"Nullification Amendment" proposed by idiot senators

[Patrick Degan]

The GOP just overflows with the crazy these days:

The GOP's New Constitutional Amendment: Give States Veto Power Over Federal Laws
Evan McMorris-Santoro and Ryan J. Reilly | May 11, 2011, 4:50PM

Republicans say they've found the problem in America -- and that problem is the basic framework of the Union as we know it today.

A group of Republicans in the House and Senate are proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow a vote by two-thirds of the states' legislatures to override any federal law they did not agree with.

The proposed constitutional amendment, a tea party favorite, is being touted by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) in the Senate and co-sponsored by Sens. John Barasso (R-WY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). In the House, Reps. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Paul Broun (R-GA) are leading the charge.

The goal, according to proponents, is to stop the tyranny of Washington over the economy and circumscribe other federal powers.

Here's how the plan would work, from an op-ed Bishop wrote in Daily Caller announcing the Amendment:

If two-thirds of the states collectively find a federal law or regulation abhorrent or misguided, they should have the power to repeal said law or regulation. The law would then be sent back to Washington for further consideration, at which time Congress may choose not to act again on the matter, or they may vote to override the states' repeal and pass it in finality.

"American society itself is so diverse, so organic, so varying in its geography, culture, and demographics that we see the same fatal conceit when government tries to manage it from one central location," Bishop wrote. "That is, unfortunately, what we have done over the past 80 years."

Supporters of the so-called Repeal Amendment say that it was the 17th Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1913, that helped lead the country down the path of too much federal power. Tea partiers have suggested repealing the 17th Amendment -- which allows for direct election of senators -- but Republicans have balked.

Marianne Moran, executive director of the Repeal Amendment, told TPM creating a new constitutional amendment may be easier to swallow then repealing the 17th.

"A lot of people feel that's the way that Washington controlled much more power and took it away from the states. It's hard to take away direct election of senators from the people, but it was the idea of the founders that give state legislators more power," she said. "And that's why a lot of those people who support repeal of the 17th love the idea of the repeal amendment because it's easier to sell to a large majority of people that you'll be able to repeal bad acts of Congress."

The amendment will be officially rolled out Thursday in a Capitol Hill press conference. Most of the sponsors declined a request for comment from TPM Wednesday afternoon. Barasso's office confirmed his support for the plan, but referred all specific questions to Enzi. Broun's office referred calls to Bishop's office. Moran told TPM her group has been working with Enzi and Bishop to introduce the new bill.

The idea that the framework of the union as we know it today should be fundamentally altered in favor of granting final veto power over federal law to states has been kicking around Republican politics for a while now. Last year, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) signaled his support for a plan in the Virginia legislature to call a Constitutional Convention to consider the Repeal Amendment.

Though it's never been tried, a Constitutional Convention can be called by a vote of 2/3 of the states, triggering an amendment process. The customary way an amendment begins is with a vote in Congress that then requires ratification by the states to become part of the Constitution. Bishop last introduced his Repeal Amendment in Congress last year.

Meanwhile, GOP-controlled state legislatures have been passing their own laws aimed at knocking down the federal government's ability to pass laws via the means laid out by the founders. More than one legislatures has considered bills allowing individual states to nullify the federal laws they don't like, and only abide by the ones that they do.

Moran insists her scheme is drastically different from those nullification proposals, which are legally dubious at best.

"It's completely different from nullification. This would be two-thirds of the states getting together to say we don't like a specific law or regulation, passing a resolution to each state legislature to that effect, and then it would be null and void," she told TPM. "It doesn't prevent Congress from coming back the very next day and passing that same law, but considering it would take a huge majority of the American people to get two-thirds of the states to agree to an appeal, those senators and congressmen would probably no longer have their jobs come election season."

"It's really designed to restore the balance of power between the states and federal government that's been usurped for a long period of time," she said.

This measure of course would never get past the senate and I doubt that they'd get 3/4 of the states to ratify it. But something like this just speaks of the GOP's continuing slide into complete barking insanity. Do none of these assclowns even understand anymore what a federal union is?

[Crossroads Inc.]

No they really don't...

The "Ideal" GOP 'country' would be a place where each state WAS It's own country, where the states could rule with dictatorial power an do whatever the hell they want.
If you think I am exaggerating then just look at what is going on in Wisconsin, (Power crazed GOP seeking to repeal the last 50 years of social change) or Florida (GOP gutting unemployment benefits as well as taking over school of economics by Koch Brothers), or Michigan (GOP Already getting absolute power and dissolving successful schools and institutions because they don't like them).

The GOP's true end game is a nation where, not only can it can do whatever the hell it wants, but dictate what others can NOT do. It wants to be able to clearcut the forests without a pesky EPA or teach kids creationism and doctored history without a pesky NEA, while at the same time criminalizing gays, banning 'free speech' against those in power and repealing the last 100 years of social change.

And I'll defy anyone to say it ain't so.

[Imperial528]

It's practically as if the GOP and Tea Party are adhering to the ideals of the Confederate States, although soon enough I feel they'll make the Confederacy appear tame in comparison if they keep this up.

[kaeneth]

It's practically as if the GOP and Tea Party are adhering to the ideals of the Confederate States, although soon enough I feel they'll make the Confederacy appear tame in comparison if they keep this up.

Actually it sounds like they want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. with their whole 'lets repeal Federal laws' idea. Fucking lunatics.

Do they not understand the numbers their own think tanks put out or are they just hoping because there are more 'red states' than 'blue states' they can repeal whatever the fuck they want that way?

Meanwhile, GOP-controlled state legislatures have been passing their own laws aimed at knocking down the federal government's ability to pass laws via the means laid out by the founders. More than one legislatures has considered bills allowing individual states to nullify the federal laws they don't like, and only abide by the ones that they do.

Strangely, I'm fully in favor of this. Yes! Now, California no longer subsidises Red States and all of our tax income is our own. Oh look, our budget deficit is gone because we have 60 billion more in tax income! Do they not understand that big government actually brings more money to Red States?

The fucking red states are heavily subsidised by the blue states.
California's tax burden is significantly over 300 billion every year. So that is 60 billion more revenue for us. Our deficits as a state? Its under $30 billion.
~$25 billion

So umm, yes! Lets do this Republicans Let us cut off your feed and let you crash and burn on your own merits!

[Imperial528]

Actually it sounds like they want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. with their whole 'lets repeal Federal laws' idea. Fucking lunatics.

Whichever one they choose to emulate, I'm sure that we'll end up as a country that got States Rights'd to death (Which in the Confederacy's case was almost literal, since states stopped sending support to the Confederate armies and doing so was perfectly legal)

Do they not understand the numbers their own think tanks put out or are they just hoping because there are more 'red states' than 'blue states' they can repeal whatever the fuck they want that way?

[/quote]

I personally think they watch the propaganda that they had made to make everyone think it's a good idea, so that in the end they really do believe it's a good idea.

[sarcasm]Besides, it's a well known fact that 9 out of ten numbers have a liberal bias.[/sarcasm]

[Johonebesus]

Do none of these assclowns even understand anymore what a federal union is?

I think at this point they have no real political ideology. They just have vague sentiments and partisan loyalty: anti-"liberal" and anti-Democrat. When the president is a Democrat, they are anti-government, but when a republican is in the White House, then they demand absolute loyalty. The semi-sane politicians push their corporate patrons' laissez-faire agenda to bring back the days of the robber barons, but the masses and increasingly the politicians they elect are just stupidly against whatever the Vast Right Wing Propaganda Machine tells them to hate.

[kaeneth]

Yes numbers have a liberal bias even when conservatives publish them. I agree completely! [retroactive sarcasm alert]

[Jawawithagun]

But what to do after they won through with it? Introduce an amendment that allows counties to veto state laws?

[Simon_Jester]

No they really don't...

The "Ideal" GOP 'country' would be a place where each state WAS It's own country, where the states could rule with dictatorial power an do whatever the hell they want.
If you think I am exaggerating then just look at what is going on in Wisconsin, (Power crazed GOP seeking to repeal the last 50 years of social change) or Florida (GOP gutting unemployment benefits as well as taking over school of economics by Koch Brothers), or Michigan (GOP Already getting absolute power and dissolving successful schools and institutions because they don't like them).

The GOP's true end game is a nation where, not only can it can do whatever the hell it wants, but dictate what others can NOT do. It wants to be able to clearcut the forests without a pesky EPA or teach kids creationism and doctored history without a pesky NEA, while at the same time criminalizing gays, banning 'free speech' against those in power and repealing the last 100 years of social change.

And I'll defy anyone to say it ain't so.

Well, there's two inconsistent strains here.

One is the desire to control what others can and cannot do; the other is the desire not to have others tell them what they can and cannot do.

Both these strains are common to practically all political movements of any kind. How charitably we judge them for that depends on what they want done, and what they do not want done to them.

[Patrick Degan]

Actually it sounds like they want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. with their whole 'lets repeal Federal laws' idea. Fucking lunatics.

Whichever one they choose to emulate, I'm sure that we'll end up as a country that got States Rights'd to death (Which in the Confederacy's case was almost literal, since states stopped sending support to the Confederate armies and doing so was perfectly legal)

Jefferson Davis himself in 1865 ruefully commented on what States' Rights had brought his would-be country to: "If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: "Died of a theory"."

[Winston Blake]

If two-thirds of the states collectively find a federal law or regulation abhorrent or misguided, they should have the power to repeal said law or regulation. The law would then be sent back to Washington for further consideration, at which time Congress may choose not to act again on the matter, or they may vote to override the states' repeal and pass it in finality.

This was confusing to me. My first thought was: "if 2/3 of states found the law 'abhorrent', why didn't they just block it before it became law?"

In Australia, the upper house can block any legislation produced by the lower house. And then...

If the Senate twice in a three month period refuses to pass the same piece of legislation that was initiated in the lower house, the government may either abandon the bill or continue to revise it, or, in certain circumstances outlined in section 57 of the Constitution, the Prime Minister can recommend the governor-general dissolve the entire parliament in a double dissolution. In such an event, the entirety of the Senate faces re-election, as does the House of Representatives, rather than only about half the chamber as is normally the case. After a double dissolution election, if the bills in question are reintroduced, and if they again fail to pass the Senate, the governor-general may agree to a joint sitting of the two houses in an attempt to pass the bills. Such a sitting has only occurred once, in 1974.

Then I browsed Wikipedia for a while and found out that the American Senate basically only does 3 things (correct me if I'm wrong): appointments, treaties, and impeachments.

Is 'blocking legislation' one of those things that would never work in America because it would just get abused? (Like motions of no confidence and dissolvable parliaments - oh boy did Italy abuse motions of no confidence).

If U.S. federal law has to force all the states to do whatever the President says, or else the country will effectively balkanise, then it provokes the question: just what the hell kind of 'union' are we talking about?

[D.Turtle]

Every piece of legislation has to be passed by both the House and the Senate.

Despite the House Representatives being elected in small congressional districts and Senators being elected in state-wide elections, the House and Senate are seen as part of the evil federal government and not adequately representing the interests of the states.

Republicans love to ignore that so-called red states are subsidized by blue states and that rural areas are subsidized by urban areas. But facts have a well-known liberal bias, so Republicans love screaming about blue states sucking on the tit of federal government while red states do the real work, and the same for rural vs urban areas.

Its quite amazing how self-destructive and self-damaging the ideas espoused by radical Republican supporters are.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Republicans love to ignore that so-called red states are subsidized by blue states and that rural areas are subsidized by urban areas. But facts have a well-known liberal bias, so Republicans love screaming about blue states sucking on the tit of federal government while red states do the real work, and the same for rural vs urban areas.

Its quite amazing how self-destructive and self-damaging the ideas espoused by radical Republican supporters are.

It makes one wonder if somewhere "out there" someone hasn't done a "what if" story that has the GOP getting exactly what they want. A confederated US where all the states break apart and the philosophy of "I've got mine and fuck everyone else" is taken to it's logical extreme. And naturally in time, the Red States descend into total economic collapse as they are cut free from Federal subsidies, while the blue states soar into a new era of prosperity and success

[kaeneth]

Republicans love to ignore that so-called red states are subsidized by blue states and that rural areas are subsidized by urban areas. But facts have a well-known liberal bias, so Republicans love screaming about blue states sucking on the tit of federal government while red states do the real work, and the same for rural vs urban areas.

Its quite amazing how self-destructive and self-damaging the ideas espoused by radical Republican supporters are.

It makes one wonder if somewhere "out there" someone hasn't done a "what if" story that has the GOP getting exactly what they want. A confederated US where all the states break apart and the philosophy of "I've got mine and fuck everyone else" is taken to it's logical extreme. And naturally in time, the Red States descend into total economic collapse as they are cut free from Federal subsidies, while the blue states soar into a new era of prosperity and success

I think a more realistic response is all the farm subsidies (which is an appreciable amount of the money going to Red States) disappearing will result in a significant increase in the price of food. This in turn will result in farmers getting paid more anyway (if not as much as they got on subsidy) and reduce the amount of government 'welfare' that is actually required for them to function as they do pressently. The Red States will live within their means and become second class citizens (in terms of public infrastructure, defense) and be treated as such by the Blue States. Their quality of living drops dramatically over 10 years and they change their minds. XD

[Master_Baerne]

Just off the top of my head, don't the farm subsidies keep the price of food up by paying farmers to not grow things? So if they were removed, supply would increase as farmers either increased production or were taken over by larger farms, and prices would go down. In turn, wouldn't that make small farms an untenable business proposition, driving food production even further into the arms of large corporations?

[kaeneth]

Just off the top of my head, don't the farm subsidies keep the price of food up by paying farmers to not grow things? So if they were removed, supply would increase as farmers either increased production or were taken over by larger farms, and prices would go down. In turn, wouldn't that make small farms an untenable business proposition, driving food production even further into the arms of large corporations?

That is not true in the US. You can read the bill if you like.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110pu ... etail.html

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united- ... 56176.html

The federal government’s intervention in the markets has also created a system where certain farmers are encouraged to overproduce using modern, capital intensive farming techniques, which increase yields, but may devastate the quality of the land.

Excess crops are then dumped on the world markets at prices lower than the cost of production, leaving millions of farmers in developing countries unable to compete with the cheap American imports.

The United Nations, developing countries, and the WTO have criticized the United States and other developed nation’s agricultural practices on numerous occasions.

We do the exact opposite for many critical crops.

[Samuel]

Agriculture makes up 1.2% of the US economy. Removing the farm supports aren't going to crush the Red States.

The United Nations, developing countries, and the WTO have criticized the United States and other developed nation’s agricultural practices on numerous occasions.

Why do they complain? Isn't it good for poor people to be able to buy cheap food? Sure, it prevents them from going into agriculture, but the path to industrialization, increases in productivity and hence escape from poverty is in industry and services.

[kaeneth]

Agriculture makes up 1.2% of the US economy. Removing the farm supports aren't going to crush the Red States.

Not what I said. They get subsidised heavily by the Fed compared to what they pay the Fed. If the Fed ceased to exist, there would be no one to pay farm subsidies (amongst other things). The only thing the other states might notice is a change in the price of food (due to no external subsidies) hence the discussion.

The United Nations, developing countries, and the WTO have criticized the United States and other developed nation’s agricultural practices on numerous occasions.

Why do they complain? Isn't it good for poor people to be able to buy cheap food? Sure, it prevents them from going into agriculture, but the path to industrialization, increases in productivity and hence escape from poverty is in industry and services.

I don't really care about them. I just left it in there since it seemed relevant to the whole 'paying farmers to -not- grow things?' statement.

[Lusankya]

The United Nations, developing countries, and the WTO have criticized the United States and other developed nation’s agricultural practices on numerous occasions.

Why do they complain? Isn't it good for poor people to be able to buy cheap food? Sure, it prevents them from going into agriculture, but the path to industrialization, increases in productivity and hence escape from poverty is in industry and services.

Probably the same reason that people complain about Walmart stores opening nearby, even though they offer cheaper food than is available at other stores. There are social costs to relying on American imports for food, ranging from a lack of self-determination to the (likely) decreased quality of the American imports compared to locally grown food as well as the devastation to the local agricultural sector, which is a vital source of income for people who, in poorer countries, may well be not educated enough to be able to find employment in other sectors of the economy, assuming that other sectors of the economy are even developed enough for work to be available.

Or to put it another way: if the US helps people in poor countries to "save" $4.00/year per capita due to flooding the market with cheap US wheat, but at the same time takes $5.00/year per capita out of the country's economy due to its cheap wheat destroying the agricultural sector, then it is not actually helping people.

[PainRack]

Just off the top of my head, don't the farm subsidies keep the price of food up by paying farmers to not grow things? So if they were removed, supply would increase as farmers either increased production or were taken over by larger farms, and prices would go down. In turn, wouldn't that make small farms an untenable business proposition, driving food production even further into the arms of large corporations?

Wrong decade. This policy was before the Fence to Fence policy set in place after the Soviet Grain crisis.

[PainRack]

Agriculture makes up 1.2% of the US economy. Removing the farm supports aren't going to crush the Red States.

The United Nations, developing countries, and the WTO have criticized the United States and other developed nation’s agricultural practices on numerous occasions.

Why do they complain? Isn't it good for poor people to be able to buy cheap food? Sure, it prevents them from going into agriculture, but the path to industrialization, increases in productivity and hence escape from poverty is in industry and services.

Because for many of said countries, the first step to actually getting on the road to industrialisation is to be able to purchase capital equipment and etc, which require cash exports. Which means, cash crops, a legacy of colonial and post colonial policies.

There's also the issue of how too much labour is tied up in subsistance agriculture and how food prices are relatively prohibitively expensive, preventing a normal industrial work force from existing as they can't buy the food they need. And hence, more and more labour gets tied up in subsistence farming. IF, the country is suitable for it, a extant agricultural economy exists, they could produce sufficient food that would drive down costs and hopefully, free up more labour as the farms mature. Its argued that for many poor countries, they're stuck in a dilenma where imported food is expensive enough that it hinders development, yet cheap enough that it prevents maturation of a local food economy.

[PainRack]

Probably the same reason that people complain about Walmart stores opening nearby, even though they offer cheaper food than is available at other stores. There are social costs to relying on American imports for food, ranging from a lack of self-determination to the (likely) decreased quality of the American imports compared to locally grown food as well as the devastation to the local agricultural sector, which is a vital source of income for people who, in poorer countries, may well be not educated enough to be able to find employment in other sectors of the economy, assuming that other sectors of the economy are even developed enough for work to be available.

Or to put it another way: if the US helps people in poor countries to "save" $4.00/year per capita due to flooding the market with cheap US wheat, but at the same time takes $5.00/year per capita out of the country's economy due to its cheap wheat destroying the agricultural sector, then it is not actually helping people.

There's also significant market distortion.
Corn sugar and White/Dark chicken is one of the more significant ones. For chickens, they affect worldwide markets as the US uses subsidies to keep foreign import out while being able to dump their meat on the world market cheaply.

[Traveller]

American society itself is so diverse, so organic, so varying in its geography, culture, and demographics that we see the same fatal conceit when government tries to manage it from one central location," Bishop wrote. "That is, unfortunately, what we have done over the past 80 years."

This is just too much. American society is incredibly bland and homogenous, at least culturally They (mostly) drive the same crappy vehicles, eat the same mass-produced indust-ag psuedo-food, recieve basically the same sanitized provincial educations, get all there propaganda from a small group of corporate media giants, and are more or less equally convinced that the pursuit of some absract ill-defined concept of an 'American Dream' is something to aspire to. What differences may have existed have largely been hammered out by decades of relentless corporate\media propaganda\marketing campaigns. Everyplace in america looks practically like every other place in. If not for the highways signs, its almost impossible to tell one town or city from another. If america were pancake flat, there would be no need to even care anymore since the mind-numbing uniformity is so nearly complete.

Clearly these politicans are still trying to defeat the psuedo-health care bill. If passing this were to in any way hasten the collapse of america, by all means! Pass it, if not, its just more postureing, so much white noise generated by the american system. Naturally, im sure these guys think the federal government is just awesome when it subsidizes and or bails out americas top-tier corporations. For example, if this were to pass, then states like California would have been free to ignore the Bush regime when it told california it could not mandate Zero-emission vehicles. Or states could possibly stop participateing in a lot of measures that harm that nation, and the various states as a group, but greatly favor the american mega-corps. Im sure that would change there outlook in a big hurry once they grasped the idea such a kooky plan could actually cut both ways.

[Samuel]

Or to put it another way: if the US helps people in poor countries to "save" $4.00/year per capita due to flooding the market with cheap US wheat, but at the same time takes $5.00/year per capita out of the country's economy due to its cheap wheat destroying the agricultural sector, then it is not actually helping people.

On the other hand with cheaper food people can eat more and a more consistent food supply makes people stronger and more productive. Also the majority of the worlds wheat comes from... the EU and China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... statistics
How did the US get into fifth place? We only produce 9% of the world total

Ah, the big crop is corn. We produce half of the worlds corn supply. However, we did have an experiment when the US supply of corn was "sucked up"- when we converted it to fuel. Didn't that cause food shortages worldwide?

Because for many of said countries, the first step to actually getting on the road to industrialisation is to be able to purchase capital equipment and etc, which require cash exports. Which means, cash crops, a legacy of colonial and post colonial policies.

The US exports mainly staple foods, not cash crops.

There's also the issue of how too much labour is tied up in subsistance agriculture and how food prices are relatively prohibitively expensive, preventing a normal industrial work force from existing as they can't buy the food they need. And hence, more and more labour gets tied up in subsistence farming. IF, the country is suitable for it, a extant agricultural economy exists, they could produce sufficient food that would drive down costs and hopefully, free up more labour as the farms mature. Its argued that for many poor countries, they're stuck in a dilenma where imported food is expensive enough that it hinders development, yet cheap enough that it prevents maturation of a local food economy.

What? That can't be right- the US has some of the most productive farms on the planet. We should have lower prices no matter how much effort the poor nations put into food production.

[Lusankya]

Or to put it another way: if the US helps people in poor countries to "save" $4.00/year per capita due to flooding the market with cheap US wheat, but at the same time takes $5.00/year per capita out of the country's economy due to its cheap wheat destroying the agricultural sector, then it is not actually helping people.

On the other hand with cheaper food people can eat more and a more consistent food supply makes people stronger and more productive.

You seem to be missing the point of my argument, which is that the cost of food isn't just "1.80/kg at Walmart" or "$2.20/kg at the local grocers". The actual cost of food is "$1.80/kg at Walmart plus the opportunity cost to myself due to Walmart causing other segments of the local economy to collapse". Cheaper food is all well and good, but if the conglomerate that provides the cheaper food also causes me to lose my job so that I can't afford even the cheaper food, or creates economic conditions so that my income decreases by an amount greater than the amount I would have saved by buying the cheaper food, then my living conditions have actually become worse, not better.