Amendment Would Enable States to Repeal Federal Law (NYT)

[somone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/us/politics/20states.html

Amendment Would Enable States to Repeal Federal Law
By KATE ZERNIKE

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 Under the proposed “repeal amendment,” any federal law or regulation could be repealed if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so.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.

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. Tea Party groups and candidates have pushed for a repeal of the 17th Amendment, which took the power to elect United States senators out of the hands of state legislatures. And potential presidential candidates like Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin have tried to appeal to anger at Washington by talking about the importance of the 10th Amendment, which reserves for states any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution...

[Hawkeye-X]

1. This, I like..

I want it be used to repeal ALL drug laws.. but we all know the 2/3 of the states legs won't pass that amendment.

Hawkeye-X

[freethought]

2. Didn't we have a civil war on this?

A state can nullify any federal law it does not agree with? Well, that could be just about any law on the federal books.
This "state' rights" is just another way of keeping the teabaggers angry.

[KurtNYC]

5. this is not individual states but rather 2/3 of all states

which means you could have 20% of the population telling the other 80% what to do since number of states is not number of Americans. It is undemocratic by design.

[freethought]

7. Rule by a minority essentially. n/t

[Igel]

14. Not so much "what to do".

More "what they can't do."

It's hard to imagine an instance in which it becomes a matter of "what to do". In most cases, the states that wanted could enact the federal legislation. Presumably there are times when states would want to enact legislation that infringes on a federal prerogative--take immigration policy, for example. But that's still a "telling them what they can't do" which may entail a "telling them what to do", not a direct "telling them what to do." Even were legislation overturned, the Congress would probably usually find another way of accomplishing most of the same ends.

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. Actually, as I read the bill summary, they are focused on the 10th Amendment

that a state can "nullify" any Federal law that is not covered by the Amendment.
The 10th Amendment says only certain specific powers accrue to the Feds, otherwise the states retain certain powers.
A definite double edged sword.
"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".

for example, under what Power does/can the FDA regulate e-cigarettes?

In a broader sense, yes, States rights issue.

[Statistical]

9. More accurately it is a states POWER issue. States (and any level of govt) can never have rights.

[atreides1]

12. We can return to good old days

When events like these were completely acceptable:

In 1883, the Tenth Amendment regained some of its force. In that year the Supreme Court invalidated the federal civil rights act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335), which criminalized racial discrimination in public accommodations, such as hotels and restaurants, because it violated state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment (civil rights cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835 <1883>). In 1909, the Supreme Court struck down the White Slave Traffic Act (34 Stat. 898), which Congress had passed to prohibit the harboring of alien women for the purposes of prostitution, because it violated the Tenth Amendment (Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138, 29 S. Ct. 470, 53 L. Ed. 737 <1909>).

Nine years later the Court struck down another congressional law prohibiting the interstate shipment of products that had been manufactured by certain businesses that employed children under the age of 14 (hammer v. dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62 L. Ed. 1101 <1918>). "In interpreting the Constitution," the Court said in Hammer, "it must never be forgotten that the nation is made up of states to which are entrusted the powers of local government. And to them the powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved."

And if you really believe that asshats like Cantor and the rest of the Repukes won't try to take us backwards in time, I have some beach front property in Arizona you might want to purchase.

It'll be beachfront as soon as California falls into the Pacific.

[jody]

3. Jefferson & Madison would support it as a modern version of their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

[jaxx]

4. The states rights bunch trying to rewrite the Constitution again.

*sigh* It always amazes me that this is the bunch who proclaim the founders as their heroes.

[customerserviceguy]

6. It's the ace in the hole that the Rethugs have for the next two years

They can spend that period trying to write Constitutional amendments that no one will be able to say are a waste of time because President Obama wouldn't sign them, since the President is Constitutionally irrelevant when it comes to amendments.

It's a way to get votes needed to put Democratic lawmakers on the spot, and gin up excitement among their base, without really having to accomplish anything of significance.

[OHdem10]

10. They are very seious about shrinking Federal Government

and develoving programs back to the states, are they not.

Federalism on the rampage. I hope we do not sit around
until they have convinced the country, then try to to take
action.

[Jkid]

11. Apparently the GOP prefers Big STATE Government.

[SoCalDem]

13. They would live to regret it.

Big states would probably relish the idea of no longer having to have their taxpayers "support" the little backwater states who refuse to "help themselves"..

These states do not have income taxes, yet many DO have recurring disasters for which they eagerly extend their hands for help.

Many of these states BRAG about the fact that they do not have all those pesky taxes, but see no contradiction when they suckle at the government teat for roads, schools, disaster aid, etc. That money comes from somewhere..it comes from the OTHER states who DO have mechanisms in place whereby their own citizens pay into the state coffers.

[rocktivity]

15. I know that the Times did a deal with FiveThirtyEight.com

Did they do one with The Onion, too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R92mcTzWRw

:rofl:
rocktivity