• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Conservatives push for amendment to Constitution to give states repeal power over Was

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
It's a lot bigger than healthcare. This is the actual language:
“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”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 seems like a wonderful idea, exactly what's needed. Its not like the states could just opt out. The states would need to super-majority out out of any bill. Still though, there's got to be some downside. Can't help but think of a state essentially succeeding from the union. That could be bad.
 

Unity

Living in Ikoria
Staff member
Doesn't this come back to one of those "original intents of the framers," checks and balances sort of issues?

Giving the federal government certain powers and the final say on some matters of federal legislation has been in place since the beginning in the U.S.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
Doesn't this come back to one of those "original intents of the framers," checks and balances sort of issues?

Giving the federal government certain powers and the final say on some matters of federal legislation has been in place since the beginning in the U.S.
Yes and no. Obviously, any amendment to the constitution like this will change some aspect of what the framers implemented, and thus probably their intent to some extent.

However, as you sort of alluded to, they certainly were in favor of checks and balances within the system - and this is yet another check/balance.

The fact that the states require a 2/3 majority, and are only receiving veto power (rather than the power to implement) means it's still mostly up to the Federal government to do anything - they just don't have the same carte blanche to do whatever they want any more.

I think the biggest problems I have with this is that the article doesn't make it clear who exactly would be involved in any veto - would it be the governors? The state legislature? Some combination?

And any time more government action is allowed, it will make things more expensive. If this is only something that states would attempt in very rare circumstances, that should keep the costs worthwhile.
 

Unity

Living in Ikoria
Staff member
Yes and no. Obviously, any amendment to the constitution like this will change some aspect of what the framers implemented, and thus probably their intent to some extent.

However, as you sort of alluded to, they certainly were in favor of checks and balances within the system - and this is yet another check/balance.

The fact that the states require a 2/3 majority, and are only receiving veto power (rather than the power to implement) means it's still mostly up to the Federal government to do anything - they just don't have the same carte blanche to do whatever they want any more.

I think the biggest problems I have with this is that the article doesn't make it clear who exactly would be involved in any veto - would it be the governors? The state legislature? Some combination?

And any time more government action is allowed, it will make things more expensive. If this is only something that states would attempt in very rare circumstances, that should keep the costs worthwhile.
Good point; I guess I just wonder if the checks and balances in place (having both representatives and senators from each state to vote on legislation before it passes/as its implemented) is already enough and that this is a case of "overdoing it."

Another good point with your veto power question.

Speaking of "overdoing it," I do worry about your last point there. An action that could be sparing in a normal state of operation, but think of the costs involved with today's histrionic members of Congress. I don't see it being used sparingly, I see it being used as another political tool. It could be a big waste of money, resources, and time in getting services to people that need it.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Obviously this is in reaction to the federal government's continuing overreach and ignoring the Tenth Amendment. Based on what I have read so far, and I agree with Wade, there are some questions that need to be answered and some things need to be ironed out, I think this is a good idea.

I would also point out this is how you change the Constitution, by amendment, not by filing a lawsuit and reinterpreting the Constitution.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Hahahahahaha "conservatives" do what? Who the hell are the people quoted in the article? Do they represent "conservatives"? I didn't realize they had been appointed as the spokespeople of "conservatives".

great "journalism" from chicago :lol:

Now that I'm done laughing

In my opinion this is an indication of how far off the path we find ourselves. When we are considering an amendment to the constitution to accomplish the very thing it was intended to do in the first place (limit the federal government) it is a sad state of affairs indeed.

If the supreme court can not find that the current state of federal intervention in individual rights is unconstitutional then what has made us great is truly being taken apart and discarded.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
Progressives: We need to curb greenhouse gasses by controlling the amount of carbon companies use and by limiting oil production.
Conservatives: Great. Do that in your state.
Progressives: No. We need to do it in your state too.

Progressives: We need to be sure healthcare is available to all free of charge including abortions.
Conservatives: Great. Do that in your state.
Progressives: No. We need to do it in your state too.

Progressives: People who are here illegally need to be declared legal.
Conservatives: Great. Do that in your state.
Progressives: No. We need to do it in your state too.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
Yeah, I don't see anything of the sort being passed anytime soon. I like the whole, "parts of legislation" bit, and knew that's what this whole thing was about before even clicking the link: Oh, we'll happily keep the part of that legislation that gives us cash for building a high-speed rail network, but the part where we have to use it for a high-speed rail network simply has to go. Yep, yeah, ahem. Not happening.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
I agree with you EI that it doesn't stand much of a chance happening although for different reasons than your interpretation of that language. For one amendments are hard to pass to begin with and secondly I don't think there's enough support for it, that is enough to pass it. I do however think it sends a message that many are tired of the federal government's overreach, whether it changes anything over the course of time remains to be seen.
 
Top