The Repeal Amendment Takes a Step Forward
GOP Rep. Rob Bishop has introduced the Repeal Amendment in the House. As I described here, the Repeal Amendment would allow a supermajority of states to overturn federal law, thus undoing some of the damage done to federalism by the 17th Amendment. Incoming majority leader Cantor reportedly praised the amendment, saying, "The Repeal Amendment would provide a check on the ever-expanding federal government, protect against Congressional overreach, and get the government working for the people again, not the other way around."
Over at the Washington Post, Dana Milbank reacted by regurgitating the now well-rehearsed liberal line: "Hey, if these guys are originalists, what are they doing amending the Constitution?" I wouldn't ordinarily dignify this absurd argument, but I was delighted to see that The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog has devoted a lengthy (by blog standards) post explaining to Milbank and his ilk that the original Constitution allows for amending -- the Economist tartly comments: "Mr Milbank may be surprised to discover that originalists do not consider the Bill of Rights an intolerable assault on the constitution's initial design." But the Economist blog goes even further to explain why the Repeal Amendment might further the worthy cause of decentralizing political power (invoking Hayek, no less). I would never describe The Economist or its associated blog as "conservative," but when they get it right, they really nail it.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: The Repeal Amendment Takes a Step Forward
I fear it's going to take an Amendment that says something like,
Any law passed by Congress that so excites the opposition of the People that they assemble, in armed masses, around the Capitol, shall be rendered null and void.
Re: The Repeal Amendment Takes a Step Forward
Adam, I read through both articles you referenced a few days ago and thought The Economist nailed it. The idea that conservatives would entertain a constitutional process that would restore constitutional limits on the federal government is treated as heresy by such as Mr. Milbank. Funny how their reverence for the doctrine of Stare Decisis only applies to precedents that are at odds with the Founders.
Jul '10
Re: The Repeal Amendment Takes a Step Forward
Honestly, I don't see how the thing would be of any value.
You can't get two-thirds of people in this country - much less in state legislatures - to agree on anything. So you'd just have endless turmoil in the states about closely-divided issues, with very, very few Federal laws being overturned.
I'd rather see an amendment that requires two-thirds of state legislatures to ratify any Federal bill that was passed by less than, say, a 60% vote in both houses of Congress, before said bill became law.
Fat chance, either way.
Edited on December 6, 2010 at 1:54amAug '10
Re: The Repeal Amendment Takes a Step Forward
Additionally, we could ask Mr. Milbank if he is a Living-Breathing-Document, Cafeteria Constitutionalist, why not quit pretending as though he is one-bit concerned about Constitutionalism at all. Why not insist on accelerating the process and throw out the Constitution, whole and entire, right now and replace it with the compass-point of all Leftism: a totalitarian world government where the only "freedom" in a new Bill of Lefts (cynically pluralized because it sounds so multitudinous and choiceful) is that of non-environmentally polluting, non-reproductive orgasms resulting from a stimulus profile any kind not prohibited by Congress (that is, none) and as much as can be peaceably permitted by the Socialista Bauhaus Apartment Police programmed with micro-regulating the Prols’ material and energy inputs and outputs in a cashless society, freed of God-junk and blissfully living the remaining moments of life, like cattle enjoying the scenery on way to slaughter. Why tarry with deceptive transition tactics any longer? Bring it on! Bring it on! "Mein Fuehrer! I can walk!"
Nov '10
Re: The Repeal Amendment Takes a Step Forward
This is a very intriguing idea. If it was passed there would definitely be more pressure placed on congress and the president in terms of the knowledge that there is a way for their shenanigans to be revoked even after they pass the bills. With the last few years as evidence many do not view the voter's wrath as anything to be concerned about. Any additional pressure could potentially help, by way of the revoke amendment.
Is there any amendment that can be written in which the states can revoke a judge's decision? I wouldn't be surprised if some judge declared that this revoke amendment, if passed, unconstitutional.
Can congress de-fund a judge out of existence?