This does not even begin to address the question of why three thousand kings one mile away are in any way preferable to one king three thousand miles away.
It has to do with “the framer’s idea of the balance of power” between state and federal. As I said. Twice.
Your inability to concede a minor point is tiresome. Bye.
You’re correct, it does not.
Back to the original topic:
How would this amendment impact the War Powers Resolution and conscription?
A vote based on 2/3rds of the states means 34 out of 50, leaving 16 on their own. In a bizzaro futuristic world, Canada could declare war, and 34 states could override a war declaration at the expense of those 13 border states.
A tsunami could devastate the 4 pacific states, and the remaining 46 could override federal aid measures.
I can’t remember if this was asked, but would there be any limit at all to the state’s power?
What happens if we repeal the repeal amendment?
An even better proposal: When a law is passed under the guise of the interstate commerce clause, a vote of the state legislatures is taken. Unless 3/4ths of the legislatures agree that such a law was envisioned under the powers granted to the national government under the commerce clause, then the law is void.
Makes sense, no? The states were the original parties to the Constitution and, as such, should be the ones to define what powers they surrendered in that instrument. If they decide that, say, healthcare was not part of the powers that they ceded, then they didn’t, and the law is void.
Lame idea. The Constitution isn’t a popularity contest where states are the judges. That’s because there are real-life judges who determine if something violates the Constitution.
Possibly the truest thing ever said on the dope.
Totally absent from this discussion is recognition that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments fundamentally altered the balance of power between the federal and state governments. I have yet to see any proponent of this god-forsaken “Repeal Amendment” address the intentions of the Framers of those amendments. Why? Because such proponents disagree with the pro-federal government Radical Republican Congress, which recognized the need to recalibrate the decaying institutional relationship between the federal government and the states.
I object to any reference to the Framers’ “intentions” as a useful framework for solving modern constitutional problems, but if we’re going to appeal to the supposed beliefs of dead white guys, let’s appeal to the supposed beliefs of the right dead white guys: the members of the Reconstruction Congress.
-Chris
That’s… a pretty good point, actually, which is not what you usually get from a post that begins with “totally absent from this discussion…”
I kind of thought that went without saying. These people are, generally, seeking to roll back time to before the Civil War. A better time. A more peaceful time. For all. All those who matter, at least.