haven’t read, they don’t know what’s in, and their constituents don’t want.
Isn’t this one of the places that repeatedly complains that Congresscritters are the paid lackeys of Big Business? Does anyone here think that the Health Care Reform Bill wasn’t supported by major insurance companies? Was anyone at Dvorak Uncensored in favor of Stimulus I or Stimulus II, Electric Boogaloo?
The electorate in control of Congress? Don’t make me laugh.
Umm.. Hello, 10th Amendment? They already have this power. They can literally go tell the government to “pound sand” on any topic at all as per the 10th amendment.
It’s a shame that no one appears to know the constitution any more.
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. What happens when the party you loath is in charge?
So what happens is cases like the stimulus packages or bail-out where money is sent out and spent? Does that mean all that money has to come back? I don’t see this helping in cases like that.
Oh, come on #2 and #3. This is obviously aimed not so much at Congress but the Supreme Court governing by judicial fiat. The Supreme’s have overtaken the role of Congress through the Commerce Clause to regulate just about everything.
It’s out of control and needs to be stopped.
# 3 cvquesty said, “Umm.. Hello, 10th Amendment? ”
Well, CV, I’m no lawyer but I think you might be giving the 10th more power than it really has. As I recall it says anything not specifically granted to the federal gov BY THE CONSTITUTION reverts to the states. The problem is the constitution has been so liberally interpreted that the feds can do just about anything they want. And the states can NOT, necessarily, tell them to go pound sand.
Personally, I was reading a news article about this proposal earlier today (waiting for my dentist – lovely young thing) and I’m still not sure how I’d feel about it. I dislike the idea of amending the Constitution because I fear the unforeseen effects of any such addition. On the other hand, if this can put a halt on the runaway train of government we have, then maybe it’s a good thing.
Tell you what amendments I would be in favor of: term limits and public lynching of lawyers.
I would go one step further by enabling the State governments to propose Federal law and if two-thirds (perhaps 3/4) of the States ratify it, it would become law. I.e., the ability to completely bypass Congress and the President.
Frankly, if the big states (*cough* CA, NY, TX *cough*) do not like the fact that smaller States have more influence, they are certainly at liberty to voluntarily break themselves into smaller States. I’m not sure anyone outside those States would argue against splitting into smaller entities.
I think it sounds asinine.
It’s funny how the people who supposedly hate big government and bureaucracy would love a bigger government and more bureaucracy… if it could be used to suppress the ideas of people they disagree with.
@ #8
States already have the ability to bypass the federal government and propose constitutional amendments. 2/3’s of the states have to call for a constitutional convention.
#4: Both of them already are.
If the headline question were so, then the Civil War would have been illegal. Slavery would have been with us to this day!
See Article 1, Section 10. Things a state May Not Do.
Check out Article 6. The Supreme Law Of The Land notion.
Amendment 10 does not impede Article 6.
It’s a tight, interlocking formula for pecking order. Mess with it at your peril.
The entire idea is a complete capitulation to negating everything the present Constitution stands for. Find the bastards who fronted this idea (Eric Cantor included) and mark them as Complete Idiots. A forehead tattoo would do the trick. Or just Photoshop that onto any picture of them…
Any serious attempt to fudge the Constitution with an Appeal Amendment will have to do so after prying my Amendment 2 from my cold, dead hands.
JimD #13 “Then we could bar Corps from “Campaign Contributions” (BRIBES) THAT CORRUPT THE CONGRESS !”
Would you apply that to unions as well?
The #10 amendment doesn’t say the states can tell the Fed. Gov. to go pound sand on all subjects. The constitution lists several items that the Fed. Gov. is supposed to take care of.
On the other hand there is absolutely noting in the Constitution that implies the Fed. gov. has the right to require anyone purchase anything or should play any sort of role in education.
In fact if a business is only doing business inside one state no Fed. Gov. law should be able to touch it because the Fed. gov. is only allowed to regulate commerce that crosses state lines. Of course the courts have crapped all over that one.
I don’t see anything wrong with the proposal other than it won’t work. As with most proposed Constitutional Amendments, you can’t even get enough states to even vote-one way or the other. And for its goal, thats good enough too.
Nothing wrong with more voting on more issues.
In fact, with ENTIRE LEGISLATURES voting, I see no reason why a majority should not rule==and make that a majority with reference to the number of people represented==even closer to democracy.
Majority “will” as best it may be determined with the Sup Ct protecting constitutional rights and subsequent similar or other sourced legislation able to amend/reestablish the same law.
What does anyone have against Big D Democracy?
I like the idea. It would cause the lobbyists to spread the wealth all around the country instead of concentrating all the bribes in DC.
A State led Article V Convention does not need the approval of the U.S. Congress. As long as 34 States want a Convention the U.S. Congress can not stand in their way. However, the proposed amendment needs to be ratified by 38 States. The other method is that the U.S. congress can propose an amendment and it too has to be ratified by 38 States. In the past there have been attempts at a State led Article V Convention but Congress bowing to the pressure usually tries to create a law or propose an amendment themselves so that they can stop a State led Convention.
This is the big stick that needs to be used because speaking softly is being ignored by Congress.
This issue was put to rest by the Civil War. The answer is: no.
All of the debate is simply hot air, because, this thing has as much chance of passing as Jesus raising the dead, the sun beginning to set in the East, or Pam Am going out of business. Oops, that last one actually happened! but I put it in there because if you had proposed it 25 years ago, people would have called you insane.
Even if it DID pass, I object to it on several levels, none the least of which is that most statehouses are as bad as Congress to begin with, and the additional deviation from government based on majority(of the people!) rule.
Note to #12. From where I sit, the “Civil War” (officially called The War of the Rebellion by the United States government) was illegal. And, slavery was on borrowed time on strictly economic terms even in the South. But those are arguments for another day.
#12 said, “If the headline question were so, then the Civil War would have been illegal.”
Uhm… the Civil War was illegal. That’s why there *was* a war in the first place. The south decided to secede, which kind of broke the law… the rest, as they say, is history.
Who here has read “Nullification” by Thomas E. Woods? I am still in the middle of it, but so far it’s pretty clear that the states have this power already.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The fact that this has been “liberally interpreted by the feds” as Animby (#14) pointed out doesn’t really change the meaning the original founders had when they had drafted it. It doesn’t change what the individual states knew (or were told) they were voting for when they accepted the 10th Amendment. Who is to say that the new proposed amendment (if ever passed) would be misconstrued, misinterpreted, and abused itself many years henceforth?
Maybe we need this new amendment in order to reign in the 3 clauses (commerce clause being one of them) that courts typically use to route around the meaning of the 10th Amendment.
The main problem here is that the Supreme court (a branch of the government) gets to interpret the Constitution on matters that decide the breadth of it’s own power. This is akin to giving the Federal Reserve blank pieces of paper and trusting them to mark honestly in currency what it is actually worth…oh wait we already do that (in a sort-of way).
No.
rabid==good post. Totally WRONG, but really, still a good post. Good in and of itself playing off the good will of reading a book. WRONG in that basic premises are wrong.
Nothing in the proposed procedure violates or would itself lead to violations of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, or the Commerce Clause included.
The law, just doesn’t work that way. The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land. Laws made by Congress that violate that law are VOID. You can’t pass a law that restricts the Supreme Courts interpretation, as WRONG as it is too, of the Commerce Clause==you could only pass a Constitutional Amendment to limit the courts expansive reading of the Commerce Clause.
What did the Founding Fathers think? Ha, ha. The argument of an idiot. Its IRRELEVANT WHAT THEY ALL VARIOUSLY THOUGHT, ALL IN CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER. The only thing that counts is what the Supremes sing.
Silly Hoomans. Well read or otherwise.
Speaking of which, I didn’t want to get too personal, but I will now in response to Animby on another thread: I had not read, to my memory, the Declaration of Independence before. I must have but that listing of grievances was a revelation to me. But I must have read it?
Easy to dismiss though as I obvious have, if I ever read it, because the Declaration is not a governing document==it is not the law. Anyone could cite the Kama Sutra with for equal authority.
Fun huh?
“You can’t pass a law that restricts the Supreme Courts interpretation, as WRONG as it is too, of the Commerce Clause”
Heh, well I suppose we could all hope for a little self-restraint? LOL, self-restraint and government power don’t fit in the same paragraph do they?
One thing that is annoying about our common law system of interpretation of what the Constitution means is when you compare the interpreted meaning as it has been built over time to what the actual words say and see how they are in some cases quite contradictory.
Some love their country so much, they want to dismantle it.
#15 –
Remind me, which state is upstream from DC?
I think I just found a location for my discount nuclear/chemical waste reprocessing facility.
Well done Sea Lawyer, I was expecting someone well read to say that Congress can remove jurisdiction of the Court. That is a misdirection as the “original jurisdiction” of the Court cannot be so affected. What is original jurisdiction? As it applies here: interpreting what the Commerce Clause means.
Sea Lawyer–I’m curious. Is making people buy insurance as that “affects” commerce the type of “thats the opposite of what the constitution says” the type of issue you are referring to? Or hopefully do you have an example or two that would be more directly opposite? I accept there could be a few, they just don’t come to mind. Like Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus, etc, really not the same thing?
Good point here Bobbo: “you could only pass a Constitutional Amendment to limit the courts expansive reading of the Commerce Clause.”
However on the “founding fathers” point; if they were indeed ALL in conflict with one another then the question is begged: “How did the 10th Amendment get passed at ALL if everyone disagreed or had different ideas and designs?” What was presented to the individual states for voting was quite clear and succinct. It was not a jumble of different meanings and interpretations.
I think you threw me a “softball” with that last sentence, but I neither have the time right now, nor the exact details to properly volley it back into your side of the court. Until next time, TTFN (-:
having a STATE, and its PEOPLE, decide their OWN LAWS?? WONDERFUL..
but FIRST, get rid of all the easterners, LIVING in the west. They have some STRANGE ideas.
Then get rid of those that have residences in more then 1 state..
THEN, NO CORPS can vote, and ANY DOLLARS spent by them fore/against a vote, should dump into the county coffers.