H. J. Res. 62

[jillian]

dumb as toast states-righter tea people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 In a constitutional convention, the 10th Amendment could be repealed or, itself, amended.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?

The guy who wrote this is either an idiot or lying. Once a Constitutional Convention convenes it can consider anything it wants, including scrapping the Constitution and starting over. It is not bound by anything that was used to bring it into existence or constrained in any way.

That does not mean that the convention would actually do anything more than it was assembled to do, just that it is not limited in that way. That is the scare mongering tactic that has been used for decades by people who are afraid of what a convention might do when they lobby states to prevent them from voting for one.