Whig of 2010
New member
Virginia seems to be taking the lead (but Nine states have shown interest now) in proposing an Amendment that would allow two-thirds of the States to repeal any Federal Law or Regulation, it reads as follows.
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
It is understood Congress would probably never assent to this, so most probable path is to by-pass Congress, being that two-thirds of the States to apply for an Amendment Convention to which Congress must obey (Article V of the Constitution). The resulting Amendment from this Convention would then require three-fourth of the States to agree to for it to become an Amendment.
What do you think of this?
http://www.repealamendment.org/
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/16/is-it-high-time-for-a-repeal-amendment/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/09/howell_says_virginia_assembly.html
http://www.emailwire.com/release/52284-Support-for-the-Repeal-Amendment-Nine-States-and-Growing.html
http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/24/voter-anger-fuels-support-for-%E2%80%9Crepeal-amendment%E2%80%9D/
**Often Killed Off by Yahoo**
How is an Amendment to the Constitution, unconstitutional? If you are talking Supreme Law and treaties, that does not change, they still are. The proposal simply allows 2/3 of the States to Repeal a law, not place it subservient to the states. If 18 States like a law, it cannot be repealed under this.
This proposal clearly states Laws an regulations only, so it can not be used for the Treaties or the Constitution itself.
Regardless, if an Amendment is conflicting with a part of the Constitution, the Amendment supersedes the previous clause [as many Amendments do], so in effect it would nullify your concern [which I do not see] in Article VI.
**URdumfux**
As Stated this ONLY for Laws and Regulations, it can not be used against the Constitution itself [which the 13th Amendment is part of]
**NeoNerd**
HUGE TASK YES!!! But in all my readings, I can not recall an Amendment that REMOVED power from the Federal Government on the body that must approve it.
Since this empowers the States in federalism, I think this one has a decent chance of having legs to get 33 Legislatures to call for a Convention, but only time will tell. This is different change of power than we have seen before in a proposed Amendment.
**Constitution Rules**
I'm with you on vetting this thing out. But I would argue your point of direct conflict, in being that what the Senate [appointed by the State, not the people] did until the 17th Amendment.
**Often Killed Off by Yahoo** [Part II]
No, States cannot currently void Federal Law, hence the reason for an AMENDMENT to authorize them to do so.
So Currently = No
This Amendment [If Ratified] = Yes
"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."
It is understood Congress would probably never assent to this, so most probable path is to by-pass Congress, being that two-thirds of the States to apply for an Amendment Convention to which Congress must obey (Article V of the Constitution). The resulting Amendment from this Convention would then require three-fourth of the States to agree to for it to become an Amendment.
What do you think of this?
http://www.repealamendment.org/
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/16/is-it-high-time-for-a-repeal-amendment/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/09/howell_says_virginia_assembly.html
http://www.emailwire.com/release/52284-Support-for-the-Repeal-Amendment-Nine-States-and-Growing.html
http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/24/voter-anger-fuels-support-for-%E2%80%9Crepeal-amendment%E2%80%9D/
**Often Killed Off by Yahoo**
How is an Amendment to the Constitution, unconstitutional? If you are talking Supreme Law and treaties, that does not change, they still are. The proposal simply allows 2/3 of the States to Repeal a law, not place it subservient to the states. If 18 States like a law, it cannot be repealed under this.
This proposal clearly states Laws an regulations only, so it can not be used for the Treaties or the Constitution itself.
Regardless, if an Amendment is conflicting with a part of the Constitution, the Amendment supersedes the previous clause [as many Amendments do], so in effect it would nullify your concern [which I do not see] in Article VI.
**URdumfux**
As Stated this ONLY for Laws and Regulations, it can not be used against the Constitution itself [which the 13th Amendment is part of]
**NeoNerd**
HUGE TASK YES!!! But in all my readings, I can not recall an Amendment that REMOVED power from the Federal Government on the body that must approve it.
Since this empowers the States in federalism, I think this one has a decent chance of having legs to get 33 Legislatures to call for a Convention, but only time will tell. This is different change of power than we have seen before in a proposed Amendment.
**Constitution Rules**
I'm with you on vetting this thing out. But I would argue your point of direct conflict, in being that what the Senate [appointed by the State, not the people] did until the 17th Amendment.
**Often Killed Off by Yahoo** [Part II]
No, States cannot currently void Federal Law, hence the reason for an AMENDMENT to authorize them to do so.
So Currently = No
This Amendment [If Ratified] = Yes