The Repeal Amendment

Virginia may be the first of many states to propose an Amendment to the Constitution that empowers the States to repeal any Federal Statute or Law, commonly called "The Repeal Amendment". A rough draft of the possible Amendment reads as follows.

• “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Simply put, Two-Thirds of the States [Presumably through Legislative Acts] can vote to repeal ANY Federal Law or Regulation. This would be an important step back toward a Federal System, by limiting Federal Power directly through State Actions.

 

This may sound like a radical idea, but it is not a new concept at all in our Government. Originally the Senate fulfilled a similar role of speaking and representing the states prior to ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Before the 17th Amendment Senators were appointed by the states Legislatures to represent State interest, while the House of Representatives was elected by the people to represent he Peoples interest. The states currently have no direct voice in the Federal Government, though they may be compelled to adhere to its laws.

 

The important aspect of this is it directly limits Federal Power without resorting to the courts, and it also reintroduces the States back into the Federal system of Law making directly. The States still have a part of the Federal System in that they can challenge laws, but have no say at all in what laws are made that they may be compelled to follow. This gives the states as a whole the ability to prevent themselves being overburdened by Federal mandates, or allowing Laws and Regulations to carry which may be against the interest of many of the States, or simply repeal laws that two-thirds of the states do not agree with.

 

With 50 states two-thirds would require 34 States to vote to repeal, while only 17 TO DO NOTHING AT ALL to prevent the law from being repealed. By putting this this type of check in place, it gives the States the ability to claim back power which belongs to them, and do not which to have Federal involvement in. It would take a significant majority of the states to repeal ANY Federal Law or Regulation. Congress could not be stopped and would have the power to once again pass the same legislation if desired.

 

This Amendment would once again give the States a direct voice in the Federal System, something it has lacked since 1913 with the 17th Amendment. Currently States can only challenge the Constitutional validity of a law or measure passed by Congress as being outside the scope of power granted to Congress. This process is used often by states, but it is also a cumbersome process, where cost and gain are factored in to place. Is the provision enacted by Congress worth the costs of a challenge to have it repealed? An example of this may be.

 

Congress requires stoplights to be put at a certain intersection in a state. Congress is not granted the power to do this. The cost of the state to install these lights may be $100,000 but the cost of a Challenge in the courts may cost $1,000,000 to have the law struck down. Though the state would probably win the challenge, it is burdensome to do so over one simple provision. The state has no other means to either prevent the law from being passed since it has no voice in the Congress, or to express any challenge in the courts that may not be prohibitive to the state. This is only one example, but multiply this by many scores, and it can be seen how the states are powerless in some respects to the whim of the National Government.

 

Another issue with Court Challenges is how very few make it to the Supreme Court and how long it may take them to reach that point. No guarantees are in place that the High Court will hear their case, or that they may even receive a temporary block of the law until it is heard. If a block is not put in place, the state is still required to follow the law until it is ruled invalid. The Congress or the United states is not required to defend it action nearly as vigorously as the States must prove they are wrong, since it is the burden of the State to prove the measure invalid, not the Federal Governments to prove it IS valid. This entire situation leaves the Federal Government a greater freedom to enact laws that are not in accordance to the Constitution since it is not responsible to defend if it is, and that the system for a State to challenge a law is burdensome and almost assures only the most egregious offenses will be heard by the Supreme Court. The end result is the States are left virtually powerless to check Federal abuses of power.

 

It is far too easy for the Congress to require States to do or act certain ways as a means to appease the people or special interest, and require the States to carry the burden of the measure. This a the while the members of Congress are separated from its effects after it is passed and its possible burdens. If States a required by unfunded mandates to enact certain programs or actions, the states must find the funding to ensure this, not the Congress. The state will be the one required to find additional revenues or cut other costs which may not be popular and suffer the political burden of the measure, while the members on Congress may take credit for the enactment of it, without the political costs of funding it.

 

The repeal Amendment gives the States a voice in the Federal system again, as it was originally designed in 1787 by way of the Senate. The Congress was intentionally designed to represent two sovereign bodies. The first being the people, that being the Represented in the House of Representatives. The Second body was for the States, and to be represented by the Senate. The reason for this is it was these two bodies, the People and the States were the sovereign bodies were all the political power in the Nation is derived and that combined made up the common government, the National Government and that each should have a voice in its conduct.

 

The Repeal Amendment restores that voice of the States in the Federal Government. It does not give them the voice they once had in the creation of Laws as they did in the Senate, but it does allow them to voice their dissent to laws that affect all or maybe even one of them in the ability to repeal that law. This ability will require Congress to once again consider the impact of its laws on the states, and also act as a real check on the Congress overstepping its power. This Amendment does not mean the Congress is at the whim of the States, since it would still require 34 to repeal just one law, but it does mean Congress will know it is being watched, and if it does not consider or act in the best interest of the States as well, there is a chance its law is DOA.