H. J. Res. 62

[JBeukema]

Read The Bill: H. J. Res. 62 - GovTrack.us

JOINT RESOLUTION​

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:



‘Article--

‘Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.’.

What say you?

 

[JBeukema]

Based on the wording, a constitutional convention would be called to propose the amendment, and that would be a huge step backward. In fact, the appeal of possibly giving the states the power to repeal federal laws could be bait to lure states-rights people into accepting a constitutional convention, thinking they are going to get what they want, only to discover the proceedings have been rigged so that they lose what little they now have. In a constitutional convention, the 10th Amendment could be repealed or, itself, amended.

....

H.J. Res. 62 is not meant to protect the states rights. It is a piece of trickery. The resolution implies that we do not now have the right as independent states to reject federal encroachment. The key phrase is “when ratified by”. If this resolution was actually implemented as an amendment to the constitution, no state could sue the Federal government over laws such as Obamacare, or refuse independently to submit to federal encroachment.

Activist Post: H.J. Res. 62: Amending The Constitution To End States Rights?

 

[NoEconomist]

Based on the wording, a constitutional convention would be called to propose the amendment, and that would be a huge step backward. In fact, the appeal of possibly giving the states the power to repeal federal laws could be bait to lure states-rights people into accepting a constitutional convention, thinking they are going to get what they want, only to discover the proceedings have been rigged so that they lose what little they now have. In a constitutional convention, the 10th Amendment could be repealed or, itself, amended.

....

H.J. Res. 62 is not meant to protect the states rights. It is a piece of trickery. The resolution implies that we do not now have the right as independent states to reject federal encroachment. The key phrase is “when ratified by”. If this resolution was actually implemented as an amendment to the constitution, no state could sue the Federal government over laws such as Obamacare, or refuse independently to submit to federal encroachment.

Activist Post: H.J. Res. 62: Amending The Constitution To End States Rights?

I was talking about this yesterday, you don't want modern lawyers tinkering with the source code.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Silly piece of grandstanding.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Silly piece of grandstanding.

Indeed – fodder for the stump.

This would require a Constitutional Convention.

They would also be required to amend the Constitution to repeal amendments first, starting with the 14th. The unraveling of case law associated with the 14th alone would be a disaster.

 

[Publius1787]

Read The Bill: H. J. Res. 62 - GovTrack.us

JOINT RESOLUTION​

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:



‘Article--

‘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.’.

What say you?

Before both republican and democrat progressives amended the constitution this was exactly the role of the Senate. To be the voice of the states. The House was the voice of the people/taxpayers. Now the states have no voice as the Senate is popularly elected instead of being elected by the state legislatures as they used to be. So now popular elections determin treaties, court justices, and the intulectual side of congress. This was what our founders EXPRESSLY tried to prevent. Legeslation with no say by the states.

 

[Publius1787]

Silly piece of grandstanding.

I wouldent say that. The Senate used to be elected by the the state legislatures before the constitution was amended in the progressive era. The founding fathers wanted the state to have a say in the federal government. Now they have no say. I take it as a fact that if the Senate was still elected by the states there would be no Obamacare today.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Hahahaha...

The Tenth Amendment??

It would not be a good idea...

Whatever.....

 

[Mr.Nick]

Yeah your 1984 future...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lupF3XCtFzk]YouTube - ‪Tased Execution Style at Home... (Full Video)‬‏[/ame]

 

[Mr.Nick]

Sorry all the viral sites were stealing the vid for themselves. They (as I expected) ripped it all off... That was the point....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lupF3XCtFzk]YouTube - ‪Tased Execution Style at Home... (Full Video)‬‏[/ame]

 

[American Legacy]

This is grandstanding. Worse would be if the resolution's sponsors seriously believe this to be a necessary correction to legislative ills. As Publius1787 alluded to in other respects, our Founding Fathers also bequeathed us the necessary tools to address the injustices this gimmick is designed to confront. All that is necessary to repeal or reverse federal laws or regulation is a majority vote in both popularly elected houses of Congress and the President's signature or, failing the President's assent, two-thirds majorities in each house. It stands to reason that any measure so unpopular as to draw the ire of two-thirds of the state legislatures, would be able to draw sufficient opposition in Congress. States may, after all, recall their elected representatives should those individuals be deemed to oppose the interests of their constituents; it's an amazing thing we call elections. Furthermore, this amendment would open up a dangerous Pandora's box where states, for the first time in more than two hundred years, would wield power over the federal government, usurping our federalist constitutional system.

The author of the aforementioned article, Ms. Oakley, may be high-spirited, but she's also ill-informed and her fanciful rant is as full of inaccuracies as it is fallacious theories. Firstly, there is no state right to nullification of federal law in existence, nor has there ever been from the day the Constitution was ratified until now. The tenth amendment may reserve those rights not specifically delineated to the federal government to the states or to the people of the United States, but that is not the same thing as giving states a veto power over federal legislation. The Founders understood that doing so would render the federal government too impotent carry out those duties that were assigned to it.

In the case of all three branches of the federal government failing to uphold the Constitution as regards some federal law or regulation, then the people are free to elect new representatives two the executive and legislative branches who will uphold it or, failing that, to amend the Constitution. In fact, the proposed amended is little more than a watering down of the constitutional amendment process, requiring two-thirds of the state legislatures rather than three-fourths of them.

It is furthermore erroneous that the proposed amendment would call for a constitutional convention as the resolution is purely an act of Congress at this time, should it even pass (which it won't). While nullification doesn't exist, states rights certainly do. But the guarantor and protector of those states rights is the people and the Constitution, not the states themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

This would require a Constitutional Convention.

Really? Why?

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

They would also be required to amend the Constitution to repeal amendments first, starting with the 14th. The unraveling of case law associated with the 14th alone would be a disaster.

Horseshit.

You have to be one of the dumbest turds in this forum.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Classical liberals should only be allowed to post on this website.

 

[JBeukema]

Classical liberals should only be allowed to post on this website.

And nowhere else?

Typical statist

 

[Publius1787]

This is grandstanding. Worse would be if the resolution's sponsors seriously believe this to be a necessary correction to legislative ills. As Publius1787 alluded to in other respects, our Founding Fathers also bequeathed us the necessary tools to address the injustices this gimmick is designed to confront. All that is necessary to repeal or reverse federal laws or regulation is a majority vote in both popularly elected houses of Congress and the President's signature or, failing the President's assent, two-thirds majorities in each house. It stands to reason that any measure so unpopular as to draw the ire of two-thirds of the state legislatures, would be able to draw sufficient opposition in Congress. States may, after all, recall their elected representatives should those individuals be deemed to oppose the interests of their constituents; it's an amazing thing we call elections. Furthermore, this amendment would open up a dangerous Pandora's box where states, for the first time in more than two hundred years, would wield power over the federal government, usurping our federalist constitutional system.

The author of the aforementioned article, Ms. Oakley, may be high-spirited, but she's also ill-informed and her fanciful rant is as full of inaccuracies as it is fallacious theories. Firstly, there is no state right to nullification of federal law in existence, nor has there ever been from the day the Constitution was ratified until now. The tenth amendment may reserve those rights not specifically delineated to the federal government to the states or to the people of the United States, but that is not the same thing as giving states a veto power over federal legislation. The Founders understood that doing so would render the federal government too impotent carry out those duties that were assigned to it.

In the case of all three branches of the federal government failing to uphold the Constitution as regards some federal law or regulation, then the people are free to elect new representatives two the executive and legislative branches who will uphold it or, failing that, to amend the Constitution. In fact, the proposed amended is little more than a watering down of the constitutional amendment process, requiring two-thirds of the state legislatures rather than three-fourths of them.

It is furthermore erroneous that the proposed amendment would call for a constitutional convention as the resolution is purely an act of Congress at this time, should it even pass (which it won't). While nullification doesn't exist, states rights certainly do. But the guarantor and protector of those states rights is the people and the Constitution, not the states themselves.

I said nothing of the sort. However, nullification would be a disaster. I was hinting on how the Senate used to be elected, and rightfully so, by the state legislaters. This is no longer so and thus, the states have absolutly no say inlegislation. Now the federal government writes state law through the theft of taxation without the states consent as they hold the money over the states head and says "If you want your money back you need to pass this law." Before, the states had a say in federal laws that conflict with states laws and rights. Now no such system exists. This is the opposite of what our founders envisioned and for good purpose. Haveing two popularly elected bodies makes absolutly no since as both bodies are elected by the same venue.

 

[Publius1787]

Classical liberals should only be allowed to post on this website.

And nowhere else?

Typical statist

Funny. Classical liberals werent statists.

 

[American Legacy]

This is grandstanding. Worse would be if the resolution's sponsors seriously believe this to be a necessary correction to legislative ills. As Publius1787 alluded to in other respects, our Founding Fathers also bequeathed us the necessary tools to address the injustices this gimmick is designed to confront. All that is necessary to repeal or reverse federal laws or regulation is a majority vote in both popularly elected houses of Congress and the President's signature or, failing the President's assent, two-thirds majorities in each house. It stands to reason that any measure so unpopular as to draw the ire of two-thirds of the state legislatures, would be able to draw sufficient opposition in Congress. States may, after all, recall their elected representatives should those individuals be deemed to oppose the interests of their constituents; it's an amazing thing we call elections. Furthermore, this amendment would open up a dangerous Pandora's box where states, for the first time in more than two hundred years, would wield power over the federal government, usurping our federalist constitutional system.

The author of the aforementioned article, Ms. Oakley, may be high-spirited, but she's also ill-informed and her fanciful rant is as full of inaccuracies as it is fallacious theories. Firstly, there is no state right to nullification of federal law in existence, nor has there ever been from the day the Constitution was ratified until now. The tenth amendment may reserve those rights not specifically delineated to the federal government to the states or to the people of the United States, but that is not the same thing as giving states a veto power over federal legislation. The Founders understood that doing so would render the federal government too impotent carry out those duties that were assigned to it.

In the case of all three branches of the federal government failing to uphold the Constitution as regards some federal law or regulation, then the people are free to elect new representatives two the executive and legislative branches who will uphold it or, failing that, to amend the Constitution. In fact, the proposed amended is little more than a watering down of the constitutional amendment process, requiring two-thirds of the state legislatures rather than three-fourths of them.

It is furthermore erroneous that the proposed amendment would call for a constitutional convention as the resolution is purely an act of Congress at this time, should it even pass (which it won't). While nullification doesn't exist, states rights certainly do. But the guarantor and protector of those states rights is the people and the Constitution, not the states themselves.

I said nothing of the sort. However, nullification would be a disaster. I was hinting on how the Senate used to be elected, and rightfully so, by the state legislaters. This is no longer so and thus, the states have absolutly no say inlegislation. Now the federal government writes state law through the theft of taxation without the states consent as they hold the money over the states head and says "If you want your money back you need to pass this law." Before, the states had a say in federal laws that conflict with states laws and rights. Now no such system exists. This is the opposite of what our founders envisioned and for good purpose. Haveing two popularly elected bodies makes absolutly no since as both bodies are elected by the same venue.

If I wasn't clear, I apologize, but I referenced your saying that the system as originally conceived and designed by the Founders (i.e. senators elected by state legislatures rather than popular majorities) was a safeguard against federal encroachment on states rights. If that came across a little garbled then I sincerely apologize for the confusion.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Classical liberals should only be allowed to post on this website.

And nowhere else?

Typical statist

Funny. Classical liberals werent statists.

Fine the tyrants wheer federalist.

Karl Marx birthed his mother...

 

[JBeukema]

And nowhere else?

Typical statist

Funny. Classical liberals werent statists.

Fine the tyrants wheer federalist.

'wheer'? Did you mean 'were'?

So if the tyrants were federalists... then the federalists were tyrants...

So when you speak of the Federalist Papersm you're advocating the propaganda of tyrants?

 

[editec]

Read The Bill: H. J. Res. 62 - GovTrack.us

JOINT RESOLUTION​

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:



‘Article--

‘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.’.

What say you?

Interesting.

If it passes, the legislatures of two-thirds of the states become a de facto SCOTUS.