Amendment to be proposed

That so-called “Repeal Amendment” has its charms, but, says Ric Locke, it’s unlikely to work:

[T]he very idea of getting 67 or 68 State Legislatures (depending on whether or not Nebraska is involved) to agree on anything makes herding cats look simple, so the likelihood of its being actually implemented is vanishingly small. It might be useful as symbolism, but symbolism, while important, is not enough.

What needs to be addressed, says Locke, is, well, basically everything since Wickard v. Filburn, which would take something like this:

The power of the Congress to regulate commerce among the several States is hereby revoked, and neither the States nor the Congress shall regulate, tax, or otherwise burden commerce among or within the States.

The Commerce Clause, in other words, has got to go, since it’s being used to justify all manner of egregious Congressional actions, the vast majority of which, irrespective of their alleged intent, have had the effect of enriching the few at the expense of the many.

I don’t know whether this has any better chance of being passed than does the Repeal Amendment, but I am reasonably certain that the current system is about to run headlong into Stein’s Law: things that can’t go on forever, won’t.





4 comments

  1. Brian J. Noggle »

    6 December 2010 · 12:43 pm

    Actually, I think there are only 50 state legislatures total, but most of them are bicameral in nature.

    You don’t count the US House and the Senate as separate legislatures.

  2. McGehee »

    6 December 2010 · 4:21 pm

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure Ric meant separate legislative chambers rather than the legislatures themselves. I rather doubt that any random set of 68 chambers vetoing a federal law would satisfy the amendment’s requirements, unless they were all from the same 34 states.

  3. KingShamus »

    6 December 2010 · 8:48 pm

    Repeal something, damnit.

  4. Mark Alger »

    7 December 2010 · 11:26 pm

    I’d want to take that commerce clause thing one step further and say that no tax-supported entity may compete in commerce with any private business or individual.

    M

RSS feed for comments on this post