The Repeal Amendment

[tyrannosaurus vex]

No, I understand that, I'm saying what if they repealed the laws that made those acts unconstitutional in the first place?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.

Legally speaking, the Constitution is a separate legal entity from the United States Code, which is where other federal laws live. If an amendment passed that allowed 2/3 of the States to repeal a "Federal Law," that would be referring to the US Code, not to the Constitution. So 2/3 of the states could not change the Constitution, they could only strike down specific laws inside the US Code.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

No, I understand that, I'm saying what if they repealed the laws that made those acts unconstitutional in the first place?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.

Congress doesn't have to consider it.   States can call a constitutional convention and amend the federal constitution themselves without congress's involvement.  That's how the people behind the Repeal Amendment are planning on doing it.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

No, I understand that, I'm saying what if they repealed the laws that made those acts unconstitutional in the first place?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.

Legally speaking, the Constitution is a separate legal entity from the United States Code, which is where other federal laws live. If an amendment passed that allowed 2/3 of the States to repeal a "Federal Law," that would be referring to the US Code, not to the Constitution. So 2/3 of the states could not change the Constitution, they could only strike down specific laws inside the US Code.

Right, it would still require 3/4 of the states to change the Constitution.  This amendment wouldn't change that.

[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.

Congress doesn't have to consider it.   States can call a constitutional convention and amend the federal constitution themselves without congress's involvement.  That's how the people behind the Repeal Amendment are planning on doing it.

I still don't see it as likely. Politicians wouldn't want to shoot themselves in the foot. State politicians wouldn't do it because they might make it to the Big League someday.

[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.

Legally speaking, the Constitution is a separate legal entity from the United States Code, which is where other federal laws live. If an amendment passed that allowed 2/3 of the States to repeal a "Federal Law," that would be referring to the US Code, not to the Constitution. So 2/3 of the states could not change the Constitution, they could only strike down specific laws inside the US Code.

Ah, I see.  Thank you.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

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.

Legally speaking, the Constitution is a separate legal entity from the United States Code, which is where other federal laws live. If an amendment passed that allowed 2/3 of the States to repeal a "Federal Law," that would be referring to the US Code, not to the Constitution. So 2/3 of the states could not change the Constitution, they could only strike down specific laws inside the US Code.

Ah, I see.  Thank you.

Sure.

The thing is, the Constitution isn't really a Federal Law, it's an agreement among the States, by which supposedly sovereign nations (States) relinquish a portion of their sovereignty in exchange for the services of the Federal Government. Which is why it is amazing to me that so many Americans seem to think that International Law is bogus. They have this nationalistic idea that the United States are (they would say is here) supposed to be an entirely cohesive, singular unit.

[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.

Legally speaking, the Constitution is a separate legal entity from the United States Code, which is where other federal laws live. If an amendment passed that allowed 2/3 of the States to repeal a "Federal Law," that would be referring to the US Code, not to the Constitution. So 2/3 of the states could not change the Constitution, they could only strike down specific laws inside the US Code.

Ah, I see.  Thank you.

Sure.

The thing is, the Constitution isn't really a Federal Law, it's an agreement among the States, by which supposedly sovereign nations (States) relinquish a portion of their sovereignty in exchange for the services of the Federal Government. Which is why it is amazing to me that so many Americans seem to think that International Law is bogus. They have this nationalistic idea that the United States are (they would say is here) supposed to be an entirely cohesive, singular unit.

It's because of what we're used to, and it has progressively become more true. Not that I find anything wrong with it, I'm in favor of a strong national government (history shows its the only way to guarantee equal rights for citizens, where it exists), while simultaneously recognizing I have little in common with someone from Nebraska.

[Suu]

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.

Legally speaking, the Constitution is a separate legal entity from the United States Code, which is where other federal laws live. If an amendment passed that allowed 2/3 of the States to repeal a "Federal Law," that would be referring to the US Code, not to the Constitution. So 2/3 of the states could not change the Constitution, they could only strike down specific laws inside the US Code.

Ah, I see.  Thank you.

Sure.

The thing is, the Constitution isn't really a Federal Law, it's an agreement among the States, by which supposedly sovereign nations (States) relinquish a portion of their sovereignty in exchange for the services of the Federal Government. Which is why it is amazing to me that so many Americans seem to think that International Law is bogus. They have this nationalistic idea that the United States are (they would say is here) supposed to be an entirely cohesive, singular unit.

It's because of what we're used to, and it has progressively become more true. Not that I find anything wrong with it, I'm in favor of a strong national government (history shows its the only way to guarantee equal rights for citizens, where it exists), while simultaneously recognizing I have little in common with someone from Nebraska.

That and those of us who have bounced between states in our lifetime would have a hard time determining "citizenship". Am I a New Yorker or a Rhode Islander?

[Disco Pickle]

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.

Legally speaking, the Constitution is a separate legal entity from the United States Code, which is where other federal laws live. If an amendment passed that allowed 2/3 of the States to repeal a "Federal Law," that would be referring to the US Code, not to the Constitution. So 2/3 of the states could not change the Constitution, they could only strike down specific laws inside the US Code.

Ah, I see.  Thank you.

Sure.

The thing is, the Constitution isn't really a Federal Law, it's an agreement among the States, by which supposedly sovereign nations (States) relinquish a portion of their sovereignty in exchange for the services of the Federal Government. Which is why it is amazing to me that so many Americans seem to think that International Law is bogus. They have this nationalistic idea that the United States are (they would say is here) supposed to be an entirely cohesive, singular unit.

the issue with the federal government submitting to international courts is that that power is not delegated to it by the states and cedes authority and sovereignty without the agreement of the states.

international law is generally followed as it concerns the way states agree to interact with each other.

[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.

Legally speaking, the Constitution is a separate legal entity from the United States Code, which is where other federal laws live. If an amendment passed that allowed 2/3 of the States to repeal a "Federal Law," that would be referring to the US Code, not to the Constitution. So 2/3 of the states could not change the Constitution, they could only strike down specific laws inside the US Code.

Ah, I see.  Thank you.

Sure.

The thing is, the Constitution isn't really a Federal Law, it's an agreement among the States, by which supposedly sovereign nations (States) relinquish a portion of their sovereignty in exchange for the services of the Federal Government. Which is why it is amazing to me that so many Americans seem to think that International Law is bogus. They have this nationalistic idea that the United States are (they would say is here) supposed to be an entirely cohesive, singular unit.

It's because of what we're used to, and it has progressively become more true. Not that I find anything wrong with it, I'm in favor of a strong national government (history shows its the only way to guarantee equal rights for citizens, where it exists), while simultaneously recognizing I have little in common with someone from Nebraska.

That and those of us who have bounced between states in our lifetime would have a hard time determining "citizenship". Am I a New Yorker or a Rhode Islander?

Depends on what you think of yourself most as. I would always be a Bostonian no matter where I go, but I also have lived here for almost 30 years, so it pretty much solidifies that as an identity.

[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.

Legally speaking, the Constitution is a separate legal entity from the United States Code, which is where other federal laws live. If an amendment passed that allowed 2/3 of the States to repeal a "Federal Law," that would be referring to the US Code, not to the Constitution. So 2/3 of the states could not change the Constitution, they could only strike down specific laws inside the US Code.

Ah, I see.  Thank you.

Sure.

The thing is, the Constitution isn't really a Federal Law, it's an agreement among the States, by which supposedly sovereign nations (States) relinquish a portion of their sovereignty in exchange for the services of the Federal Government. Which is why it is amazing to me that so many Americans seem to think that International Law is bogus. They have this nationalistic idea that the United States are (they would say is here) supposed to be an entirely cohesive, singular unit.

the issue with the federal government submitting to international courts is that that power is not delegated to it by the states and cedes authority and sovereignty without the agreement of the states.

international law is generally followed as it concerns the way states agree to interact with each other.

That depends on how you look at it. The national government is empowered to conduct foreign affairs and enter into treaties.  Even if it's not explicitly stated, it's an implied power. There were also no international courts at the time the constitution was drafted.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Virginia house speaker Bill Howell, incoming U.S. house majority leader Eric Cantor, several other Republicans are behind a plan to call a constitutional convention to amend the constitution.  They call the amendment that they want to pass the "Repeal Amendment", and it would allow any group of 2/3 of state legislatures to repeal any federal law they don't like.

So much for article VI.

Just think how much fun this would be.  You'd have states like Tennessee, Kentucky, and even Florida deciding how much Baby Jebus is in your kids' science classes, whether or not a rape victim can get an abortion, or whether some untrained yutz can operate a gantry crane in a crowded urban area.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Virginia house speaker Bill Howell, incoming U.S. house majority leader Eric Cantor, several other Republicans are behind a plan to call a constitutional convention to amend the constitution.  They call the amendment that they want to pass the "Repeal Amendment", and it would allow any group of 2/3 of state legislatures to repeal any federal law they don't like.

So much for article VI.

Just think how much fun this would be.  You'd have states like Tennessee, Kentucky, and even Florida deciding how much Baby Jebus is in your kids' science classes, whether or not a rape victim can get an abortion, or whether some untrained yutz can operate a gantry crane in a crowded urban area.

Yeah, it's going to be a fun century.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

the issue with the federal government submitting to international courts is that that power is not delegated to it by the states and cedes authority and sovereignty without the agreement of the states.

international law is generally followed as it concerns the way states agree to interact with each other.

The States don't grant power to the federal government.  Please read article VI of the US constitution.

[Disco Pickle]

the issue with the federal government submitting to international courts is that that power is not delegated to it by the states and cedes authority and sovereignty without the agreement of the states.

international law is generally followed as it concerns the way states agree to interact with each other.

The States don't grant power to the federal government.  Please read article VI of the US constitution.

the constitution grants power to the federal government. 

my mistake.