Amendment to return power to states with veto

[JWBooth]

If a Constitutional Ammendment were proposed that eliminated voting and installed the President for Life, would opposing that make you somehow "Anti-Constitution?"

Should it pass, heaven forbid, it would be anti-liberty, anti-freedom, but opposing it would not be anti-constitutional. Such an absurd "what if".

A great deal of the people arguing against this idea are arguing against it because it fundamentally changes how the balance of power between the States and the Feds currently works. It would make it even harder for the Feds to take an unpopular but necessary stance, and start to dismantle the centralized government we currently have.

So, the opposition is principled because it opposes bringing back some balance between the states and the national government?
I believe the key to the opposition is not creating, or renewing this check but in the second sentence where a start is given to some dismantling of the centralised government, however small a chink in the armor this would be.

An Ammendment can most certainly be against the Spirit of the Constitution, while still being a part of it.

Something accurately stated, yet misapplied in this instance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

also caribener, the type of conservative you fallaciously, ignorantly, and baselessly claim speak for all are in deed in the vast minority, for any true constitutional conservative would tell you POINT BLANK if it is not an enumerated power then it is a state issue, and this includes obviously abortion.

WITH THAT SAID, if done through the appropriated measures, anything can be written as an amendment if as said, is done through the provided methods of amending. A federal ban on anything, if done properly, is constitutional. This is balanced by the fact that it is extremely difficult to accomplish which is the reason why politicians of both sides (mostly dems though) circumvent this with legaleese and bureaucratic bullshit.

Anyone who tells you they are a conservative but support a federal amendment to ban abortions are incorrect with their ideological representation, however, let me define a conservative as simply someone who supports the constitution as written and believes it is written in plain english and is NOT open to interpretation because the wording is simple and easily understood. The 10th amendment has a purpose and Article 1 Section 8 means within the enumerated powers (Federalist 41 explains this), for example.

You however, are a fool for believing such nonsense.

The so-called social conservatives of GOP insist on putting the so-called life amendment plank in the GOP platform; I doubt they appreciate being told they're not conservatives.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

An Ammendment can most certainly be against the Spirit of the Constitution, while still being a part of it.

Something accurately stated, yet misapplied in this instance.

I'm actually in favor of expanding the States role in many facets of the government. For example, I think that the entitlement programs shouldn't exsist at the Federal level and should instead be devolved back to the State level where the States can decide best how to implement (or not implement) such programs.

I know my objection to this thought experiment (and that's all its ever likely to become) is that a strong centralized Fed has become more and more essential to America's survival and success on the world stage. The idea that the States could roll back any law they simply didn't like flies in the face of that.

And this ammendment wouldn't just be the chink in the armor for the Fed. This is essentially the bullet in the brain pan for the Fed.

Like I said, I'm in favor of some rollback of Federal power. I'm most certainly not in favor of givng the States complete veto power over any action by the Fed.

 

[Common Sense]

An Ammendment can most certainly be against the Spirit of the Constitution, while still being a part of it.

Something accurately stated, yet misapplied in this instance.

I'm actually in favor of expanding the States role in many facets of the government. For example, I think that the entitlement programs shouldn't exsist at the Federal level and should instead be devolved back to the State level where the States can decide best how to implement (or not implement) such programs.

I know my objection to this thought experiment (and that's all its ever likely to become) is that a strong centralized Fed has become more and more essential to America's survival and success on the world stage. The idea that the States could roll back any law they simply didn't like flies in the face of that.

And this ammendment wouldn't just be the chink in the armor for the Fed. This is essentially the bullet in the brain pan for the Fed.

Like I said, I'm in favor of some rollback of Federal power. I'm most certainly not in favor of givng the States complete veto power over any action by the Fed.

having a strong federal government is what make this country strong. certain laws and regulations have to be broad in order to maintain rules across state lines. if the states simply had all the power, then each state would need to draft individual agreement with each of the the other states.

for example: your entitlements proposition of letting the states run it. well lets say that i live in California for 20 years and all of a sudden i decided to move to Iowa. Well i have to been paying into the california system for 20 years and any entitlement programs such as social security or medicare are paid for by the state. if i moved to Iowa, then california would need to have an agreement with iowa that any benefits i would be receiving could continue without interruption. this would cause a larger mess than we are currently in, as states would not have to honor agreements drafted in other states. (this is the idea of portability)

the idea of giving the states veto power makes the states stronger than the federal government. which as one posted said, would be a tilt back towards the article of confederation. federal law will always supersedes state law, and that the way it needs.

 

[goldcatt]

What I want to know is why supporters of this Amendment, which will never pass BTW, are in favor of repealing the Supremacy Clause?

Because that's exactly what this Amendment does. They won't tell you that, but all it takes is two seconds of actual critical thought to see it.

There are better ways of devolving some powers without completely destroying the Federal system to do it. Confederacy didn't work the first time, it didn't work the second time, and it won't work today.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If a Constitutional Ammendment were proposed that eliminated voting and installed the President for Life, would opposing that make you somehow "Anti-Constitution?"

A great deal of the people arguing against this idea are arguing against it because it fundamentally changes how the balance of power between the States and the Feds currently works. It would make it even harder for the Feds to take an unpopular but necessary stance, and start to dismantle the centralized government we currently have.

An Ammendment can most certainly be against the Spirit of the Constitution, while still being a part of it.

The only problem with arguing that is that this really changes very little. Getting 2/3s of the states to nullify a law would be a massive undertaking, especially if Congress started throwing around incentives to states who did not vote against it. It would take a massively unpopular act of Congress to get over that hurdle, and Congress is not very likely to act if that amount of opposition exists.

To get an idea of how hard it is to get states together on things like that, just look at how few amendments there actually are in the constitution.

 

[bodecea]

Great idea. If the 10th Amendment were complied with, this would not be necessary.

Tea Party Pushes Repeal Amendment to Give States Power Over Federal Government

"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."

"Under current law, states must go to court to overturn federal legislation and prove it violates the Constitution. The proposed amendment would give state legislatures veto power over any federal law or regulation they didn't like -- whether it passes constitutional muster or not:"

Nah, I think not. Let those facists get used to the American way of doing things with checks and balances.

Yippee! John C. Calhoun's Nullification all over again. How'd that work out last time?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Something accurately stated, yet misapplied in this instance.

I'm actually in favor of expanding the States role in many facets of the government. For example, I think that the entitlement programs shouldn't exsist at the Federal level and should instead be devolved back to the State level where the States can decide best how to implement (or not implement) such programs.

I know my objection to this thought experiment (and that's all its ever likely to become) is that a strong centralized Fed has become more and more essential to America's survival and success on the world stage. The idea that the States could roll back any law they simply didn't like flies in the face of that.

And this ammendment wouldn't just be the chink in the armor for the Fed. This is essentially the bullet in the brain pan for the Fed.

Like I said, I'm in favor of some rollback of Federal power. I'm most certainly not in favor of givng the States complete veto power over any action by the Fed.

having a strong federal government is what make this country strong. certain laws and regulations have to be broad in order to maintain rules across state lines. if the states simply had all the power, then each state would need to draft individual agreement with each of the the other states.

for example: your entitlements proposition of letting the states run it. well lets say that i live in California for 20 years and all of a sudden i decided to move to Iowa. Well i have to been paying into the california system for 20 years and any entitlement programs such as social security or medicare are paid for by the state. if i moved to Iowa, then california would need to have an agreement with iowa that any benefits i would be receiving could continue without interruption. this would cause a larger mess than we are currently in, as states would not have to honor agreements drafted in other states. (this is the idea of portability)

the idea of giving the states veto power makes the states stronger than the federal government. which as one posted said, would be a tilt back towards the article of confederation. federal law will always supersedes state law, and that the way it needs.

Wow.

You would still be able to draw form the fund in California, even if you moved to Iowa. There could be a federal law, similar to COBRA, that would allow you the option of paying into the California system if you are still working, or transferring your benefits from California to Iowa if you prefer the benefits in Iowa. Problem solved without making the people in New Jersey pay for your stupidity.

Why shouldn't states, if enough of them agree, be able to veto the feds if they do not listen. What you seem to miss is that government comes from the people, not from the top.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What I want to know is why supporters of this Amendment, which will never pass BTW, are in favor of repealing the Supremacy Clause?

Because that's exactly what this Amendment does. They won't tell you that, but all it takes is two seconds of actual critical thought to see it.

There are better ways of devolving some powers without completely destroying the Federal system to do it. Confederacy didn't work the first time, it didn't work the second time, and it won't work today.

Explain to me how this would repeal the supremacy clause. Does it have a hidden message somewhere that says states can ignore federal law?

 

[loosecannon]

Would not need "checks and balances" if the Federal government weren't walking all over states right now.

Ordinarily I would side with the supremacy clause. But the constitution was only ratified after states insisted on spelling out the rights listed in the 9th and 10th amendments.

The courts are packed with unitary exec and corporate rights proponents, they won't stand up for the 9th and 10th.

And since the feds are actually at war with the 9th and 10th, something must be done to resecure those rights.

This may be that something.

 

[rightwinger]

Then you are a retard. Amendment is clearly defined in the Constitution and is PART and PARCEL of said document. And unlike you liberals that keep ignoring the Constitution we Conservatives prefer to FOLLOW it and use the Constitution as written. You know instead of creating from whole cloth unconstitutional laws and powers we want to LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONAL change the document as required by SAID DOCUMENT.

Conseratives are the ones constantly screaming to change the Constitution. Liberals love it just the way it is

Why do you hate America?

Bullshit.

Ever here of the Equal Rights Amendment? Do you think that was pushed by conservatives? Take a look at some of the proposed constitutional amendments on Wikipedia and I am sure you will see some others that are obviously proposed my liberals.

List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reads like a litany of Conservatives whining about how they don't like America

 

[loosecannon]

What I want to know is why supporters of this Amendment, which will never pass BTW, are in favor of repealing the Supremacy Clause?

Because that's exactly what this Amendment does. They won't tell you that, but all it takes is two seconds of actual critical thought to see it.

There are better ways of devolving some powers without completely destroying the Federal system to do it. Confederacy didn't work the first time, it didn't work the second time, and it won't work today.

Explain to me how this would repeal the supremacy clause. Does it have a hidden message somewhere that says states can ignore federal law?

It won't repeal the supremacy clause. It simply trumps the right of the feds to legislate laws that the states explicitly over rule.

It's a new check and balance added to the existing system. Not unlike an amendment or a constitutional convention.

 

[rightwinger]

Then you are a retard. Amendment is clearly defined in the Constitution and is PART and PARCEL of said document. And unlike you liberals that keep ignoring the Constitution we Conservatives prefer to FOLLOW it and use the Constitution as written. You know instead of creating from whole cloth unconstitutional laws and powers we want to LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONAL change the document as required by SAID DOCUMENT.

Conseratives are the ones constantly screaming to change the Constitution. Liberals love it just the way it is

Why do you hate America?

Straight up LIE. You IGNORE the Constitution. Instead of using the Amendment process to add your desired powers you just illegally pass laws to do it unconstitutionally. Moron.

Show where any of those laws were determined to be illegal or unconstitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

Rightwing Conservative Mantra..


We LOVE the Constitution........Now CHANGE it to how we want it

 

[goldcatt]

What I want to know is why supporters of this Amendment, which will never pass BTW, are in favor of repealing the Supremacy Clause?

Because that's exactly what this Amendment does. They won't tell you that, but all it takes is two seconds of actual critical thought to see it.

There are better ways of devolving some powers without completely destroying the Federal system to do it. Confederacy didn't work the first time, it didn't work the second time, and it won't work today.

Explain to me how this would repeal the supremacy clause. Does it have a hidden message somewhere that says states can ignore federal law?

Obviously if the States can repeal any Federal law at whim, the Federal law becomes subservient to the States. There is no limit to the States' authority over Federal law, no mechanism to override this absolute veto, nada. The States become supreme and have the final word.

The system of Federal checks and balances is contained within the three branches, each State has its own version of checks and balances within its own realm of authority. That's also known as the separation of powers. The States and the Federal government each govern their own spheres of influence, with the States inferior to the Feds in areas of conflict. That is the nature of a Federal Republic. Somebody please tell me y'all aren't debating a constitutional amendment while getting confused with third grade civics.

 

[Intense]

What I want to know is why supporters of this Amendment, which will never pass BTW, are in favor of repealing the Supremacy Clause?

Because that's exactly what this Amendment does. They won't tell you that, but all it takes is two seconds of actual critical thought to see it.

There are better ways of devolving some powers without completely destroying the Federal system to do it. Confederacy didn't work the first time, it didn't work the second time, and it won't work today.

Explain to me how this would repeal the supremacy clause. Does it have a hidden message somewhere that says states can ignore federal law?

Obviously if the States can repeal any Federal law at whim, the Federal law becomes subservient to the States. There is no limit to the States' authority over Federal law, no mechanism to override this absolute veto, nada. The States become supreme and have the final word.

The system of Federal checks and balances is contained within the three branches, each State has its own version of checks and balances within its own realm of authority. That's also known as the separation of powers. The States and the Federal government each govern their own spheres of influence, with the States inferior to the Feds in areas of conflict. That is the nature of a Federal Republic. Somebody please tell me y'all aren't debating a constitutional amendment while getting confused with third grade civics.

The Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

Constitutional Amendment Process

 

[goldcatt]

Explain to me how this would repeal the supremacy clause. Does it have a hidden message somewhere that says states can ignore federal law?

Obviously if the States can repeal any Federal law at whim, the Federal law becomes subservient to the States. There is no limit to the States' authority over Federal law, no mechanism to override this absolute veto, nada. The States become supreme and have the final word.

The system of Federal checks and balances is contained within the three branches, each State has its own version of checks and balances within its own realm of authority. That's also known as the separation of powers. The States and the Federal government each govern their own spheres of influence, with the States inferior to the Feds in areas of conflict. That is the nature of a Federal Republic. Somebody please tell me y'all aren't debating a constitutional amendment while getting confused with third grade civics.

The Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

Constitutional Amendment Process

Right. That's the process to amend the compact between the States, of course the States are a party to it.

And yes, if this piece of trash were to be proposed and ratified it would merge with and become part of the COTUS. In the process, depending on the way that overbroad language would be interpreted it would repeal either all or part of the Supremacy clause, effectively holding the Federal government hostage to the competing interests of the States.

Which puts us roughly back to 1788. Confederacy didn't work before, it won't work now.

 

[Intense]

Obviously if the States can repeal any Federal law at whim, the Federal law becomes subservient to the States. There is no limit to the States' authority over Federal law, no mechanism to override this absolute veto, nada. The States become supreme and have the final word.

The system of Federal checks and balances is contained within the three branches, each State has its own version of checks and balances within its own realm of authority. That's also known as the separation of powers. The States and the Federal government each govern their own spheres of influence, with the States inferior to the Feds in areas of conflict. That is the nature of a Federal Republic. Somebody please tell me y'all aren't debating a constitutional amendment while getting confused with third grade civics.

The Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

Constitutional Amendment Process

Right. That's the process to amend the compact between the States, of course the States are a party to it.

And yes, if this piece of trash were to be proposed and ratified it would merge with and become part of the COTUS. In the process, depending on the way that overbroad language would be interpreted it would repeal either all or part of the Supremacy clause, effectively holding the Federal government hostage to the competing interests of the States.

Which puts us roughly back to 1788. Confederacy didn't work before, it won't work now.

When you say Confederacy you are referring to The Articles of Confederation? If yes I understand your point. Personally I support Madison Style Federalism and wish we would return to it GC. It was never really given a chance before Hamilton fucked everything up. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Fuck Hamilton, excuse my French.

 

[goldcatt]

Right. That's the process to amend the compact between the States, of course the States are a party to it.

And yes, if this piece of trash were to be proposed and ratified it would merge with and become part of the COTUS. In the process, depending on the way that overbroad language would be interpreted it would repeal either all or part of the Supremacy clause, effectively holding the Federal government hostage to the competing interests of the States.

Which puts us roughly back to 1788. Confederacy didn't work before, it won't work now.

When you say Confederacy you are referring to The Articles of Confederation? If yes I understand your point. Personally I support Madison Style Federalism and wish we would return to it GC. It was never really given a chance before Hamilton fucked everything up. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Fuck Hamilton, excuse my French.

Personally, I think what we have with some changes in the spheres of influence works well. The Framers came up with the best compromise available, most of the kinks systemically have been ironed out over time. You may be shocked that I'm saying this, but the biggest problem in returning States to their spheres of influence is a handful of judicial decisions that were made, particularly the overbroad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause and the constitutionality of unfunded mandates.

If there's a need to return power to the States, amending those particular areas where there are problems to be more specific and restrictive is a better way to go about broadening the States' spheres of influence than gutting the Supremacy clause and tearing the heart out of the Republic, IMO.

 

[Intense]

Right. That's the process to amend the compact between the States, of course the States are a party to it.

And yes, if this piece of trash were to be proposed and ratified it would merge with and become part of the COTUS. In the process, depending on the way that overbroad language would be interpreted it would repeal either all or part of the Supremacy clause, effectively holding the Federal government hostage to the competing interests of the States.

Which puts us roughly back to 1788. Confederacy didn't work before, it won't work now.

When you say Confederacy you are referring to The Articles of Confederation? If yes I understand your point. Personally I support Madison Style Federalism and wish we would return to it GC. It was never really given a chance before Hamilton fucked everything up. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Fuck Hamilton, excuse my French.

Personally, I think what we have with some changes in the spheres of influence works well. The Framers came up with the best compromise available, most of the kinks systemically have been ironed out over time. You may be shocked that I'm saying this, but the biggest problem in returning States to their spheres of influence is a handful of judicial decisions that were made, particularly the overbroad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause and the constitutionality of unfunded mandates.

If there's a need to return power to the States, amending those particular areas where there are problems to be more specific and restrictive is a better way to go about broadening the States' spheres of influence than gutting the Supremacy clause and tearing the heart out of the Republic, IMO.

I agree that the Commerce Clause was overstepped. There was another issue that was taken away from the States later. My perception is that it was wrong to charge the defense of State interest to the Senate, even though at the time the Senators were voted in by the State Legislatures. The Senate reflected on the House of Lords, which represented the Money Class. The House of Representatives, in my opinion, would have better defended State Right's and Interest, against Federal Encroachment and Usurpation, reflecting more on the will of the Common People, which reflected on the House Of Commons. Hamilton's National Bank was the birth of the unholy alliance or marriage of big business and big government. It undermined the respective relationships with business and their home states, and created a direct Oligarchy through the back channels of Federal Bureaucracy.