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.
Sources:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/va-legislator-says-gop-congress-wants-to-help-him-deconstruct-the-consitution-video.php?ref=fpa
http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/Repeal_Amendment_Gives_Power_Back_to_States_111054484.html?ref=484
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4432863/states-take-on-federal-law/?playlist_id=158146
For people who claim to love the constitution, the tea partiers sure do seem to be eager to make radical changes to it.
repealing federal law at the state level doesn't mean the feds wont enforce it. look at california and prop 19.
I don't think you're bashing the amendment process to the constitution, but it reads that way. I have always been of the belief that its best quality is that it can be amended as times change.
:facepalm:
Federal trumps State. Always.
I'm beginning to think the Union lost the Yankee-Dixie Throwdown
No no no, if it's written into the Constitution that 2/3 of the states can vote to repeal a federal law, then that action would trump the federal law in question, with Constitutional authority. Sort of like how the federal government can't just whip up an Amendment all by itself, it has to pass 3/4 of state legislatures as well.
My gut reaction would be to support this legislation, except maybe make the requirement 3/4 of the states rather than just 2/3.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 02:33:06 AM
:facepalm:
Federal trumps State. Always.
I'm beginning to think the Union lost the Yankee-Dixie Throwdown
FINALLY! I CAN DRESS LIKE SCARLET O'HARA LIKE I ALWAYS WANTED TO!
Hoopla! Get the white suit, I say, it's time we have a bit of an elixir on this here balmy day.
3/4 at LEAST would be BARE MINIMUMS OF SANITY. DARWIN'S BONES, AM I THE ONLY MAN ALIVE WITH AN IMAGINATION?
Alternatively, the states could send representatives to the Legislative Branch to repeal laws. They could call these representatives ... senators.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on December 01, 2010, 02:53:21 AM
Alternatively, the states could send representatives to the Legislative Branch to repeal laws. They could call these representatives ... senators.
Senators you say? What kind of nonsense is that?
Also, this thread is relevant to Suu's recent question about the balkanization of America. This is a good start.
I'm kind of glad to see republicans actually proposing reducing the size of the federal government, rather than just giving it lip service.
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 01, 2010, 03:03:38 AM
Also, this thread is relevant to Suu's recent question about the balkanization of America. This is a good start.
That's why i posted it.
Wish I knew more. It is seeming more and more likely.
New England will be the first to go....after Hawaii. They're already working on it.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 02:32:24 AM
repealing federal law at the state level doesn't mean the feds wont enforce it. look at california and prop 19.
Right, but this amendment would give states the power to repeal federal laws at the federal level.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 02:32:24 AMI don't think you're bashing the amendment process to the constitution, but it reads that way. I have always been of the belief that its best quality is that it can be amended as times change.
I'm certainly not bashing the amendment process. What I was bashing was the seeming hypocrisy in those who claim to be constitutional originalists yet also want to change the constitution in such a fundamental way. They also want to repeal the "progressive" 13th and 17th amendments.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 01, 2010, 03:12:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 02:32:24 AMI don't think you're bashing the amendment process to the constitution, but it reads that way. I have always been of the belief that its best quality is that it can be amended as times change.
I'm certainly not bashing the amendment process. What I was bashing was the seeming hypocrisy in those who claim to be constitutional originalists yet also want to change the constitution in such a fundamental way. They also want to repeal the "progressive" 13th and 17th amendments.
But the original constitution says you can change the constitution.
I see no contradiction.
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.
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 03:18:55 AM
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.
The states were also in a full scale trade war with each other, not to mention the problems it created with diplomacy abroad.
it's so fucking 10th amendment in here.
QuoteSeveral 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.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 04:23:44 AM
it's so fucking 10th amendment in here.
QuoteSeveral 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!
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 04:47:28 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 04:23:44 AM
it's so fucking 10th amendment in here.
QuoteSeveral 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!
:lulz:
ahhh.. t'was a good laugh.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 05:08:47 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 04:47:28 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 04:23:44 AM
it's so fucking 10th amendment in here.
QuoteSeveral 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!
:lulz:
ahhh.. t'was a good laugh.
:D
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 12:57:29 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 12:57:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 12:57:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 01:03:03 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:11:31 PM
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:
QuoteNo 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.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 01:29:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 01:34:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 01, 2010, 01:54:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 01:29:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 01:34:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 01:34:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 03:34:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 01:34:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 03:39:17 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 03:34:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 01:34:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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?
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 03:34:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 01:34:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 03:43:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 03:39:17 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 03:34:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 01:34:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 03:34:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 01:34:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 01, 2010, 02:23:43 AM
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.
:banana:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 01, 2010, 02:23:43 AM
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.
:banana:
Yeah, it's going to be a fun century.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 05:02:52 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 05:02:52 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
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.
It was my understanding that the Constitution is an agreement among the States, and the powers enumerated as belonging to the Federal Government were ceded by the States. So... the Federal Government exists because the States allow(ed) it to exist, not the other way around.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 05:10:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 05:02:52 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
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.
It was my understanding that the Constitution is an agreement among the States, and the powers enumerated as belonging to the Federal Government were ceded by the States. So... the Federal Government exists because the States allow(ed) it to exist, not the other way around.
Well, it's more of a replacement for the Articles of the Confederation, which did create a national government, albeit a very useless one. The Constitution merely served as a blueprint for a beefed up national government. In that sense, it wasn't an agreement among the states, it was an overhaul of the system.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 05:10:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 05:02:52 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on December 01, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
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.
It was my understanding that the Constitution is an agreement among the States, and the powers enumerated as belonging to the Federal Government were ceded by the States. So... the Federal Government exists because the States allow(ed) it to exist, not the other way around.
You seem to be confusing the current constitution with the Articles of Confederation.
So we have Confederate sympathizers posting here....I had hoped they all died out with my great Aunt.
Quote from: Kansai on December 02, 2010, 07:26:01 PM
So we have Confederate sympathizers posting here....I had hoped they all died out with my great Aunt.
I think that you're confusing the Articles of the Confederation (the US's first failed constitution, which did not even create a Presidency) with the Confederate States of America.
Quote from: Kansai on December 02, 2010, 07:26:01 PM
So we have Confederate sympathizers posting here....I had hoped they all died out with my great Aunt.
Hahahahah. Fail.
Quote from: Kansai on December 02, 2010, 07:26:01 PM
So we have Confederate sympathizers posting here....I had hoped they all died out with my great Aunt.
:mullet:
Actually I am a Confederate sympathizer, in that I wish we had let those people leave the country for good.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 02, 2010, 09:35:43 PM
Actually I am a Confederate sympathizer, in that I wish we had let those people leave the country for good.
:lulz:
Can we keep some of the better parts of their land? I kinda like Georgia, as a place.
Sure just write an amendment that says "anybody can secede, they just can't take the state with them." We can call it the GTFO Amendment.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 03, 2010, 02:16:16 AM
Sure just write an amendment that says "anybody can secede, they just can't take the state with them." We can call it the GTFO Amendment.
That's a great Idea.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 03, 2010, 02:16:16 AM
Sure just write an amendment that says "anybody can secede, they just can't take any federal property with them." We can call it the GTFO Amendment.
Fixed for historic humor