Cuccinelli Pushes Repeal Amendment
By E M Barner | Thursday, December 9th, 2010 | PolicyAttorney General Ken Cuccinelli has contacted the Attorneys General of every U.S. State with an endorsement of the Repeal Amendment, which was first championed by Virginia Speaker Bill Howell and Professor Randy Barnett in a September Wall Street Journal opinion piece.
Writes Cuccinelli:
I’m asking for your help to support the Repeal Amendment, an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will give two-thirds of the states the power to repeal a federal law.
…
I recognize that amending the Constitution is no easy task. We need 38 states to agree. However, in a very short amount of time, we already have ten states behind the push for the Repeal Amendment. In my home state, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House are all on board. Members of the legislature in ten states have already shown their support as well. The Constitution requires 38 states, and we can get their with your help.
Read Cuccinelli’s full letter to US AGs
The amendment has gained a strong following among modern federalists, who want to see the federal government operate within a narrower sphere and the states check its power if it does not.
Less than a year into statewide office, Cuccinelli is likely the single most recognized Attorney General in the country. Whatever the chances the Repeal Amendment has long-term, Cuccinelli’s leadership in advancing it nationwide can only add to his stature among Tea Party members and most conservatives.
Among Virginia Republicans, his support for the Amendment positions Cuccinelli with Cantor, McDonnell, Bolling and Howell but puts him at odds with Delegate Bob Marshall, who came out against the amendment in October.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
E M Barner, the blogger formerly known as DCH / De Civitate Hominis (“concerning the city of man”), writes from a Northern Virginia perspective. Barner has been active in Republican politics and policy since 1994 – as a grassroots volunteer, party leader, and professional.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
25 Responses to "Cuccinelli Pushes Repeal Amendment"
I hope the Repeal Amendment becomes reality. Our federal government is out of control.
[...] ATTORNEY GENERAL BACKS RANDY BARNETT’S “REPEAL AMENDMENT:” “Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has contacted the Attorney Generals of every U.S. State with an [...]
Minor comment: I believe the plural for Attorney General is Attorneys General.
This is just another useless layer. We should repeal the Amendment XVII. Then, the states will have their power back at the federal level, and the nation can avoid the kabuki dance of Congress passing assinine legislation only to have state legislatures void it. Part of our problem is the constant uncertainty of federal action, and a “repeal amendment” would only increase that uncertainty. Repeal Amendment XVII, and there will be no need for a 28th.
@plurality – Thanks. I had it that way and then switched it. Wasn’t sure. Will fix on your recommendation.
The often used term “Out of Control” is incorrect. The correct phrase is “In Full Control” of the wrong people.
I support this Amendment. Why not both repeal the 17th and have the Repeal Amendment? It’s hard to get 38 legislatures to agree on much of anything, so it would only be used in case of emergency. Having one more recourse for a check on Federal power is not a bad thing.
I’m still not sold on the whole concept of a repeal amendment. I just don’t know if its workable. Bob Marshall had some pretty compelling arguments against it.
As Steve Thomas points out, it would virtually never be used.
Repealing the 17th is also a bad idea. Allowing state legislatures to choose Senators gives big money even more power in politics than it has today. (Sure, you can buy a U.S. Senator, but state legislators come cheap).
The idea of giving the states more power vis-a-vis the federal government is so 19th century.
We are no longer a people who owe our prime allegiance to state governments. We are citizens of the United States and merely residents of the several states. In fact, most of us will be residents of more than one during our lifetimes.
If you’ve got an idea that gives the people more power versus the government, that’s one thing. Giving the states more power doesn’t really accomplish anything. They are more, not less, corruptible than the federal government.
Totally agree with this Repeal Amendment and repealing the 17th Amendment. It would give the states a voice they need in the Federal Government which they currently do not have. Currently, the only way states have any voice is to lobby the Federal government or through the Federal court system which does not make sense.
Steve, the fact that states may be more or less corruptible than the Fed is a non-issue.
The salient point is that residents could vote with their feet by moving from one state to another if they liked or disliked the policies strongly enough.
The original intent of “these United States”, among other things, was to have 50 little experiments in representative Democracy. If my state allows abortion or disbands the public school system or enacts some other policy that I find totally unacceptable, then doggone it I’m moving to North Carolina. But the Federal government, under the guise of “Interstate Commerce” and holding the purse-strings of everything from highway money to school funds, is dictating what should be considered, Constitutionally, states’ domain issues.
The State legislatures need to regain the representation they once had by being the selecting body of the two Senators in each state.
It would also force the average voter to pay mroe attention to state politics, which would not be a bad thinot
Brad: Since we’re more mobile, from state to state, than we’ve ever been…you can’t say that’s not working. (Although I suspect moving for a job has a lot more to do with the mobility than moving to find a state to your ideological liking).
And by giving state legislatures back the power to select U.S. Senators, you would be taking it away from the people. Taking power away from the people and giving it to government…I thought Republicans were against that?
The point is to take power away from the government, not give it more. It’s obvious they have way too much power. We’ve experimented with the Federal government having so much power (since 1913) for way too long and it didn’t’ work.
A state’s identity is due to the businesses that encompass it, not because John Doe lives there. This is why states need to have a say within the Federal Government. This is so states are able to create an atmosphere so businesses can prosper.
When you give so much power to the Federal Government, the people have no power. Isn’t that obvious? The Federal Government have declared war on businesses and we’ll continue to see our lifestyles deteriorate.
We have people begging Democrats for three years of pay to not work. What type of power is that? Or dignity?
The debate on the 17th amendment is moot. The elected Senate will never vote to make their seats appointed.
Even though in realty your right but is term limits a pipe dream also?
Yep.
BK: Agree with you on both those assertions. Repeal of the 17th can’t get out of the Senate. Term limits wouldn’t pass either house. I think most of the states were there are term limits, certainly in California, they came about through initiative and referendum.
The repeal amendment is worth doing. But as long as we are talking about amendments, I think an even better one would be an amendment that would limit federal spending to 19% of GDP, the typical level of gov revenues for the last 40 yrs.
I am against repealing the 17th, but fully support the repeal amendment. I applaud, once again, the efforts of Virginia’s AG Ken Cuccinelli.
The Repeal amendment does not terribly threaten anything on the Federal level except tyrannical rule. It would take what? 34 states with probably bi-partisan insistence that something beyond horrible be repealed? Sounds like a fairly decent prooposal of a check on the Federal level without damaging national identity.
“The Constitution requires 38 states, and we can get their with your help.”
Unfortunately, there’s no “there” there.
His and my typos aside, it is a good idea.
This is a simple matter – either you believe in our Constitution, and in the Founders’ intent as found therein (particularly Mr. Madison) – or you are in favor of this inane amendment which will destroy the intent of that august document.
It is that simple. ALL real Americans, and ALL patriots will oppose such a short-sighteded, anti-Founder Amendment.
BTW – as a secondary matter the Federal Government has exactly has much power as the Founders’ intended – they crafted the document, they created our Government – and for better or worse WE (other than the poor unrepresented citizens of DC) elect the members of that government.
Capt. F, you apparently agree with Del. Bob Marshall. He also I hear is adverse to changing the Constitution. I am sure that knowledge warms your heart.
If those remarks came from the good Del. Marshall, I would take them at face value. While differing in opinion on this item, I would respect his thoughts and know that he holds the Constitution with high regard. However, that comment came from you. Given your comments from the past, I am a bit suspicious.
Additionally, I think your basis for your alleged conclusion is mistaken. The founding fathers DID believe in checks & balances. They DID create an amendment process. What is this? A proposed amendment using the process! It will be no easy task as it should be! Further, contrary to you comment, it will NOT be an easy task to repeal. It will not be a shock to the current system nor will it differ from the original intent. One could argue that it brings it closer.
Cuccinelli is the most publicity hungry, headline seeking politician coming on the scene of late.
Seems to forget that he’s AG for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Leave your response