Nullification Amendment to the Constitution -would you vote for it?

[Frodo]

I personally haven't yet made up my mind on whether or not I would vote for such an amendment if it were put to a vote here in Virginia:

Amendment Would Enable States to Repeal Federal Law

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: December 19, 2010

The same people driving the lawsuits that seek to dismantle the Obama administration’s health care overhaul have set their sights on an even bigger target: a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of the states to overturn any act of Congress.

Under the proposed “repeal amendment,” any federal law or regulation could be repealed if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so.

The idea has been propelled by the wave of Republican victories in the midterm elections. First promoted by Virginia lawmakers and Tea Party groups, it has the support of legislative leaders in 12 states. It also won the backing of the incoming House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor, when it was introduced this month in Congress.

[Verily]

No. Horrible, horrible idea. If anything, we should be encouraging the ability to nullify state law--where most of the really irresponsible legislation actually happens because no one is paying attention--rather than the other way around.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No thanks, I'm okay without slaves.

This would only be a good idea if county governments could nullify state laws, municipal governments could nulify county laws, and families could nullify municipal laws.

[The Mikado]

If anything, we should be pushing for amendments to reduce states to geographical distinctions rather than what status they have as political entities.  They're an archaic relic.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No. Horrible, horrible idea. If anything, we should be encouraging the ability to nullify state law--where most of the really irresponsible legislation actually happens because no one is paying attention--rather than the other way around.

[Free Palestine]

If anything, we should be pushing for amendments to reduce states to geographical distinctions rather than what status they have as political entities.  They're an archaic relic.

Good luck trying to get three-fourths of the states to ratify their own power away.  You'd have to come up with some major canard to make people support that.

Oh well, you could always get the Supreme Court to decide that the word "state" in the Constitution refers to ice cream trucks.  Why even bother with amendments?  It's a "living document" after all.

[minionofmidas]

I would want my state to nullify such an amendment.

[Franzl]

Awful idea, and very counterproductive to the rule of law.

[Mr. Taft Republican]

I support it, if you can get 2/3rds of the states to agree on anything, let 'em.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, they way it is now is fine.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

If anything, we should be pushing for amendments to reduce states to geographical distinctions rather than what status they have as political entities.  They're an archaic relic.

I feel a bit ill just reading that.

[The Mikado]

Morgan, I didn't seriously mean that anyone would go along with that.  That's just a step towards my ideal answer: a unitary, unicameral Parliamentary democracy with the abolition of separate executive and judicial branches (we can have a Law Lords equivalent in Parliament, and lower courts appointed by them).

In all seriousness, what we really need is a new Constitution every 50-75 years.  It's really absurd to watch people venerate this 225+ year old document like illiterate Medieval peasants hoping that a long-dead Saint's bones will cure their myopia.  The dead should serve the living, not vice versa, and the form of government the dead chose for themselves should expire with them.  Rather than argue about original intent like a passage out of the Mishnah ("Rabbi Jefferson of Monticello added this, but Reb Washington disagreed"), let's bury them and their government and make one that's truly our own, and let's give posterity the right to bury our form with us.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'd rather not give people in the rest of the country a bigger say in the law. A lot of them are idiots.

[Free Palestine]

Morgan, I didn't seriously mean that anyone would go along with that.  That's just a step towards my ideal answer: a unitary, unicameral Parliamentary democracy with the abolition of separate executive and judicial branches (we can have a Law Lords equivalent in Parliament, and lower courts appointed by them).

I can't see how such concentration of power would be a good thing, especially in a nation as big as the United States.

[King]

If subordinate states can nullify federal law, what's the point of even having a nation?

[Free Palestine]

If subordinate states can nullify federal law, what's the point of even having a nation?

Well technically, the federal government is supposed to be subordinate to the states -- not the other way around.  But, there's no reason why subnational entities cannot check the power of the national government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It would be a lot simpler to just repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.  The Senate was the branch of Congress originally intended to be beholden to the State legislatures.  Worse, under this amendment, it would be possible for States with less than one-third of the total population to repeal a Federal law.

[Free Palestine]

It would be a lot simpler to just repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.  The Senate was the branch of Congress originally intended to be beholden to the State legislatures.  Worse, under this amendment, it would be possible for States with less than one-third of the total population to repeal a Federal law.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment certainly would give the state legislatures the veto power over acts of Congress that this amendment seeks.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In all seriousness, what we really need is a new Constitution every 50-75 years.  It's really absurd to watch people venerate this 225+ year old document like illiterate Medieval peasants hoping that a long-dead Saint's bones will cure their myopia.

The one big advantage of having an unwritten constitution (or a reasonably flexible written one, for that matter) is that you don't have this particular problem.

[Sewer]

but then you get worse problems

[King]

It would be a lot simpler to just repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.  The Senate was the branch of Congress originally intended to be beholden to the State legislatures.  Worse, under this amendment, it would be possible for States with less than one-third of the total population to repeal a Federal law.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment certainly would give the state legislatures the veto power over acts of Congress that this amendment seeks.

I don't know if there's enough state legislatures that disagree with any act of Congress at any one time to get 51 seats in the Senate against any act.    At least, they can't get any more dissent than direct election already provides.

Plus, as mediocre as I find my Senate representation, I cringe at the thought of who the New Mexico legislature would elect.

Although, in the modern age, it could give state legislatures a more parliamentary feel (the Senate elections in each state would have "party leaders" who would be elected Senator if that party is voted for in the legislature races) and inspire more interest in them.  Interest leads to more populist policy I'd imagine.

I'm torn on this issue.

[Verily]

Morgan, I didn't seriously mean that anyone would go along with that.  That's just a step towards my ideal answer: a unitary, unicameral Parliamentary democracy with the abolition of separate executive and judicial branches (we can have a Law Lords equivalent in Parliament, and lower courts appointed by them).

I can't see how such concentration of power would be a good thing, especially in a nation as big as the United States.

There is no such thing as a concentration of power in a legislature.

Anyway, basically agree with Mikado, although I like independent courts and would keep them around. Also, common law is an excellent way around legislative inertia and very important to the functioning and vivacity of a legal system.

[Free Palestine]

Morgan, I didn't seriously mean that anyone would go along with that.  That's just a step towards my ideal answer: a unitary, unicameral Parliamentary democracy with the abolition of separate executive and judicial branches (we can have a Law Lords equivalent in Parliament, and lower courts appointed by them).

I can't see how such concentration of power would be a good thing, especially in a nation as big as the United States.

There is no such thing as a concentration of power in a legislature.

There is, when you eliminate the power of any subnational entity, and give all the power to the national government.  That is what I mean when I say concentration of power.

[Free Palestine]

The only reasons why anybody would support such concentration of power seems to just boil down to "because the states do things I disagree with."  Why else would you want to completely dissolve the government of Idaho or Oklahoma, and concentrate all power into an entity that you can influence?  These reasons the more astute of the twenty-something new agey liberals give are just canards for what is nothing more than political absolutism.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If it increases the odds of the United States fracturing into multiple countries, then probably. Of course it would fail, so it doesn't really matter what I think of it.