The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

It’s A Good Start, But Where Is The Feedback Loop?

Posted on | September 20, 2010 | 14 Comments

by Smitty via (Insty)

Marianne Moran’s article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch concerns an Amendment to give States repeal power over Federal legislation:

We need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will allow the repeal of any act of Congress or regulation when two-thirds of the states agree to the repeal.

Insufficient, say I, and for this reason: $.
So long as the Federal government has eminent domain over the individual wallet (Amendment 16), and the States as such lack a voice in the Federal government (Amendment 17), and the Congress has a Cosmic Credit Card (The Federal Reserve), then the notion of permitting State repeals is lipstick on a pig in a deck chair on a sinking cruise ship.
Has anyone noticed that the 16th & 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act all came about in 1913, to the funky beats of Fascist Woodrow and the Progressives?
This State repeal concept is a worthy idea, but I hope that the Tea Party movement will go hard or go home: this blog formally dares any 2012 Presidential candidate to go hard or go home. Campaign on repealing 16th & 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act, commensurate with their centennial.
Then you can break the cycle of economic abuse that has made unethical deficit spending a commonplace activity, dependence on Federal bread and circuses a standard procedure, and an unfathomable debt the issue none dare address except Paul Ryan.
The current open-loop system does nothing but drive the cycle misattributed to Tytler, and ends in slavery.
At the risk of sounding discouraging, this notion of State repeal will likely not avail much.

Category: Politics

Comments

14 Responses to “It’s A Good Start, But Where Is The Feedback Loop?”

  1. AngelaTC
    September 20th, 2010 @ 10:28 am

    Repealing an amendment is done by passing a new amendment, and an amendment can be ratified by getting 3/4 of the states to approve it. The danger lies in the method of proposing new amendments, which requires the participation of Congress. If the states could agree to ratify an amendment (and only that amendment) prior to proposing it, the role of Congress could be minimal. But allowing Congress to call a convention without seriously limiting their discussions would be dangerous.

  2. smitty
    September 20th, 2010 @ 10:31 am

    @AngelaTC,
    Yes to all your points, but repealing two proven bad Amendments would seem to be a lower bar than considering a new Amendment that just adds more complexity.

  3. Old Rebel
    September 20th, 2010 @ 11:20 am

    Has anyone noticed that the 16th & 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act all came about in 1913, to the funky beats of Fascist Woodrow and the Progressives?

    Why, yes: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/tuggle8.html

  4. T.L. Davis
    September 20th, 2010 @ 11:31 am

    If we are going to go the Amendment route, we would be much better off passing a single amendment that would rein in the Commerce Clause, in effect making it applicable only to ensuring interstate commerce between the states be duty and impost free. This would not allow the abuses of government undertaken under the commerce clause as it stands.

    Get that done and you have created an atmosphere where other amendments, or repeals of other amendments are more likely.

  5. Adobe Walls
    September 20th, 2010 @ 11:41 am

    If memory serves two thirds of the states can amend the constitution if 3/4 ratify independent of congress.

  6. AngelaTC
    September 20th, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

    Smitty, maybe I’m not hearing you right. I’ve got a bit a head cold and the meds have me a little out of it. So correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Constitution contains a process for repealing amendments. Hence the 18th amendment was repealed, but only by passing another amendment, the 21st.

    So, any process to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments would have to follow roughly the same procedures as a new amendment.

    TL Davis, I absolutely agree with moving to clarify the commerce clause, limiting it to original intent. This is something that the states would have to do, because Congress has no interest in giving up the single claim to almost all their assumed powers.

  7. smitty
    September 20th, 2010 @ 1:48 pm

    @Angela,
    No, clearly there would be a new Amendment cancelling 16 & 17.
    The point I was making is that the effort to stamp ‘Cancel’ on them may be less than crafting entirely new Amendments that add to the Federal complexity.
    The sad news for people is that adding more complexity will likely produce unintended consequences.
    Thus, I’m in favor of amputation over grafting for the patient.