The GOP's New Constitutional Amendment: Give States Veto Power Over Federal Laws

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Republicans say they've found the problem in America -- and that problem is the basic framework of the Union as we know it today.

A group of Republicans in the House and Senate are proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow a vote by two-thirds of the states' legislatures to override any federal law they did not agree with.

The proposed constitutional amendment, a tea party favorite, is being touted by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) in the Senate and co-sponsored by Sens. John Barasso (R-WY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). In the House, Reps. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Paul Broun (R-GA) are leading the charge.

The goal, according to proponents, is to stop the tyranny of Washington over the economy and circumscribe other federal powers.

Here's how the plan would work, from an op-ed Bishop wrote in Daily Caller announcing the Amendment:

f two-thirds of the states collectively find a federal law or regulation abhorrent or misguided, they should have the power to repeal said law or regulation. The law would then be sent back to Washington for further consideration, at which time Congress may choose not to act again on the matter, or they may vote to override the states' repeal and pass it in finality.

"American society itself is so diverse, so organic, so varying in its geography, culture, and demographics that we see the same fatal conceit when government tries to manage it from one central location," Bishop wrote. "That is, unfortunately, what we have done over the past 80 years."

Supporters of the so-called Repeal Amendment say that it was the 17th Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1913, that helped lead the country down the path of too much federal power. Tea partiers have suggested repealing the 17th Amendment -- which allows for direct election of senators -- but Republicans have balked.

Marianne Moran, executive director of the Repeal Amendment, told TPM creating a new constitutional amendment may be easier to swallow then repealing the 17th.

"A lot of people feel that's the way that Washington controlled much more power and took it away from the states. It's hard to take away direct election of senators from the people, but it was the idea of the founders that give state legislators more power," she said. "And that's why a lot of those people who support repeal of the 17th love the idea of the repeal amendment because it's easier to sell to a large majority of people that you'll be able to repeal bad acts of Congress."

The amendment will be officially rolled out Thursday in a Capitol Hill press conference. Most of the sponsors declined a request for comment from TPM Wednesday afternoon. Barasso's office confirmed his support for the plan, but referred all specific questions to Enzi. Broun's office referred calls to Bishop's office. Moran told TPM her group has been working with Enzi and Bishop to introduce the new bill.

The idea that the framework of the union as we know it today should be fundamentally altered in favor of granting final veto power over federal law to states has been kicking around Republican politics for a while now. Last year, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) signaled his support for a plan in the Virginia legislature to call a Constitutional Convention to consider the Repeal Amendment.

Though it's never been tried, a Constitutional Convention can be called by a vote of 2/3 of the states, triggering an amendment process. The customary way an amendment begins is with a vote in Congress that then requires ratification by the states to become part of the Constitution. Bishop last introduced his Repeal Amendment in Congress last year.

Meanwhile, GOP-controlled state legislatures have been passing their own laws aimed at knocking down the federal government's ability to pass laws via the means laid out by the founders. More than one legislatures has considered bills allowing individual states to nullify the federal laws they don't like, and only abide by the ones that they do.

Moran insists her scheme is drastically different from those nullification proposals, which are legally dubious at best.

"It's completely different from nullification. This would be two-thirds of the states getting together to say we don't like a specific law or regulation, passing a resolution to each state legislature to that effect, and then it would be null and void," she told TPM. "It doesn't prevent Congress from coming back the very next day and passing that same law, but considering it would take a huge majority of the American people to get two-thirds of the states to agree to an appeal, those senators and congressmen would probably no longer have their jobs come election season."

"It's really designed to restore the balance of power between the states and federal government that's been usurped for a long period of time," she said.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/the-gops-new-constitutional-amendment-give-states-veto-power-over-federal-laws.php

[Vi-Jay 218]

This article makes me feel happy!

[^_^ 5,021]

This would be two-thirds of the states getting together to say we don't like a specific law or regulation...

Dear Pissed Off States,

You already have this power through the United States Senate. If you're not happy with your United States Senator, I suggest you vote him or her out and elect someone you like.

ETA: And if you feel the United States Senate has been irreparably corrupted by the influence of big money, then publicly fund all campaigns and watch the Tea Party be one of the big winners.

Edited May 11, 2011 by \

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dear Pissed Off States,

You already have this power through the United States Senate. If you're not happy with your United States Senator, I suggest you vote him or her out and elect someone you like.

ETA: And if you feel the United States Senate has been irreparably corrupted by the influence of big money, then publicly fund all campaigns and watch the Tea Party be one of the big winners.

Word.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Dear Pissed Off States,

You already have this power through the United States Senate. If you're not happy with your United States Senator, I suggest you vote him or her out and elect someone you like.

ETA: And if you feel the United States Senate has been irreparably corrupted by the influence of big money, then publicly fund all campaigns and watch the Tea Party be one of the big winners.

Actually, no they don't.

The 17th amendment made sure of that.

It was the greatest disservice to our founding.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Actually, no they don't.

The 17th amendment made sure of that.

It was the greatest disservice to our founding.

Please expound Paul.

These other guys are killing my buzz.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Please expound Paul.

These other guys are killing my buzz.

every part of our government is now elected 'by the people.'

While this sounds fine and dandy, it creates and unbalanced government.

Part of our 'party lines' government comes from the fact that the senate is no longer controlled by the states.

That's not to say party lines wouldn't exist, but it's makes it harder for them to flourish when a state legislature is the one picking 2 STATE representatives in the Senate.

That was the original intent/point.

in simple terms...

The House = the people

The Senate = the state

The President = The final say

The house and the senate had to compromise though before any law ever reached the President.

Now days when you get both houses elected by the people including the President, you see the BS that happened during Bush his first 6 years for example. One party owns the house. One owns the senate. One owns the Presidency. You literally control the country at that point. It's dangerous and look where it has landed us.

You have to have a balanced government, especially when it comes to state's rights. State's have no rights anymore thanks to the 17th amendment. The Senators could give a damn about their state and care more about 'the people' than their state, because that's who elects them.

I'm not saying we wouldn't still have our issues, but they would be far less severe than what they are now if we had never introduced the 17th amendment.

[Vi-Jay 218]

every part of our government is now elected 'by the people.'

While this sounds fine and dandy, it creates and unbalanced government.

Part of our 'party lines' government comes from the fact that the senate is no longer controlled by the states.

That's not to say party lines wouldn't exist, but it's makes it harder for them to flourish when a state legislature is the one picking 2 STATE representatives in the Senate.

That was the original intent/point.

in simple terms...

The House = the people

The Senate = the state

The President = The final say

The house and the senate had to compromise though before any law ever reached the President.

Now days when you get both houses elected by the people including the President, you see the BS that happened during Bush his first 6 years for example. One party owns the house. One owns the senate. One owns the Presidency. You literally control the country at that point. It's dangerous and look where it has landed us.

You have to have a balanced government, especially when it comes to state's rights. State's have no rights anymore thanks to the 17th amendment. The Senators could give a damn about their state and care more about 'the people' than their state, because that's who elects them.

I'm not saying we wouldn't still have our issues, but they would be far less severe than what they are now if we had never introduced the 17th amendment.

Thanks!

I feel happy again.

Wait, Did you read the article? Opinion?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

every part of our government is now elected 'by the people.'

So, the states are not representing their people? Is that the essence of your rebuttal?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Yay for the states having veto power! It's about d@mn time. It's time for change. Waite....who said that?

The Feds have become a Commie organization and it's about time they get taken down a notch or two.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yay for the states having veto power!

They already have something more powerful than that. And it takes much less of a majority than is proposed here to exercise it.

[Danno 1,228]

Our systems hallmarks are -Checks and balances, this provides one more.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Our systems hallmarks are -Checks and balances, this provides one more.

It won't pass however...thank you check and balance

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If that amendment passes it will no longer be The "United" States of America

[Zero Sum 305]

Lets get rid of the filibuster altogether first. Then we can see about how practical turning the USA into the FASA (Federation of Antagonistic States of America) would be.