It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitutional Amendment proposal to streamline legislative repeals to hit Congress soon

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...


Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.

The proposal, dubbed the “Repeal Amendment,” if approved and ratified, would be only the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution in more than 220 years, out of only 33 amendments approved by Congress for ratification. More than 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress since the Constitution itself was ratified, but barely any actually hit the floor for a vote.

The Repeal Amendment calls for allowing states to band together to repeal, or overturn, federal legislation. As it is written now, if approved and ratified, two-thirds of states’ legislatures would need to vote in favor of a repeal.

The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

According to The Repeal Amendment, a nonprofit pushing the idea forward, those in favor of the Constitutional change at the federal level include House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Congressman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, while many more state-level government officials are on board.






The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
~ U.S. Tenth Amendment

This will be a great way for the states to reiterate and reinforce the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Of course this is very difficult to pass in Congress due to how many people would be opposed to limiting Federal powers and it requires 2/3 of the Senate to ratify. I am not worried about the states ratifying it that would be really quick with little argument.

I think we are finally seeing the monopoly of the Federal Government being torn down. The states and local communities manage things best as government closest to the people works for the people. The Feds have ruined states’ rights, constitutional rights, and overstepped their boundaries for too long and maybe now this could change.

My only problem with this is the Republicans are actually proposing it. If the states want they could kick out the TSA then or any other bureaucratic administration or useless government regulations so I am very hopeful about this.




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
This could be HUGE people!

BUMP



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


they could eliminate minimum wage too


Eliminate Federal usury standards


Jack up your interest rates without warning as pursuant to state law or lack of


Contest the validity of your insurance claims by retroactively introducing new clauses of denial after the contract was signed


YAY -

In the pro business aspects you will see wonders

in other words; those with the money will engineer countless advantages to increase profitability!

Let freedom Reign!!! (if you have a good contractual lawyer!)


Know what thy wish



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


If that is your concern then I recommend you become active on the state level. I guess Federalism and Centralized planning is better than localism and decentralization. I always thought politicians were more responsive when closer to the citizens they represent.

One size does not fit all 310 million.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Janky Red
 


If that is your concern then I recommend you become active on the state level. I guess Federalism and Centralized planning is better than localism and decentralization. I always thought politicians were more responsive when closer to the citizens they represent.

One size does not fit all 310 million.



It is not even a concern Misoir, it is a promise -

I do not subscribe to the belief that either or works as the architects design or intend.

You forget Feudalism was a very localized practice - the size of the local does not impact the benefit of the
practice.


on a micro level you can see how wealth driven
politics manifests in places like Coal country West Virginia - great employment numbers and half of them are forced to drink Black fricking water. They are unable to even address their own illnesses because of the power
and control the industry has in the area. Promises that "property rights" will address this basic simple
need for clean water are scuttled by the reality of how things work in the real world. Locale needs the jobs
so the local will be crapped upon endlessly by those that can provide, so that they can eat. I saw this first hand in West Virginia - you see it EVERYWHERE in mexican states, money becomes the governor, amen!

Then you have those that use state mandated etc as the baseline for the rest of the nation (less Federal law)

Ever wondered why Delaware houses all the Credit Card companies???

Because State law allows for quasi usury and contractual "outs" and wiggle room to $#@$ people if it can be fashioned legally speaking. (contract subject to change without notice!)

Basically Delaware rates and USURY is imposed upon residents in FL. with higher state standards.
Florida residents therefore get not say in the matter and their own laws are bypassed, there is no other choice,
so it is a simple monopoly of sorts Delaware corporations centralize and dictate ALL the terms...

this is the very tame version of the concepts that are held at bay -

You buy the marketing and the literature too thoroughly IMO - look at a practical use of GOOD governance
look at who our friends advocated on behalf of. They speak of and for $$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$
is in fact
Freedom

Some believe $$$$$$ is the end measure of freedom, they just know they cannot say it

look at the past and the MO

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"One size does not fit all 310 million", there is also a converse derivative - the rights you have are based upon this notion my friend


- ignoring either axiom is unwise


edit on 21-11-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

edit on 21-11-2010 by Janky Red because: ZEAL



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
57 Republics, oh wait...........................there are 50 Republics. But wait, the US federal government has saddled the Republics with a debt of 200 Trillion or more. How you going to deal with that?

Hmmm, whatever, just eliminate the debt right? Who owns that debt?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


OH janky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not just ask for TRUE contractual agreements? Why not tell the government to enforce truth in contracts instead of creating exuberant and myriad legislation/regulations the likes that Obamao has entered on our behalf?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Janky Red
 


OH janky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not just ask for TRUE contractual agreements? Why not tell the government to enforce truth in contracts instead of creating exuberant and myriad legislation/regulations the likes that Obamao has entered on our behalf?


Foam a very real and valid reason this country cannot be the agrarian society Jefferson envisioned is the death
of the two party contract - IMO the rightfully intentioned regulation - (as opposed to the crooked off target
variety) was put in place to make up for the death of two party contractual negotiation under the general category consumer protection. For example - making it illegal for an insurance company to deny a claim after they signed into a contract and received payments based upon the contract is good governance. It WAS that way for the very reasons I cited, such a thing was an abuse. Then there is the mandate


one does not justify the other

AND

one does not negate the other



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join