The Repeal Amendment

[Suu]

If I remember my US History correctly, if there is such a thing, the states were actually supposed to be separate governing "countries" under the guidance on the federal government for only a short period of time.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

If I remember my US History correctly, if there is such a thing, the states were actually supposed to be separate governing "countries" under the guidance on the federal government for only a short period of time.

I thought it was meant to be a permanent thing because Shay's (Whiskey? I don't remember which) Rebellion showed that the Articles of Confederation created too weak of a government.

[Requia ☣]

The states were also in a full scale trade war with each other, not to mention the problems it created with diplomacy abroad.

[Disco Pickle]

it's so fucking 10th amendment in here.

Several states have introduced various resolutions and legisiation in protest to federal actions.[7] However, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ."

there is nothing being proposed that hasn't been being said for some time, it just hasn't gotten much press. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

it's so fucking 10th amendment in here.

Several states have introduced various resolutions and legisiation in protest to federal actions.[7] However, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ."

there is nothing being proposed that hasn't been being said for some time, it just hasn't gotten much press. 

It's a Libertarian! Get him!

[Disco Pickle]

it's so fucking 10th amendment in here.

Several states have introduced various resolutions and legisiation in protest to federal actions.[7] However, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ."

there is nothing being proposed that hasn't been being said for some time, it just hasn't gotten much press. 

It's a Libertarian! Get him!

ahhh..   t'was a good laugh.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

it's so fucking 10th amendment in here.

Several states have introduced various resolutions and legisiation in protest to federal actions.[7] However, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ."

there is nothing being proposed that hasn't been being said for some time, it just hasn't gotten much press. 

It's a Libertarian! Get him!

ahhh..   t'was a good laugh.

[Cain]

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong here...but wouldn't allowing them to repeal any Federal law allow them to negate the Constitution entirely?  I mean, if this was passed, and Idaho changed the law so only Good White Christians could hold public office...there'd be no way to stop them, right?  Unless Constitutional and Federal Law are considered distinct categories from each other, but I don't believe they are.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong here...but wouldn't allowing them to repeal any Federal law allow them to negate the Constitution entirely?  I mean, if this was passed, and Idaho changed the law so only Good White Christians could hold public office...there'd be no way to stop them, right?  Unless Constitutional and Federal Law are considered distinct categories from each other, but I don't believe they are.

Theoretically, I suppose, except that the national government always has the last say in this sort of thing. It's a symbolic and useless gesture without outright secession, which nobody wants. If there were some gross constitutional violation the Feds would crack down on it right quick.

[Cain]

But doesn't this law make it the case that state governments would have the final say?  I mean, if any aspect of the Constitution can be negated by the state government (and I can definitely see several states gunning for Amendment 14), the only way the Feds are going to be able to force those states to act otherwise is either via economic blockade or sending in troops.  Both of which are more likely to help motivate resistance and resent against the Federal government.  There doesn't appear, to me, to be a legal recourse which suggests the Federal government ranks higher than the State, if this law were to be passed.

It probably wont be, but I'm thought-experimenting here.

[Disco Pickle]

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong here...but wouldn't allowing them to repeal any Federal law allow them to negate the Constitution entirely?  I mean, if this was passed, and Idaho changed the law so only Good White Christians could hold public office...there'd be no way to stop them, right?  Unless Constitutional and Federal Law are considered distinct categories from each other, but I don't believe they are.

I don't think you intended to, but you're mucking it up a bit.  any state passing a law like that would be challenged in court on unconstitutional grounds.  (Funny thing is that there are actually several state laws on the books that say that only christians can hold public office)
This is part of a push by states to actually have the 10th be followed more closely to the literal wording and stop encroachment of federal power on the states.

of course, DC has historically stopped this sort of thing by threatening to cut off the money trough.  Seems to be the easiest way to force compliance with Federal law.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong here...but wouldn't allowing them to repeal any Federal law allow them to negate the Constitution entirely?  I mean, if this was passed, and Idaho changed the law so only Good White Christians could hold public office...there'd be no way to stop them, right?  Unless Constitutional and Federal Law are considered distinct categories from each other, but I don't believe they are.

It would require 2/3 of the states' legislatures to repeal the federal law, so Idaho couldn't do it by themselves, but Idaho and 33 other states together could.

Theoretically, I suppose, except that the national government always has the last say in this sort of thing. It's a symbolic and useless gesture without outright secession, which nobody wants. If there were some gross constitutional violation the Feds would crack down on it right quick.

The national government always has the last say now, but this amendment would change that.  If 34 state legislatures agree on the matter, then it would be they who would get the last say.

[Cain]

No, I understand that, I'm saying what if they repealed the laws that made those acts unconstitutional in the first place?  Is that possible?  Nothing seems very clear on that point, and I've tried looking through the various websites to see if that is indeed doable.  Because if they could, they could just point out that they used the Repeal Amendment to repeal legislation concerning, for example, religious checks on public office, and the Supreme Court can go suck eggs, because that's perfectly constitutional.

[Iason Ouabache]

But doesn't this law make it the case that state governments would have the final say?  I mean, if any aspect of the Constitution can be negated by the state government (and I can definitely see several states gunning for Amendment 14), the only way the Feds are going to be able to force those states to act otherwise is either via economic blockade or sending in troops.  Both of which are more likely to help motivate resistance and resent against the Federal government.  There doesn't appear, to me, to be a legal recourse which suggests the Federal government ranks higher than the State, if this law were to be passed.

It probably wont be, but I'm thought-experimenting here.

Citizenship is determined by the federal government, not the states so I doubt states could go after the "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" section of the 14th amendment. However, the next sentence:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I can definitely see some fuckers going after that part.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

No, I understand that, I'm saying what if they repealed the laws that made those acts unconstitutional in the first place?  Is that possible?  Nothing seems very clear on that point, and I've tried looking through the various websites to see if that is indeed doable.  Because if they could, they could just point out that they used the Repeal Amendment to repeal legislation concerning, for example, religious checks on public office, and the Supreme Court can go suck eggs, because that's perfectly constitutional.

I'm guessing that it would fail even if it did pass, on the grounds that the states are interfering in powers granted to national level government. But I doubt it will even get that far. I think it's just a token proposal to make it look like said politician is living up to campaign promises. I doubt that Congress would seriously consider it since it would weaken their own power, and there is also not enough public support for such an idea, but more importantly, it would weaken their own power. Congress is more likely to delegate some of their responsibilities to the White House.