What is the Repeal Amendment?
by The New LedgerAudio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed
On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Virginia Speaker of the House of Delegates, William J. Howell, to discuss the landmark win against Obamacare earlier this week, and how states can band together to repeal the legislation.
We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.
Related Links:
Speaker Howell: Statement on Federal Judge Ruling Unconstitutional Individual Mandate in Federal Health Care Law
The Repeal Amendment
Mark Levin supports Repeal Amendment
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
28 Comments
I love this idea, put power back in the states where it belongs.
I see no downside to this at all.
It would be very interesting to see how many states would finally take a stand against the Imperial Federal Government and tell them to place Obamacare from whence it emanated. Go states rights!
http://nationaljournal.com/member/whitehouse/gibb...
DeMint caves on standing up for individual liberties.
Thanks so much scumbag.
Now we just have to hope that no liberal activist judges deem it constitutional. We better repeal it before the free goodies kick in and once that happens repeal will be almost impossible.
No you don't understand the proposed amendment. Read it: http://www.repealamendment.org/
Jeremie…There is absolutley nothing free about this law and that may very well be what people are beginning to see. I think that they see it will enslave them and place them at the whim of the state. Life or death per a beurocrat who will weigh your value to the state.
If they had just left the Senators as elected by the state, this would have been unnecessary. But now it will have to be done.
While this ruling is a cheering victory it will hardly be enough to thwart Gubmint's ambition to take control of healthcare. Despite the key provision of FedCare, mandating people acquire "appropriate" healthcare insurance coverage being declared unconstitutional, The Fed's still going to pursue being the "single payer" insurance that can drive a good deal of the private insurance industry out-of-business anyway.
Government must be put out of the private insurance business.
Again you are not reading the amendment, if we had it, and 2/.3rds of the states decide so, Obamacare is gone. Period. Done.
http://www.repealamendment.org/
Yes, you did read about the amendment.
Too bad that Amendment could not be broadened in scope, to include replacing a sitting President with a 2/3rds majority. A sort of "No Confidence" vote if you will, similar to those that can be used in Britain and Israel.
Well of course it could be so broadened. I think we could do pretty well with this mechanism in place, it wouldn't be easy to get the 2/3rd of states to agree but at least it gives the power back to the states to put the Federal government in check.
Frankly I like my idea that no bill may be longer than the constitution and that Congress is only allowed to be in session for three weeks of the year. I think those might be harder to get through however
I wish our AG (in KY) would join the lawsuits, but since Mr. Jack Conway is a die-hard liberal (and a grade A @$$hole) I don't see that happening.
I wish more people would have paid attention to this I think this is very important.
Mike Flynn you should consider presenting this differently. Maybe with some hot conservative chicks in bikins or something. You know what I mean.
This idea isn't a whole lot different from the concept of nullification. As Jefferson pointed out, it makes no sense to have the Supreme Court — itself a component of the federal government — deciding what the federal government can and cannot do.
The states created the federal government, not the other way around.
Same goes for Illinois. AG Madigan does whatever "daddy" tells her to do. She's laying low I presume so not to ruffle any democrats' feathers.
She's just plain worthless.
For those who have not read it:
"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."
To get this through without Congress, 2/3rds of the States must call for a Constitutional Convention. They need to make sure their petitions are identical. Congress MUST call it. The Convention could adopt this amendment and possibly a Balanced Budget Amendment. These would be sent to the States and if 3/4ths of the states approve, it becomes the law of the land. Justices and Judges can't declare unconstitutional because it IS part of the Constitution.
These Repeal Amendment can be used to overturn a law passed by Congress such as ObamaCare. It could be used to take ERA, FCC and FED regulations and toss them into the trash can with a 2/3rds vote. This will help the states recapture their power which the National Government has usurped.
Turns out this rightwing activist judge is a major stock holder in the in the GOP private sector healthcare lobbying industry.
http://www.newser.com/story/107483/judge-who-nixe...
The GOP know they have no chance in hell of getting a constitutional amendment. This is just going to be the new the GOP wedge issue replacing Gay Marriage to get the GOP dumb down low info Astroturf voting base fired up in election years.
I find most proposed amendments to be absurd.
This one however I like. A lot.
No, I don't like that.
It would be too subject to waves of emotion, duplicate the existing impeachment mechanism, and create what is effectively the weird kludge of a voting system they have in the European Parliament where delegates representing majorities of countries and people must agree, functionally making the electoral college even more bizarre.
Well I definitely would like to see the federal government copy that thing some states have that limit bills to one subject only.
As for reducing the duration of sessions, I recall reading several times that D.C. was built on a miserable swamp so nobody would want to stay there for extended periods, then we went and invented air conditioning.
What if we relocate the D.C. to somewhere even worse, and prohibit the use of any climate control in the legislative building?
Yes and no.
FIrst off, Jefferson was wrong, it makes absolute sense to have the Supreme Court deciding what the Constitution means.
The key point where this differs from nullification, and a reason I like this proposal, is that it is not predicated on the liberum veto concept. A single state, or even half a dozen, cannot just say they will not obey a law. It is very clear what proportion of states are required, and how they can reject a law.
While it does duplicate elements of the Presidential veto, because it is an outright repeal, and presumably not time limited to the immediate presentation of a law, it has elements that go beyond the Presidential veto power, and thus gives it a specific strength, and consequently cross-branch check, sufficiently different to be relevant on its own.
Also, the people created the federal government, just as they created the states, not the other way around. The states are our servants too, and must never be permitted to forget that.
He didn't cave at all. He was trying to delay the vote because Harry wasn't going to allow debate. Once they agreed to allow a debate on the bill, he withdrew his request to read the entire bill. He and other Republicans thought it was too important to not allow the debate.
…and that is important? Turns out GE stands to make billions as a result of environmental regulations that their buddies in the White House have been pushing for some time; turns out Al Gore made 100 million dollars from the global warming scam; turns out Charlie Wangle is STILL a criminal; turns out Chris Dodd is still considered to be THE most corrupt politician in DC.
I don't see you ever complaining about any of those things. You have no objection whatsoever to corruption or special interests, so long as it is left-wing corruption and special interests.
Patrick Henry – 03/23/1775
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not [Jer. 5:21], the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss [Matt. 26:48]. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us [2 Chron. 32:8]. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone [Eccl. 9:11]; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace [Jer. 6:14]. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle [Matt. 20:6]? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
2/3rd of states? Hatzlacha (good luck) gitin' r done on that tall order.
You must be logged in to post a comment.