Repeal Amendment?

I’ve heard about this proposal, although not much. It’s an interesting concept for a go-around of Congress—something we’ve desperately needed these last four years. The proposal, basically, would be a constitutional amendment that would allow federal legislation to be repealed by 2/3s vote of the states.

Here is a writeup about the proposed amendment.

By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller
Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.

The proposal, dubbed the “Repeal Amendment,” if approved and ratified, would be only the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution in more than 220 years, out of only 33 amendments approved by Congress for ratification. More than 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress since the Constitution itself was ratified, but barely any actually hit the floor for a vote.

The Repeal Amendment calls for allowing states to band together to repeal, or overturn, federal legislation. As it is written now, if approved and ratified, two-thirds of states’ legislatures would need to vote in favor of a repeal.

The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/20/constitutional-amendment-proposal-to-streamline-leglislative-repeals-to-hit-congress-soon/#ixzz162FohnH3

I’m always leery of any amendments to our Constitution. This one could be a 2-edged sword if the libs every gain control of enough statehouses. On the other hand, consider how much better off if we could have repealed TARP, the Stimulus Graft Bills I & II, the Dodd Banking Bill, and last but not least, Obamacare.

It’s about enough to make me change my stance.

Missouri’s Prop C on next week’s Primary Ballot

Flag of the State of Missouri

There are three states in contention over State’s Rights issues with the federal government. Virginia is suing over Obamacare’s mandate that each individual buy government insurance. Louisiana has sued over the Gulf Oil drilling moratorium. Louisiana has won their suit against the Moratorium twice and the FedGov continues to ignore Judicial orders. Arizona has passed their copy of federal immigration laws and has been sued by the FedGov.

Now Missouri joins the fray. There is a proposition on the Primary ballot next week, Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010, known as “Prop C.” That proposition says..

Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?

Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?

It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities. However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown. (Source: SolidPrincipals Blog)

The latest poll that I’ve seen, as of a few days ago, says that 60% of Missourians favor the poll. A local radio show has started a mantra, “Yes on C, screw DC!”

There is some opposition from the expected groups. The St. Louis Today website calls those voting “Yes”, free-loaders. In my opinion, those who vote “No”, are parasites feeding off the rest of us. Compare the language and tone from StLouisToday to that of the St. Louis Tea Party. What a difference in attitude between that of the statists to that from the Tea Parties.

By the end of next Tuesday, I’ll be proud that Missouri has joined the ranks with Virginia, Louisiana and Arizona.

A Resurgence of Sovereignity

Every day, it seems, a new political atrocity occurs in Washington, DC. A number of States are beginning to push back. One form is legislation by states reaffirming their 10th Amendment rights by declaring that federal authority does not exist for firearms, manufactured, sold and possessed within the state.

The extracts below are taken from a New York Times column, States’ Rights Is Rallying Cry for Lawmakers.

Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, signed a bill into law on Friday declaring that the federal regulation of firearms is invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota. — New York Times, March 16, 2010.

Utah has passed similar legislation.

“Who is the sovereign, the state or the federal government?” said State Representative Chris N. Herrod, a Republican from Provo, Utah, and leader of the 30-member Patrick Henry Caucus, which formed last year and led the assault on federal legal barricades in the session that ended Thursday. — New York Times, March 16, 2010.

Other states are passing legislation that “opts the state out” of any federal health care regulations.

Oklahoma’s House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul. — New York Times, March 16, 2010.

Other states are reasserting their control over their National Guard units.

And in some cases, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, the politics of states’ rights are veering left. Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, for example — none of them known as conservative bastions — are considering bills that would authorize, or require, governors to recall or take control of National Guard troops, asserting that federal calls to active duty have exceeded federal authority.

“Everything we’ve tried to keep the federal government confined to rational limits has been a failure, an utter, unrelenting failure — so why not try something else?” said Thomas E. Woods Jr., a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a nonprofit group in Auburn, Ala., that researches what it calls “the scholarship of liberty.”

Woods is one of my favorite constitutional and historical writers. I’ve posted a number of reviews of his boot, “33 Questions about American History you’re not supposed to ask“.

33 Questions about American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask

33 Questions about American History, Part 2

33 Questions about American History, Part 3

33 Questions about American History, Part 4

Woods is an advocate of nullification, that is that states have the right to nullify or opt out of federal legislation that the state deems to be harmful or not in the state’s best interest. That concept is growing.

You can read the entire New York Times column here.

The Coming Revolution?

There appears to be the beginnings of a, so far, quiet revolt across much of the country. First was the State Sovereignty movement started by Montana and followed by a growing number of states including Texas, Alaska, my own state of Missouri, and perhaps this coming session, Nebraska.

Omaha.com reports…

Nebraska legislators seek to assert state sovereignty

By Martha Stoddard
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU


LINCOLN — At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:

Butt out of state business.

Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.

“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”

The tension between states’ rights and federal authority has been a repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the founding fathers.

Richard Duncan, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, said legislative resolutions send valuable political messages even with no legal weight.

“It’s kind of a nice warning that people are growing tired of the size of the federal government,” he said.

Under the 10th Amendment, states and citizens retain all powers not specifically given to the federal government.

Sovereignty supporters argue that the federal government has overstepped those bounds on matters such as endangered species protection and seat belt laws. Others say the Constitution, as interpreted by courts from the 1800s on, gives the federal government broad authority.

I don’t have a complete list of states that has joined the Sovereignty movement, but it is well into the double digits. Those joining have been, so far, from the Red States.

With the statists’ push to enact ObamaCare, Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas adds this warning.

Perry raises possibility of states’ rights showdown with White House over healthcare


Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”

Many people on both sides of the political line seem to think that the next revolution with be triggered by some individual who has finally reached the breaking point and resists the federal government violently. On the left, they all cry about the “racist, right wing, gun-loving extremists.” On the right, they cry about the “JBTs” or “Jack-booted Thugs” coined by conservative radio host Gordon Liddy after the BATF riot excesses at Ruby Ridge and Waco, TX.

Instead, it may come from another route as the States finally reach their collective limit at the abuses of the central government and they begin to exercise their rights under the 10th Amendment. Leftists poo-poo this as irrelevant citing the commerce clause and legislation that allows the FedGov to supersede state rights. They cite Lincoln and the first Civil War for the abolishment of States Rights and think the issue dead.

They are wrong. The States Rights issue is not dead. It has just been ignored and asleep for awhile. It is now awaking. Pray that the States are successful because if they are not, the alternatives will be terrible.

The Coming Revolution?

There appears to be the beginnings of a, so far, quiet revolt across much of the country. First was the State Sovereignty movement started by Montana and followed by a growing number of states including Texas, Alaska, my own state of Missouri, and perhaps this coming session, Nebraska.

Omaha.com reports…

Nebraska legislators seek to assert state sovereignty

By Martha Stoddard
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU


LINCOLN — At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:

Butt out of state business.

Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.

“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”

The tension between states’ rights and federal authority has been a repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the founding fathers.

Richard Duncan, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, said legislative resolutions send valuable political messages even with no legal weight.

“It’s kind of a nice warning that people are growing tired of the size of the federal government,” he said.

Under the 10th Amendment, states and citizens retain all powers not specifically given to the federal government.

Sovereignty supporters argue that the federal government has overstepped those bounds on matters such as endangered species protection and seat belt laws. Others say the Constitution, as interpreted by courts from the 1800s on, gives the federal government broad authority.

I don’t have a complete list of states that has joined the Sovereignty movement, but it is well into the double digits. Those joining have been, so far, from the Red States.

With the statists’ push to enact ObamaCare, Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas adds this warning.

Perry raises possibility of states’ rights showdown with White House over healthcare


Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”

Many people on both sides of the political line seem to think that the next revolution with be triggered by some individual who has finally reached the breaking point and resists the federal government violently. On the left, they all cry about the “racist, right wing, gun-loving extremists.” On the right, they cry about the “JBTs” or “Jack-booted Thugs” coined by conservative radio host Gordon Liddy after the BATF riot excesses at Ruby Ridge and Waco, TX.

Instead, it may come from another route as the States finally reach their collective limit at the abuses of the central government and they begin to exercise their rights under the 10th Amendment. Leftists poo-poo this as irrelevant citing the commerce clause and legislation that allows the FedGov to supersede state rights. They cite Lincoln and the first Civil War for the abolishment of States Rights and think the issue dead.

They are wrong. The States Rights issue is not dead. It has just been ignored and asleep for awhile. It is now awaking. Pray that the States are successful because if they are not, the alternatives will be terrible.

Palin to Feds: Hands Off!

In one of her last acts as Governor of Alaska, Sara Palin signs the Alaska Sovereignty Bill joining Montana and other states reaffirming their state’s rights.

This excerpt from World Net Daily provides more info.

THE SARAH CHRONICLES

Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state
Constitutional rights reasserted in growing resistance to Washington


Posted: July 20, 2009
11:08 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36 other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing resistance to the federal government.

Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center report. The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

Alaska’s House passed HJR 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.

According to the report, the joint resolution does not carry with it the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements.

Alaska’s resolution states:

Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed their states’ sovereignty resolutions.

The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There is more at World Net Daily.

Palin to Feds: Hands Off!

In one of her last acts as Governor of Alaska, Sara Palin signs the Alaska Sovereignty Bill joining Montana and other states reaffirming their state’s rights.

This excerpt from World Net Daily provides more info.

THE SARAH CHRONICLES

Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state
Constitutional rights reasserted in growing resistance to Washington


Posted: July 20, 2009
11:08 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36 other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing resistance to the federal government.

Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center report. The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

Alaska’s House passed HJR 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.

According to the report, the joint resolution does not carry with it the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements.

Alaska’s resolution states:

Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed their states’ sovereignty resolutions.

The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There is more at World Net Daily.