7 thoughts on “The Repeal Amendment”

  1. Notice how one of the common complaints is that it gives too much power to smaller states. The solution to that is simple. Split up the big states ( which seem to correlate nicely with the states about to go bankrupt…). Besides, I’m tired of California throwing it’s weight around, thinking that it is some sort of “first among equals”. (trivial example, all those warning about how something is considered carcinogenic by “the state of California”. If North Dakota had such a law, you’d never see equivalent labels saying how NoDaks think this is bad for you.)

  2. Ironically enough, giving more power to smaller states is a vote for diversity — the most important kind, ideological diversity. A state has (or can have) its own peculiar character, reinforced by its own particular laws. People vote with their feet, and you find out which variation on the American theme works best. There’s a good reason the so-called red states are gaining representation this census, and a good reason so many people are fleeing California that even its massive illegal immigration influx can’t keep its population growing the way it used to.

    But I do understand why the Modern Left hates it. They always want us all reduced to cogs in the big ol’ State Machine, all interchangeable, conforming, professional, disposable, reprogrammable bots. Anything that threatens to allow us to behave like ornery independent-minded cusses who might gum up their Leader’s great plans for saving the planet, building a bigger pyramid, whatever, is distasteful.

  3. Texas and Alaska are doing just fine fiscally. But if you guys want to remove Austin from the rest of the state; I think that can be negotiated.

  4. I’d like California split up East-West. LA and the bay area in one state, most inland counties in the other.

  5. The repeal amendment would be a lot more attractive if you added the additional requirement that the states voting for repeal must have at least 50% of the US population. That would disarm the most valid objection, that it potentially allows people living in low population states to impose their will on a majority that wants something else.

    But I think Somin has it right: if the amendment was passed, it would rarely make a difference. How many laws that get past filibuster and presidential veto would be overturned by this method? Few, I suspect. Amending the constitution is hard. Is that the best use of political capital?

Comments are closed.