"Repeal Amendment", Anyone Familiar With This?

[Zappa]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...elp-him-deconstruct-the-consitution-video.php

Excerpt:

For several weeks now, conservative legal circles have been buzzing with Virginia House Speaker Bill Howell's plan to amend the Constitution so that a 2/3 vote of the states could overturn overturn any federal law passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Howell first floated the idea in a September Wall Street Journal op-ed he co-wrote with Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett.

"At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution," the pair wrote. "A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse."

The pair say the plan is a response to the federal overreach created by "two 'progressive' constitutional amendments adopted in 1913" -- the 16th Amendment creating a federal income tax and the 17th Amendment allowing for the direct election of U.S. Senators, which were previously appointed by state legislatures.

This is a statement on the subject from Rep. Eric Cantor:

Washington has grown far too large and has become far too intrusive, reaching into nearly every aspect of our lives. In just the past few years, Washington has assumed more control over our economy and the private sector through excessive regulations and unprecedented mandates. Our liberty and freedom has lessened as the size and scope of the federal government has exploded. Massive expenditures like the stimulus, unconstitutional mandates like the takeover of health care, and intrusions into the private sector like the auto-bailouts have threatened the very core of the American free market. It's time to return America to the common sense conservative principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual responsibility. The Repeal Amendment would provide a check on the ever-expanding federal government, protect against Congressional overreach, and get the government working for the people again, not the other way around. In order to return America to opportunity, responsibility, and success, we must reverse course and the Repeal Amendment is a step in that direction.

Anyone here disagree with this?

 

[SeanT]

I like it, but living in MA, I know which way we'd go already.

 

[jasons]

Smells an awful lot like BS political posturing to me....

Isn't the legislature already made up of representatives from the states? How exactly would the states cast these votes? Lot's of questions, not so many answers.

 

[vicpinto]

The Constitution already has all the checks and balances we will ever need. We just need to elect politicians who will "protect and defend". That's the hard part.

 

[40 caliber]

frankly ,we have the ability to make a change to the consitution with a 2/3rds vote, why not some silly law passed by these idiots.
2/3rds of the states is a pretty high hurdle so it does not happen often (enough) anyway

 

[cekim]

The Constitution already has all the checks and balances we will ever need. We just need to elect politicians who will "protect and defend". That's the hard part.

Yes and no - the "interests of the state" used to be provided by the Senate NOT being elected directly by the people. So, this sort of thing would be accomplished via the Senate...

The trouble is we did away with that particular check...

In the end its just polishing at the margins since its your neighbors voting for these idiots that cause the problem, so very little that you could do would do much more than forestall the inevitable by a few years... In the end, the culture must decide to be free and decide to make the sacrifices required (foregoing bread and circus) to keep it.

That has to happen locally...

 

[Zappa]

Smells an awful lot like BS political posturing to me....

Isn't the legislature already made up of representatives from the states? How exactly would the states cast these votes? Lot's of questions, not so many answers.

You have to start somewhere.
How's this, each state gets one vote.
Each state has one Governor.
If 33 governors agree, there's your two-thirds.
Unlike seats in the House, and votes in the electoral college, it won't be slanted towards the states with the highest populations.
Montana, Wyoming and Vermont will count the same as NY, California and Illinois.

 

[cekim]

You have to start somewhere.
How's this, each state gets one vote.
Each state has one Governor.
If 33 governors agree, there's your two-thirds.
Unlike seats in the House, and votes in the electoral college, it won't be slanted towards the states with the highest populations.
Montana, Wyoming and Vermont will count the same as NY, California and Illinois.

How's this - each state gets two votes - one per Senator! Gee, that's how it already was supposed to be...

See prior post - this, like so many election schemes doesn't get to the root of the problem which is all the Toyota Pius out there with Obama/Deval stickers... Those are the people who need "change."

 

[jasons]

You have to start somewhere.
How's this, each state gets one vote.
Each state has one Governor.
If 33 governors agree, there's your two-thirds.
Unlike seats in the House, and votes in the electoral college, it won't be slanted towards the states with the highest populations.
Montana, Wyoming and Vermont will count the same as NY, California and Illinois.

The founders already thought of that. Each state already has an equal number of Senators. Why would one Governor per state do the right thing when two Senators wouldn't? Why would we even need Senators at that point? Lot's of questions.

(Beaten to the punch by Cekim, once again. )

 

[vicpinto]

Yes and no - the "interests of the state" used to be provided by the Senate NOT being elected directly by the people. So, this sort of thing would be accomplished via the Senate...

The trouble is we did away with that particular check...

In the end its just polishing at the margins since its your neighbors voting for these idiots that cause the problem, so very little that you could do would do much more than forestall the inevitable by a few years... In the end, the culture must decide to be free and decide to make the sacrifices required (foregoing bread and circus) to keep it.

That has to happen locally...

Yes we did but there's a growing movement calling for the repeal of the 17th and restoring that right back to the states. I won't hold my breath that it will ever happen.

 

[cekim]

Yes we did but there's a growing movement calling for the repeal of the 17th and restoring that right back to the states. I won't hold my breath that it will ever happen.

That and see above, I'm not holding my breath that the states will be any better at representing "us"... I dare say this one was a little naive in that they underestimated the level of graft/fraud and pay-for-play the people would tolerate. I think we see in Chicago with Barry's vacated seat how well that process works...

Frankly, the benefit of pitting them all against each other is likely accomplished just about as well this was as the original... I certainly wouldn't argue with putting it back the way it was, but I don't think its the panacea that anyone claims it to be...

 

[Zappa]

The founders already thought of that. Each state already has an equal number of Senators. Why would one Governor per state do the right thing when two Senators wouldn't? Why would we even need Senators at that point? Lot's of questions.

(Beaten to the punch by Cekim, once again. )

It avoids a situation created when both senators from the same state disagree.

 

[jasons]

It avoids a situation created when both senators from the same state disagree.

Careful what you wish for, that could cut both ways. I don't know, but I do think the founders knew what they were doing and I wouldn't be so quick to discount them.

 

[cekim]

It avoids a situation created when both senators from the same state disagree.

What Jasons said...

Any solution that amounts to "get a good person in there who can make the decision" is a step in the wrong direction. Any solution that leans toward "get hundreds of people (or more) in a room and make them fight of very little detail and have to answer for every dollar they spend" is moving in the right direction...

 

[Zappa]

Careful what you wish for, that could cut both ways. I don't know, but I do think the founders knew what they were doing and I wouldn't be so quick to discount them.

We can all agree that the system as it stands right now is broken.
It has morphed so far from the original vision of the Founding Fathers that they'd never recognize it today.
Do you think that we couldn't get 33 governors to vote for an amendment that gives powers back to the states?

 

[cekim]

We can all agree that the system as it stands right now is broken.
It has morphed so far from the original vision of the Founding Fathers that they'd never recognize it today.
Do you think that we couldn't get 33 governors to vote for an amendment that gives powers back to the states?

It's tempting to try to mess with the system to skew votes this way or that, but ultimately the disease exists at the level of the people putting their paws on ballots - or failing to stop the politicians and unions from filling them in for them...

The failure is everyone who hears non-sense about tax cuts for "this class" or "that class" and doesn't ask why we are dividing ourselves into classes when this nation was founded precisely to fight the feudal tendencies of its parent monarchy?

The failure is everyone who hears about "bringing Federal dollars home" and isn't disgusted by the pork that this represents.

The failure is everyone who thinks its the police that protect them and you fight crime with laws...

You can't fix that failure by changing the way you count bad votes... You have to change the votes themselves.

The founders hoped that on the long timeline people would educate themselves to the ways of history and avoid the trap of taxing one to buy the vote of another, but if we don't refuse that system, NOTHING you do at the top will save us from ourselves...

 

[jasons]

Do you think that we couldn't get 33 governors to vote for an amendment that gives powers back to the states?

Probably, but in theory we could also get 66 Senators to do the same thing... The states (and more importantly the people) already have whatever power they take, it's just that none have the balls to actually do it.

The phrase "deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind.

 

[Zappa]

Probably, but in theory we could also get 66 Senators to do the same thing... The states (and more importantly the people) already have whatever power they take, it's just that none have the balls to actually do it.

Personally, I don't trust any of our US Senators.
Once they find themselves elevated up to Federal status, get that cushy office on Capital Hill, and drive around in those government leased Cadillacs, they cease to work for the people back home that elected them. Their focus is now on keeping their big gov perks. At that point, why would they vote for something that would take power away from the federal government?

 

[jasons]

Personally, I don't trust any of our US Senators.
Once they find themselves elevated up to Federal status, get that cushy office on Capital Hill, and drive around in those government leased Cadillacs, they cease to work for the people back home that elected them. Their focus is now on keeping their big gov perks. At that point, why would they vote for something that would take power away from the federal government?

Is this guy really any better?

 

[Zappa]

Is this guy really any better?

No, he isn't, I agree that Mass is already a lost cause, but all those Red states in the heartland, with lesser populations than the moonbat states, would all be on equal footing with each other. What governor, from either side of the aisle, wouldn't want more power for his state and himself?

 

[jasons]

No, he isn't, I agree that Mass is already a lost cause, but all those Red states in the heartland, with lesser populations than the moonbat states, would all be on equal footing with each other. What governor, from either side of the aisle, wouldn't want more power for his state and himself?

I wouldn't be so sure. A lot of those "conservative" heartland red states get a lot more federal money back than they send*. I'm not at all sure that those governors would kill their cash cow any more than their senators would. I just don't see how this adresses any real problems. Maybe it's the skeptic in me, but I think Howell is pandering to the tea party crowd. Maybe I'm wrong.


* http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html#fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009

 

[Zappa]

I wouldn't be so sure. A lot of those "conservative" heartland red states get a lot more federal money back than they send*. I'm at all sure that those governors would kill their cash cow any more than their senators would. I just don't see how this adresses any real problems. Maybe it's the skeptic in me, but I think Howell is pandering to the tea party crowd. Maybe I'm wrong.


* http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html#fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009

Well, the system as it is now isn't working, and it's only going to get worse unless somebody shows some cajones and makes some bold moves.
I don't pretend to have the answers, but the "change" we have now certainly isn't it.

[sad2]

 

[Jose]

You guys missed the point completely. The state votes in this scenario don't come from their DC senators. They come from the statehouses. Places where most of us have much more say in what is going on.

I'm all for that.

DC law gets passed. It pissess too many people off. Referendums to put the offending law in question to a repeal vote pass. The STATE legislature voted yea or nay. Rinse wash, and repeat.

2/3 of the states go that way, federal law dies. The supreme court can't say shit because the repeal was as set forth in the constitution.

No, it's not a panacea, but it's a damn sight better avenue of relief than what we have now.

 

[cekim]

You guys missed the point completely. The state votes in this scenario don't come from their DC senators.

No, didn't miss the point, just pointing out that our original Constitution assigned people the role you are trying to create (i.e. Senators appointed by the statehouse) and it fails to solve the real problem which is all the useful idiots ("useful" only to those seeking power) asking to be treated like children. If someone will trade their liberty for hand-outs, I assure you government will always be happy to take that trade regardless of its makeup.

 

[bullseye]

No, didn't miss the point, just pointing out that our original Constitution assigned people the role you are trying to create (i.e. Senators appointed by the statehouse) and it fails to solve the real problem which is all the useful idiots ("useful" only to those seeking power) asking to be treated like children. If someone will trade their liberty for hand-outs, I assure you government will always be happy to take that trade regardless of its makeup.

That's right, the ORIGINAL constitution assigned people, not interests or unions or lobbyists. Unfortunately, the way the system is now, the people are left out in the cold and the big pockets win. Somehow the people need to regain the power in Washington, even if it means new amendments in order to return to the original constitutional design.
While they are at it, lets remove the 16th amendment altogether and let the states fund the federal government rather than the individuals. Each state pays a share based on its constituents and they gather that share through a tax system that best fits each state. If the fed needs more money, it needs to ask the states for it. In the time of war. we all pay more to defend our country.

 

[Pilgrim]

there is no reason for a majority of people or a majority of states to vote for this as majority of people or a majority of states are sucking of the govt teat and taking such action will ultimately take money out of their pockets.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any law that will change the status quo.

 

[Jose]

there is no reason for a majority of people or a majority of states to vote for this as majority of people or a majority of states are sucking of the govt teat and taking such action will ultimately take money out of their pockets.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any law that will change the status quo.

Correct. Ultimately it will come down to brute force.