BryanMaloney
Premium Member
On various issues, various politicians in various states have agitated for their various states to rescind their votes for various amendments that are in the Constitution. Valid or silly waste of time?
I'm going for silly waste of time on two precedents.
1: In ordinary legislation, it cannot be repealed by a later representative of the same district saying "My guys take it back". Instead, a new bill must be proposed, voted on, etc., to repeal the legislation.
2: There is one explicit instance of the repeal of a Constitutional amendment. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment. Had individual state rescencion been valid, then there would have been no need to repeal the 18th Amendment.
I also favor the idea that individual state rescension is invalid because it keeps the states honest. They can't vote for a proposed amendment with their fingers crossed and then rescind if they don't like how it turns out. In addition, what about states that were not around when an amendment was adopted? Do they get to rescind something? If so, does it count against the current supermajority requirement or the requirement in place when the amendment was adopted? If the latter, what about states that were in the union at that time? If they don't get to have a rescencion, why? Does that mean that "all states are equal but some are more equal than others"? It would make New York a lot more "equal" than Texas, for example.
Anyway, just musing.
I'm going for silly waste of time on two precedents.
1: In ordinary legislation, it cannot be repealed by a later representative of the same district saying "My guys take it back". Instead, a new bill must be proposed, voted on, etc., to repeal the legislation.
2: There is one explicit instance of the repeal of a Constitutional amendment. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment. Had individual state rescencion been valid, then there would have been no need to repeal the 18th Amendment.
I also favor the idea that individual state rescension is invalid because it keeps the states honest. They can't vote for a proposed amendment with their fingers crossed and then rescind if they don't like how it turns out. In addition, what about states that were not around when an amendment was adopted? Do they get to rescind something? If so, does it count against the current supermajority requirement or the requirement in place when the amendment was adopted? If the latter, what about states that were in the union at that time? If they don't get to have a rescencion, why? Does that mean that "all states are equal but some are more equal than others"? It would make New York a lot more "equal" than Texas, for example.
Anyway, just musing.