#rsrh More liberal lunacy on the Repeal Amendment.

The great attraction of the Repeal Amendment (executive summary: it’s a proposed amendment that would allow state legislatures to overrule Congress with a two-thirds majority) is that it reveals the abysmal ignorance of those on the Left who oppose it. Apparently – at least, according to Dana Lithwick/Jeff Sheshol, Dana Milbank, and Doug Mataconis* – Article V of the Constitution is just there for show, and God forbid that conservatives ever propose to use it to do anything.

Seriously: these people are so infuriated that the conservative Republicans in objective reality are so different from the conservative Republicans that live in their ids that they’re making really quite silly arguments.  To add to Glenn’s commenter’s observation, by Dana Milbank’s own argument he’s not only against our freeing, then extending citizenship to, African-Americans; Milbank doesn’t want women to vote, either.

Which is just nasty of the man.

Moe Lane

*Wait: are we supposed to be still pretending that he’s a conservative?  If so, my bad: please disregard.  I don’t actually want to wreck the guy’s gig.

10 thoughts on “#rsrh More liberal lunacy on the Repeal Amendment.”

    1. Nah, Phineas: he’s starting to drink the “States’ Rights is a code phrase for racism” Kool-Aid. Once that starts, the final inward spiral down to Full Metal Moonbat is usually not far behind. I’ve been doing this since 2002, 2003: I’ve seen this movie before. 🙂

  1. I am not afraid of the repeal amendment, but I honestly do not see the need in it. After all, we have a Senate, it is their job to pass or fail on legislation. There is already an amendment process as well.

    And Doug is not so much a liberal as a libertarian and the point that people like him are making is that states with small populations could stop a law that is supported by a majority. And I also heard someone else make the point that small states can more easily bribed or bought or pressured by large entities.

    I am honestly not sure about the idea. I guess I just wonder what the point is to it. We have a process for repeal and a process for amendments..do we really need this?

  2. How ’bout we won’t push for a repeal amendment if they agree to limit Congress’ powers to those specifically enumerated. Hmkay?!

  3. I just think it will be hard to implement and harder to get passed. After all, it will take two thirds of Congress won’t it? I am not worried about racism or anything like that, but this just sounds like something that probably won’t ever happen, it is just something for people to argue about. We already have a process in place to deal with a lot of these issues, perhaps it would be better to make use of the structure that exists. We could think about repealing the 17th amendment, that might be hard but it would not be harder than this.

Comments are closed.