"Repeal" Amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


FirmhandKY -> "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 11:17:28 AM)

Constitutional Amendment proposal to streamline legislative repeals to hit Congress soon
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller | Published: 11:29 AM 11/20/2010 | Updated: 1:30 AM 11/22/2010

Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.

The proposal, dubbed the “Repeal Amendment,” if approved and ratified, would be only the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution in more than 220 years, out of only 33 amendments approved by Congress for ratification. More than 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress since the Constitution itself was ratified, but barely any actually hit the floor for a vote.

The Repeal Amendment calls for allowing states to band together to repeal, or overturn, federal legislation. As it is written now, if approved and ratified, two-thirds of states’ legislatures would need to vote in favor of a repeal.

The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

...

“Overall, the Constitution was written with the idea of providing some kind of balance. Between the states and the federal government, there’s a vertical balance and, with the three branches of the federal government, there’s a horizontal balance,” Bishop told TheDC. “To me, it’s not about power. It’s about balance.”

Comments?

Firm




mnottertail -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 11:19:25 AM)

I dunno, is that gonna make slavery easier to pass?




rulemylife -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 11:22:18 AM)

It's nice to have dreams.

Especially wet ones.




Aylee -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 11:31:49 AM)

I note that a more "originalist" solution than this would be to repeal the amendment requiring direct election of senators. If the senate represented the states as originally intended, then dumb ...laws requiring 2/3 of the states to reject them would not be passed as often to begin with.




rulemylife -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 11:38:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I note that a more "originalist" solution than this would be to repeal the amendment requiring direct election of senators. If the senate represented the states as originally intended, then dumb ...laws requiring 2/3 of the states to reject them would not be passed as often to begin with.


I always find it amusing when Constitutionalists want to repeal something in the Constitution that is not to their liking.




popeye1250 -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 12:05:08 PM)

Anything that gives The People more power over their govt is a good thing.
The Feds are doing things they shouldn't be doing and not doing things thay should be doing.
And "state's rights" have been weakened.




Aylee -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 12:23:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I note that a more "originalist" solution than this would be to repeal the amendment requiring direct election of senators. If the senate represented the states as originally intended, then dumb ...laws requiring 2/3 of the states to reject them would not be passed as often to begin with.


I always find it amusing when Constitutionalists want to repeal something in the Constitution that is not to their liking.



Let's see. . . the proposal in the article would give us a 28th amendment.  My alternative would give us a 28th amendment.  So either way there would be a 28th amendment.

So just what is your issue?  Or were you just wanting to sound snarky and self-rightous?




FirmhandKY -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 12:37:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

So just what is your issue?  Or were you just wanting to sound snarky and self-rightous?


snarky and self-rightous






Aylee -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 1:29:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

So just what is your issue?  Or were you just wanting to sound snarky and self-rightous?


snarky and self-rightous





Oooops.  Sorry for hi-jacking your thread.  I was originally just trying to add to the discussion. 




rulemylife -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 1:42:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I note that a more "originalist" solution than this would be to repeal the amendment requiring direct election of senators. If the senate represented the states as originally intended, then dumb ...laws requiring 2/3 of the states to reject them would not be passed as often to begin with.


I always find it amusing when Constitutionalists want to repeal something in the Constitution that is not to their liking.



Let's see. . . the proposal in the article would give us a 28th amendment.  My alternative would give us a 28th amendment.  So either way there would be a 28th amendment.

So just what is your issue?  Or were you just wanting to sound snarky and self-rightous?


It's truly amazing to me that you don't see the irony.

But I find conservatives to be generally that way.

Conservatives want to defend the Constitution at all costs............. expect when they don't like something in the Constitution.




rulemylife -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 1:44:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

So just what is your issue?  Or were you just wanting to sound snarky and self-rightous?


snarky and self-rightous



Quiet down Firmy, when I want your opinion I'll ask Treasure for it.




TreasureKY -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 1:55:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Quiet down Firmy, when I want your opinion I'll ask Treasure for it.



Despite your strong desire for a domme in which to be inferior, I'm not it.  Look elsewhere.  [8|]




Musicmystery -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 1:58:45 PM)

quote:

Comments?


Yes. Solutions rather than theater would be a better use of tax-payer's dollars and legislatures' time.

Why not just disband the union? Do whatever you want, let the other nations conquer us one by one.

Hell, even divided up the defense budget is competitive by international standards.

Honestly, I'm so sick of the "Oh No! Federal Government!" crap. Just go. When you get tired of it, reapply for statehood.




rulemylife -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 2:02:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Quiet down Firmy, when I want your opinion I'll ask Treasure for it.



Despite your strong desire for a domme in which to be inferior, I'm not it.  Look elsewhere.  [8|]



Oh damn!

But you do already have your submissive, so I understand.




DomKen -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 2:11:40 PM)

Can you imagine the unmitigated good that would come from this?

The western and appalachian states would band together to repeal mining safety regulations because the mining corporations really can be trusted to keep their workers safe. West Virginia and Wyoming's state legistlatures are completely independent on the issue, really.

A coaltition of "business friendly" states coming together to repeal all federal consumer protection laws would stimulate "business" and "only" harm lawyers. Just trust the state legislators paid for by GM, GE, the utility industry and the importers of cheap crap made in China they wouldn't support the repal if it was bad for the common folk.

Maybe after this passes we can start letting individual states enter into treaties and otherwise conduct their own foreign affairs.




TreasureKY -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 2:12:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Oh damn!

But you do already have your submissive, so I understand.


Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but no.  I find obsequious men with no backbone to be... well... repellent is probably the kindest way I can say it. 

Take heart though, there has to be some woman out there who'd be willing to put up with you.




Lucylastic -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 2:28:31 PM)

Obsequious? inferior?
I think you are projecting way to much , and being insulting to more than just Rule.( which I can understand as he drew first blood)
Congratulations

Snarky and selfrighteously
Lucy




Aylee -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 4:37:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

It's truly amazing to me that you don't see the irony.

But I find conservatives to be generally that way.

Conservatives want to defend the Constitution at all costs............. expect when they don't like something in the Constitution.



1.  I used the term "originalist" specifically.

2.  Yes, Constitutionalists and often times conservatives do want to defend the constitution. 

3.  The constitution has written instructions inside of it for changing it.  Also known as Article 5.

4.  What you do not seem to grasp is that the folks refereed to in #2 dislike it when folks try and change the constitution by ways other than those outlined in the constitution. 

An example.  Repealing the 2nd amendment by judicial legislation or any legislation that does not conform to Article 5 of the US Constitution. 





FirmhandKY -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 5:56:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Can you imagine the unmitigated good that would come from this?

The western and appalachian states would band together to repeal mining safety regulations because the mining corporations really can be trusted to keep their workers safe. West Virginia and Wyoming's state legistlatures are completely independent on the issue, really.

A coaltition of "business friendly" states coming together to repeal all federal consumer protection laws would stimulate "business" and "only" harm lawyers. Just trust the state legislators paid for by GM, GE, the utility industry and the importers of cheap crap made in China they wouldn't support the repal if it was bad for the common folk.

Maybe after this passes we can start letting individual states enter into treaties and otherwise conduct their own foreign affairs.

So, you trust the Federal Government, but you don't trust any of the State governments?

Firm




TreasureKY -> RE: "Repeal" Amendment (11/22/2010 6:00:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Obsequious? inferior?


His words, not mine.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125