Amendment to return power to states with veto

[Oscar Wao]

Real Americans love our Constitution

Only Conservatives keep a wish list of what they want to repeal

It's because of the love I have for the Constitution that we need to repeal the amendments that are destroying the Republic. I know you are trying to play on emotions. But that's because you don't have the argument and you know it.

REAL Americans love the Constitution and don't want it changed.

Only Conservatives feel threatened by the Constitution as it is today and seek to tear it apart

So you think all amendments after the 10th one should be repealed?

After all, the Constitution shoudn't be "changed," right?

 

[Intense]

It's because of the love I have for the Constitution that we need to repeal the amendments that are destroying the Republic. I know you are trying to play on emotions. But that's because you don't have the argument and you know it.

REAL Americans love the Constitution and don't want it changed.

Only Conservatives feel threatened by the Constitution as it is today and seek to tear it apart

So you think all amendments after the 10th one should be repealed?

After all, the Constitution shoudn't be "changed," right?

The problem is that sometimes RW just doesn't think.

 

[goldcatt]

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. **** 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.

I hear a lot about returning the Senate selection process to the State Legislatures, but it ignores the problems with corruption that prompted the change to begin with. The State legislatures were engaging in everything from bribery to nepotism over Senate selection, and the internal politics often left seats vacant for years at a time while factions wrangled over whose pet, puppet, cousin or brother would be seated. Considering the track record of the State legislatures in political functions such as redistricting, there is absolutely no guarantee there would not be an immediate return to the same level of corruption and disruption, if not worse. Direct elections, while expensive and removing the Senators from serving at the pleasure of State majority party legislative leadership, at least cut out the middle man and the Senators can be bribed directly and without holding up the process of two separate government entities.

 

[code1211]

As a real American I support my Constitution

No desire to change it

So you're pretty much okay with that whole 3/5's of a person thingy?

The 3/5s compromise was a brilliant compromise designed to punish slave states by denying them their full representation as long as they supported slavery.

Why is it we seem to ignore why certain things were in the Constitution?

Exactly! It was appropriate to the time it was included and is now simply an archaeic curiosity. A vestigel clause of a bygone time. The ability to amend the governing document keeps it current and improving.

 

[code1211]

As a real American I support my Constitution

No desire to change it

So you're pretty much okay with that whole 3/5's of a person thingy?

I said..the way it is..not was

And the way it is, and was, carries provisions to change it by defined consent of the governed.

You want it as is with no changes and yet as "it is" dictates that changes be allowed. Is this a pardox in your logic or desire? How can you embrace something that is designed to change and yet not accept that changes could happen?

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Intense]

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.

I hear a lot about returning the Senate selection process to the State Legislatures, but it ignores the problems with corruption that prompted the change to begin with. The State legislatures were engaging in everything from bribery to nepotism over Senate selection, and the internal politics often left seats vacant for years at a time while factions wrangled over whose pet, puppet, cousin or brother would be seated. Considering the track record of the State legislatures in political functions such as redistricting, there is absolutely no guarantee there would not be an immediate return to the same level of corruption and disruption, if not worse. Direct elections, while expensive and removing the Senators from serving at the pleasure of State majority party legislative leadership, at least cut out the middle man and the Senators can be bribed directly and without holding up the process of two separate government entities.

We could have all of the seats wired at the Capital, three phase 360 volts, the House and the Senate, watch on C-Span, and zap them with our remote controls.

 

[Intense]

If we could ever learn how to run an election and add, I'd love to see a General Election for President, with Runoffs. Screw the Electoral College.

 

[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?

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.

How is requiring a 2/3 majority of states to repeal a law meet anyone's definition of "at whim?" As for overriding the states veto, what is to stop Congress from passing the same law again, and forcing the states to wade through another 10 years of trying to repeal it? Don't let the rhetoric on either side of this discussion influence you, even if this passes it will be a major undertaking to get a law repealed, and will, in practice, be all but impossible. And it will not, in any way, touch the supremacy clause, because even if 33 states decide they do not like the law it will still be a law unless another state agrees with them.

 

[Intense]

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.

How is requiring a 2/3 majority of states to repeal a law meet anyone's definition of "at whim?" As for overriding the states veto, what is to stop Congress from passing the same law again, and forcing the states to wade through another 10 years of trying to repeal it? Don't let the rhetoric on either side of this discussion influence you, even if this passes it will be a major undertaking to get a law repealed, and will, in practice, be all but impossible. And it will not, in any way, touch the supremacy clause, because even if 33 states decide they do not like the law it will still be a law unless another state agrees with them.

For Amendment, 75% approval is required, not 2/3rd's. That does make the bar more Idiot proof.

 

[Old Rocks]

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."

Why sure, let's just do the Civil War all over again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

How is requiring a 2/3 majority of states to repeal a law meet anyone's definition of "at whim?" As for overriding the states veto, what is to stop Congress from passing the same law again, and forcing the states to wade through another 10 years of trying to repeal it? Don't let the rhetoric on either side of this discussion influence you, even if this passes it will be a major undertaking to get a law repealed, and will, in practice, be all but impossible. And it will not, in any way, touch the supremacy clause, because even if 33 states decide they do not like the law it will still be a law unless another state agrees with them.

For Amendment, 75% approval is required, not 2/3rd's. That does make the bar more Idiot proof.

Oops. I don't know why I kept saying 2/3rds. thanks for the coreection, and getting 38 seperate state legislatures to agree on anything would be all but impossible. Factor in that all states but Nebraska have a bicameral government and it makes it twice as hard.

 

[shintao]

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."

Look crack head, there is an order, and it doesn't start with states, you stupid asshole. Go play on the merry-go-round and let the adults handle this druggie.

 

[code1211]

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.

Couldn't Cali continue to direct deposit into your account?

I think that today, SS recipients can recieve their payments in Mexico if desired. If not recieve them there, certainly write the checks there drawn on the account into which they've been deposited.

 

[code1211]

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.

I don't think that that is the effect at all. The law is the law while it is in effect. Once it is no longer in effect, it is nothing but a memory.

The Federal government should be subservient to the People and to the states in terms of what laws are put into force even while those laws, once in force if legal and Constitutional, are supreme when in conflict with laws of the individual states.

The Supremacy Clause does not imply permanancy of any particular law. It only demands that the current law be supreme when in conflct with the law of an individual state.

 

[code1211]

Rightwing Conservative Mantra..


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

That is pretty much the line of logic here.

However, the Liberal mantra is We LOVE our petty and changing flights of fancy. Now make up some baseless crap and apply it to some blank space between the lines of verbiage in the Constitution and claim that it's there for the interpretation.

Given the two options:
1. Write a law and vote on it before it is enacted.
2. Make up some baseless crap and enact it from a court's bench.

I'll take the Legislative route every time. Let the courts decide if the laws are legal after they are written. Allowing the courts to write law is not the way it was intended to work.

Assinine, comprimised, dealt to death, tit for tat, overreaching, overbearing, unitended consequence laden crap like Obamacare is what has promoted this line of thought.

Liberals don't want this, but they obviously require it.

 

[code1211]

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.

How is requiring a 2/3 majority of states to repeal a law meet anyone's definition of "at whim?" As for overriding the states veto, what is to stop Congress from passing the same law again, and forcing the states to wade through another 10 years of trying to repeal it? Don't let the rhetoric on either side of this discussion influence you, even if this passes it will be a major undertaking to get a law repealed, and will, in practice, be all but impossible. And it will not, in any way, touch the supremacy clause, because even if 33 states decide they do not like the law it will still be a law unless another state agrees with them.

Getting re-elected in those states that voted to repeal would certainly reveal the real will of the people. If the ratification Process of the veto of the unpopular law was completed and then the lawmakers re-passed the same crap again, getting re-elected might present a real problem.

If, on the other hand, the lawmakers were re-elected, then the ratification process must have been tarnished and the checks and balances prevailed.

I don't see the problem. Any problem seems to be self correcting.

 

[code1211]

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.

Political parties are comprised of slivers that agree to hold their individual noses to tolerate the stench of the opinions of those that agree to support their own detestable opinions.

A Fiscal Conservative shares nothing with a Social Conservative except the spelling of the C word. In truth, as soon as the Social Conservative demands that the first dime be spent to support or limit activities of any special interset, he departs from the Fiscal Conservative.

Liberals like to cite any trait labeled as Conservative and scream "Hypocrite" when they conjure the conflict.

The conflict exists only in the mind of the Liberal observer who see only a group that is an opponent and not a person with individual needs, history and goals. This is the height of bias, prejudice and hate which are all the qualities that Liberals claim to despise and yet continue to employ.

 

[editec]

Look folks.

This idea would require a completely NEW constitutional form of government.

Putting aside the issue of whether its a good idea, you do realize, don't you, that there is no way in hell that we could have our current consitutional government and include with it, this modification of it?

 

[goldcatt]

Look folks.

This idea would require a completely NEW constitutional form of government.

Putting aside the issue of whether its a good idea, you do realize, don't you, that there is no way in hell that we could have our current consitutional government and include with it, this modification of it?

Bingo!

But the bumper stickers say it's a good idea, so.....

 

[Intense]

Look folks.

This idea would require a completely NEW constitutional form of government.

Putting aside the issue of whether its a good idea, you do realize, don't you, that there is no way in hell that we could have our current consitutional government and include with it, this modification of it?

Bingo!

But the bumper stickers say it's a good idea, so.....

Chasing leaves blowing in the wind. We need to restore the built in fixes to our Federalist System, restore the light touch it was intended to be. For the Control freaks, Totalitarianism Bad! Tyranny Bad!