In its next session beginning in January, the legislature of Virginia will consider proposing a constitutional "Repeal Amendment." The Repeal Amendment would give two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation. Its text is simple: "Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.
The Repeal Amendment should not be confused with the power to "nullify" unconstitutional laws possessed by federal courts. Unlike nullification, a repeal power allows two-thirds of the states to reject a federal law for policy reasons that are irrelevant to constitutional concerns. In this sense, a state repeal power is more like the president's veto power.
This amendment reflects confidence in the collective wisdom of the men and women from diverse backgrounds, and elected by diverse constituencies, who comprise the modern legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Put another way, it allows thousands of democratically elected representatives outside the Beltway to check the will of 535 elected representatives in Washington, D.C. (full article at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12144).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution"
That's not exactly true is it? They can always refuse the money that goes along with that law or regulation.
Refusing the money is great. Certainly it's a way of making a statement. But the law remains on the books. Besides that, most of the money that comes to a state from the federal government has been confiscated from the citizens of that state anyway, so to refuse the money is only cheating the taxpayers. What Virginia is talking about (and what T.J. would smile about) is a creating a legal procedure by which the states could get a law taken off the books. That's an entirely different animal, and I would be glad to see it happen, though I doubt it ever will.
Post a Comment