Not precisely, Cheshire Human. I think it creates an alternate limited means of amending federal statutes* (by striking selected provisions), but doesn’t do anything to change the process of amending the US constitution.
*[sub]I’ve no freakin’ clue whether or how it would apply to case law as feared by RNATB.[/sub]
The wording of the proposed amendment says, “provision of law”, not “provision of legislation”.
This would go too far the other way, though, and allow the States to repeal tax and revenue bills, defense bills, foreign commerce bills, and laws on other issues that are explicitly reserved to the national government under I.8.
Mr. Cantor is vying for the position previously held by Newt Gangrene, that is to say, the intellectual powerhouse of the Republican Party. A big thinker must, however, have Big Ideas and produce them for the edification of us all. Abstract theory is best for this sort of exercise, a vast and majestic display of Big Thinking, that will become reality when unicorn stew is served in the Senate Cafeteria, and Bricker becomes Chrstine O’Donnel’s love slave.
I disagree with this statement. The House represents the interest of the people and until 1913, the Senate represented the interest of the States. Now both houses kowtow to the interest of the people and I would argue that the two are not always synonymous. Certainly the debate on illegal immigaration would be different if the state views (cost of education, imprisonment, welfare) were being considered in addition to the anti-illegals=racism vs. they’re breaking the law argument at the populist level.
IMHO, the net effect would be similar to the Repeal Amendment if the judges enforced the 10th Amendment and took a hard look at how he ICC, tax and spend clause, etc. should truly be enacted.
On what planet are state views on illegal immigration not being considered? Certainly the tougher-enforcement crowd loves to cite them.
Bad idea. Adding a layer of oversight and approval to federal law at the level of state legislatures would just add to the existing clusterfuck of both state and federal legislation. The federal government can’t accomplish anything because their hands are tied by state legislatures, the states can’t accomplish anything at the federal level, and nobody is at the helm of directing federal policy. This doesn’t solve any problem not adequately addressed by our current “throw the bum out” system of not re-electing legislators who pass bad legislation.
I’m not sure I like the idea that before deciding if I favor this amendment, I should calculate what laws might be repealed, decide if I’m against them, and proceed on that basis. In other words, it seems what I should be asking is: does this better reflect our notions of representative democratic government better than our current scheme? If it happens to result in axing laws I personally favor but better expresses our collective national will, shouldn’t I favor it anyway? And if it happens to result in axing laws I disfavor but encumbers our collective collective national will, shouldn’t I disfavor it?
Why stop at State Legislatures? Why not bring it all the way down to the local Aldermen and School Board level? Or perhaps Condo HOA board members?
Oh, because it’s a dumb idea. Those people already have more than enough to handle at the local level, and are not tasked to handle things at the national level.
Why would one want to revert to pre-Civil-War notions of states’ rights, anyway?
You mean like how Presidents don’t nominate judges for SCOTUS based on whether they’d vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? That ship has sailed, son.
The reason I ask is that I wonder if there is any reason why this particular amendment is needed at all. I think it is very hard to get 2/3rds of the states to agree on anything, so the more I thought about it, the more I started to wonder, what is the wrong that this amendment is intending to address? What harm have states suffered over the past 220-odd years that would have been dispensed had this amendment been in place?
If the answer is, “Gee, I can’t think of issue on which the states overwhelmingly opposed something, but the courts, the Congress, and the bureaucracy shoved it down their throat and successfully blocked attempts at repeal following elections,” then what the hell is the point?
Until I get the sense that there’s a legal controversy at issue, why should we amend the Constitution at all? Just to fix a problem that doesn’t exist?
ETA: I point out that the authors of the article agree that it will be difficult to get the states to agree to repeal anything, and therefore use a Tea Party boogeyman (privatization of retirement accounts) as the reason this is needed. If that’s the best reason they can think of to argue for this power for the states, that’s really lame. Might as well have a constitutional amendment prohibiting secret Muslims from being elected President.
In general, before you adopt a policy, you need to consider what the practical results of adopting the policy will be. That’s what the people who introduced the amendment are doing. And the practical result of this amendment is that it’ll allow the residents of small, conservative, rural states to have an effective veto over legislation.
It’s about the health care law. 21 states so far are challenging it in court (that’s not 34, but it’s getting there). The backers of the amendment are hoping that, even if they fail in the courts, this amendment would let them stop it.
We already have a process for repealing federal laws and even Constitutional amendments. This is just a way for states to try to do an end around proper procedure. I do not like the idea of giving the states any power at all to interfere with federal law.
I wouldn’t say 21 states are challenging it- it’s 21 states whose (mostly) Republican attorneys general are trying to score some easy political points with the right wing by challenging the law.
Right. The lawsuits are empty grandstanding, and this proposed amendment even more so. It has absolutely zero chance of getting the 2/3 of each House necessary for proposal and submission to the states, much less the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification.
Planet Arizona. The Federal government owes money to them under Federal Law for incarcerating illegal aliens but refuses to pay. Add in social welfare cost that are ignored by the Feds as well.
What federal law is that?
The feds owe them nothing and Arizona is not required to incarcerate undocumented residents. Immigration is federal jurisdiction, not state. Arizona needs to stay out of it.