Repeal Amendment Causing Waves
By William Watkins • Sunday December 5, 2010 1:51 PM PDT • 6 Comments
The Washington Post reports that “Conservative activists are looking to build momentum for a long-shot amendment to the Constitution, introduced Wednesday in the U.S. House, that would allow states to repeal pieces of federal legislation they find onerous.”
The Post is referring to the “Repeal Amendment” drafted by Randy Barnett. This proposed amendment provides as follows:
“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”
Barnett’s full argument for the Repeal Amendment can be found here.
Because the Constitution lodges the amending power with Congress, or a constitutional convention, Barnett’s amendment would give the states a say in amendments. This would be a big improvement over the current procedure. The states could, for example, repeal the health care law without congressional assistance. It will be interesting to see if Barnett’s idea gets any traction.
Tags: Constitution, Law, Liberty, Politics, Power, The State 
Wouldn’t it be easier to just go back to State appointment of Senators as it was meant to be?
philip | Dec 5, 2010 | Reply
Doesn’t the 10th amendment already provide for this?
Speedmaster | Dec 6, 2010 | Reply
Good points on the choosing of Senators. That is the origin of many problems today.
William Watkins | Dec 7, 2010 | Reply
Philip & William...Really? Do you honestly have that much faith in your state’s legislature? This is to me akin to the argument that term limits will solve all of our problems. I agree that the Senators should be elected by the state legislatures, but I have no faith that it will solve the problems at hand. Does it really matter whether the crook is elected to Washington is done so by the crooks that are in the state house, or by the idiots at the polls?
Speedmaster said it best. Does it really matter which part of the Constitution that they are ignoring?
This “Repeal Amendment” – if it can get traction at all (doubtful) – will be symbolic at best. At worst, it will allow the so called “Conservatives” to pretend that they are fighting for us, the unwashed masses…
joe4liberty | Dec 7, 2010 | Reply
This is an ill-advised “amendment” quest and shows neither an understanding of the Constitution nor the intent of the Amendment process. Also, no additional amendment is needed and, more especially, non is desired. The process that is needed is called “nullification” and is already provided by the 10th Amendment. The Federal government is granted “only” those powers explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution itself. Moreover, the Amendment process was never intended to change the Constitution itself only to clarify the Constitution (read the Preamble to the BoR). Any Amendment which changes the body of the Constitution is invalid and cannot carry the force of law.
The 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments are, therefore, illegal. Neither the States nor the people are bound by Federal laws which require powers exceeding those granted to it by the Constitution. Changes to the body of the Constitution itself can only be made at a ConCon and that’s not something we want to have happen.
It only remains that the States and / or the people hold the Federal government to its Constitutional limits. Passing another amendment will accomplish nothing because the current Constitution is already being ignored. There exist amendments that were needed at one time (as clarification) but are no longer needed today.
Only the 10th Amendment is actually required to address the Federal laws problem. Interestingly, neither the Federal nor State governments have any Constitutional power to restrict the right of the keeping and bearing of Arms by the people (an individual right that has nothing directly to do with the Constitutional militia). See 10A & 2A with specific attention to the ” ... nor prohibited by it...” of the 10thA that so many people tend to miss.
Yes, the States SHOULD be separate from the Federal government but it is up to them to demand it by nullifying powers usurped from the States and the people.
To that end:
State sovereignty should be restored.
ALL powers usurped by the Federal government should be restored to the States and the people.
States should restore powers to the people without demand of the people if possible, otherwise the people should demand their restoration.
The Constitutional Militia should be restored.
The Civil Grand Jury should be restored.
The Common Law court should be restored.
Senators should be selected by the State Legislatures with the Legislatures empowered to recall and replace those Senators at any time.
The “original” 13th Amendment should be restored; it was illegally removed from the Constitution sometime around the unCivil War.
Tax reform needed -> the Fair Tax! ... at the local, state, and federal levels.
Yeah, we DO have a mess!
BigIron | Dec 7, 2010 | Reply
Barnett’s amendment is not a panacea. But it would provide another mechanism for checking power. Even if the president, Congress, and the courts support a federal action such as Obama Care, the states could repeal the offending measure under Barnett’s proposal.
Not this the Repeal Amendment is the only option available. There are others. But I like this amendment because people are starting to think about the need to curb federal power. Even if the amendment goes nowhere, it serves the purpose of questioning Congress’s control over the amendment process.
William Watkins | Dec 7, 2010 | Reply