0 votes

Tea Party activists want to amend the Constitution so States can Repeal Federal Legislation

A Tea Party activist is working to get state backing for a constitutional convention to pass a constitutional amendment that would give two-thirds of the states the ability to repeal congressional acts, such as the new health care law.

“It restores a lot of the sovereignty and a lot of the power that the states have lost,” said Marianne Moran, executive director of RepealAmendment.org and *former executive director of Tea Party In Action.

The Tenth Amendment has become useless because of Supreme Court decisions that have expanded federal power and because of the Seventeenth Amendment that stripped state legislatures of their right to name U.S. senators, Moran said.

“This doesn’t undo some of those bad Supreme Court cases and doesn’t resolve some of the problems of the Seventeenth Amendment, but it does restore some of the balance of power that was originally intended ̶ and the mechanism by which we can control some of the out of control spending and get our debt under control,” she said.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Effort into Repealing the 17th would be Wiser

I would rather see the effort put into repealing the 17th amendment.

I Do think the talk of a con con is constructive in that it raises the "gun to thier head" aspect to the discussions - but in reality probably bad.


A con con is the worst possible thing that could happen!

everything that is needed is already provided by the constitution, just need state governments and congress to enforce it.

Get enough constitutional members in congress and the senate and do a lot of repealing and then add a few laws to punish unconstitutional laws enforcers, then hit a few officials with the jail time they deserve and watch how fast everyone becomes constitutional.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

um say a few states get together and impose tariff on others

what's to stop them from organizing and opposing federal court's attempt to ban the tariff?

I proposed a much more useful amendment solution

below, but there is another avenue that can be used that does not require amendment.

If a sitting governor were to declare a zero tolerance policy for any attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws, or constitutional laws in an unconstitutional manner, and back this up with arrests and prosecutions for acting under color of law, insurrection, sedition, and treason, then THAT would put teeth back into the 10th amendment.

No federal agent has immunity if he is breaking the Supreme Law of the Land. All government authority derives from the people, expressed in our Constitutions. If it isn't in there, there is no authority to do it. This isn't rocket science. And there are no gray areas.

Jail time for public officials who act as if they are enforcing a real law, when they are not, or enforcing a real law, in an unlawful manner, will nip that in the bud right quick.

But alas, not a single sitting governor takes his oath of office nor his duty to secure the rights of the people, seriously. That, or not a one of them has the ca-honeys to do it.

It was already tried, Read

It was already tried, Read "Restore the Republic", and it fell flat on it's face. I could hear my Governor laughing 120 miles away where I live from the state Capital.

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

no, no , no. Not people telling their governor to do it.

A governor actually doing it.

Current governors I agree don't have the fortitude to uphold their duties or oath of office.

But if we don't take the amendment route, it will take a governor with some "jewels" to do his duty to secure the rights of the people of his state, to be free from undue outside interference.

i agree

completely. you did a much better job articulating it than my two sentence post below.
this is how it will be won.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul


"ca-honeys"...California honeys ala Tom Vu?
Perhaps you mean cajones.

Just joking around... y'know, just bustin' your cajones.

I am also an Alex CaJones fan (I mean that in complimentary way towards Alex).

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” -- John Quincy Adams

Sorry, yes, I was looking for the right spelling but it

eluded me. the "j" is the right one.

BMWJIM's picture

This wil backfire because of neglect

I am sorry my friends but this will cure nothing. Help each other and give those of us in need a way out. Nothing else will make a difference.

We in the South that believe will be stuck here when all else fails for we don't want to leave family. That is why I suggested an underground railroad over a year ago. It will take all of us.


1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

A Con-Con is a BAD idea

...This article explains why:


I am truly concerned, the

I am truly concerned, the States should use the 9th and 10th Ammendment as well as the principle of Nullification to ignore federal regulation and laws which overstep their bounds. If we push for a ConCon, then EVERYTHING is on the table. I highly doubt there are more Tea Party members than there are Neo-Cons AND Liberals...thus, if we get a Constitutional Convention-everything we have now will be at RISK! I'm talking about all sorts of problems-restricting speech, the right to bear arms, you name it! We need to push for education of the voting populace, continue applying political pressure on our representatives, and pushing for a voice in Main-stream as well as Alternative Media. But we must not push for a ConCon-the risks are too great!


Pull this topic entirely.

Personally, I would pull this thread.

If there is a Con-Con, there is no guarantee that the Con-Con will stick to its stated agenda. It could result in a disaster.

Instead, use the laws, the courts, the powers of Congress, and the Constitution to enforce state rights.

meekandmild's picture

Probably the elite who want a Con-con

so they can change the constitution to suit their needs and ignore "we the people."


what I was thinking. No good would come of this Con-con.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Folks reality shows that the

Folks reality shows that the Constitution is heavily weighted in favor of a central government. The 10th Amendment, providing for the rights of the people, has no teeth. The enumerated powers of the Federal government means very little because the Federal government has control over the money supply, military, and the courts. All three branches of the Federal government operate without any concern for the limited powers under the Constitution. Sure, we can vote some of the rascals in Congress out of office but it will only be a matter of time before other rascals take their place. The Constitution needs to be amended to provide a balance of power between the Federal government and the States/people. How do we do that? I do not have a clue.

the teeth for all the amendments

was provided. the proper balance is there, just not enforced. we must take back states.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Repeal the 17th. Then

fix the size of House districts to no more than 50,000. (see Article the First)

Then set the number of Senators from each state to 2/13 the number of states. (this will allow the Senate to grow with the number of States, just as the House should grow with population)

Restrict all pay to BASE PAY ONLY. No benefits or other compensation, even for committee or leadership assignments. Each Rep or Senator gets paid the MEDIAN wage of ALL WORKING AGE people in their district/state. (note, not the median of those working, but the median of anyone capable of work, this will account for unemployment)

Institute term limits something like what was in the Articles of Confederation (not a set # of terms, but no more than x years in z years - for example, no more than 12 years in any 18) Also a lifetime limit on Federal service is crucial, say 20-25 years. This should include appointed or hired positions but not military. That way, you couldn't be senator for 24 years, and then run for President, it would put you over your limit. This system will favor governors for President and VP over career federal politicians and bureaucrats.

Next, limit Congressional staff to 2. One in DC, the other in home district. Give them a smart phone and set up a good network for collaboration on bills and to handle other business.

Next, limit the time spent in DC as follows. 2 Sessions per year. 45 days of committee meetings in their state capitol. followed by 45 days of town hall meetings to discuss bills that made it out of committee. Followed by a 45 day session in DC. This should leave about 40 days prior/post each session to spend in the home district. 15 days would be allowed for vacation/campaigning for re-election.

Next, limit Congressional MEDIA campaigns to a one or two week period immediately preceding the election. No more. Door to door, functions, events, forums, etc. can be held any time outside of the sessions. (including not during the town hall period)

Finally, require a super majority of Congress, either 3/4 or 7/8 to do any of the following:

Levy Taxes, declare war or fund troops, incur debt, issue letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace.

Make these changes, and I can't imagine much mischief that Congress could cause and not be thwarted. They would also repeal most everything that needs to be right quick.

NO CONCON, this is a very

NO CONCON, this is a very dangerous and extremely bad idea. The tools are already in the constitution and need to be utilized and/or enforced.

I will fight against any attempt for a constitutional convention.

States already have this ability.

They just never before felt the need to enforce it.
Enforcement could get complicated.
Besides Radicals are on the Left not the right.
The Right is what was to be normal operating proceedure in America. Perversion has changed all this.

Anarchy abounds.

meekandmild's picture

How about an amendment

that forbids the US to have military or bases in other countries except for only temporary bases in a constitutionally declared war?

What Really Counts

What really counts is the proper mood of the people, and conveying that mood to the candidates and incumbents.

This would be one way. Electing Rand and BJ and getting the highest vote total, ever, for Libertarians, would all send a message another way.

The November 5th sign wave is another.

This is one movement that will not stop.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

This is called divide and conquer... !

Three pronged attack on Liberty:

1) Open the constitution to change: totally dangerous, unnecessary, and raises suspicion of either ignorance, or loyalty to the instrument;

2) Split the "Tea Party/RP" grassroots into warring factions over non issues: time is too precious;

3) and most importantly... TOTAL DISTRACTION from the REAL and SINGLE issue we need to focus 100% upon: TAKING THE NOMINATION PROCESS, from precinct to the national convention, for a RON PAUL 2012 move, into the White House! The single most important tool for return to truth, liberty, life, property, sound money, sound limited government.... change!

It is past time to clean out the White House, and all that pertains to such! Relief, enlightenment, and for the good of Liberty, Life, and Property!

DP folks should shun all distractions and focus on techniques to bring, just a few people, from each precinct across this country, towards the light of liberty!

By this simple process, first the county, then state, then national convention is won over to a Ron Paul change!

Any candidate who dares to run again, and who's name is not spelled R-O-N P-A-U-L, has an insumountable mountain of confidence to climb, to even prove themselves close to a statesman such as Paul.

They are fools who claim to have had a vision of Truth, and immediately expect a vote of confidance again, after having once betrayed liberty and denounced Paul in 2008.

If they were not against the Fed before, they will not be now, and even should they really have changed, they should step aside simply out of respect for those who saw the light, were not deceived, did not fall for the graft, and they should go to the end of the line in humility! They should no longer, loudly stand in front, as if they were always so wise.

Focus folks... it is time to make for the Truth, a means of victory. It is not accomplished without the shedding of much sweat and tears, at the very least. Part of that is discernment, and not falling for every Tom, Dick, and Harry smoke screen, which might blow across the field of battle!

if the 10th Amendment is ignored, why do these idiots think ...

that *theirs" will be abided by ?
Because it's all new and shiny ???

Such efforts only FURTHER erode the USC because it is a declaration of surrender to violators of the 10th, and it implies that "new" amendments should somehow have more validity than "old" ones.

Any unConstitutional law

can be repealed through nullification. NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION..BAD IDEA !!!! The remedies are there this sounds like a setup !!

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

What gets me is that this guy

What gets me is that this guy wants to have a 'constitutional convention' when there is no such thing. The Constitution only has an option for an 'amendment convention', and the only thing different about an amendment convention is that the amendment is proposed by the states instead of Congress. This means the amendments initiated by the convention still must go through the same ratification process as amendments proposed by Congress.

Article V [The Amendment Process]

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

But what gets ME about people who keep repeating this

nonsense is they can't wrap their head around the idea, that it DOES NOT have to work that way.

The Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote of the States in Congress to amend them. Congress authorized a convention for the SOLE PURPOSE of proposing amendments. Those amendments would still need a UNANIMOUS vote in Congress to take effect.

Instead, the Convention decided to Constitute a full fledged GOVERNMENT for the Confederacy. A mere loosely held together Congress was not enough they deemed. They wanted stronger central government.

The Articles were never amended nor abolished. They are still in effect technically, but for the most part, other than the article creating the nation, they have fallen into disuse. (we don't need to abolish or repeal the Constitution to go back to them, States just have to agree to send delegates to that Congress authorized by the Articles. Simultaneously not participating in the government outlined in the Constitution, would aid that effort but is not necessary)

We have TWO Congress' authorized, it's just that no State has sent delegates to one of them since 1789.

Back to the convention.

While the States could individually instruct their delegates however they like, there is no guarantee that a similar situation might not happen.

For example, they could adopt a framework of International government for the North American Continent that supersedes the Constitution, without abolishing or amending it at all. This new charter could be declared to take effect when any desired number of States ratifies it. The question would be, do we start using this new charter and let the Constitution languish, or do we reject it and stick with what we have.

The problem here is the same the anti-federalists faced. It is far easier to propose and advocate a change against a flawed status quo than it is to defend not changing the status quo. The question won't be on accepting proposal A or B, but rather accepting or rejecting proposal A. Period. There is no B. Either we "fix" things, or we stagnate. History proves over and over, no matter how small the matter, which way that turns out.

There is no provision in the Constitution, nor can you assure me, or anyone, that once the States are in convention that they cannot come up with an entirely new system and charter and set new rules for ratification that are less restrictive than the 3/4 currently required. It has already happened. Indeed, the Convention of 1787 is hard core proof precedent for such a move. The founders never tried another convention to show us how to do it and not let it get out of hand. (probably because they knew better)

The purpose of that clause, isn't to say it is a good and safe method for amendment, but rather that it reminds the Feds who is in charge - the States. And that the States can hold a convention, and create an entirely new government if they so choose.

Like I said, prove it absolutely cannot, in no way shape or form, happen, and then I'll consider thinking about it.

But since that is impossible...NO CON-CON!!

Agreed, I see it as a 14th Amendment Issue

I saw this guy make this presentation yesterday at a C4L meet-up in Florida.


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein

On the 14th

Please read Government by Judiciary. The guy in the video doesn't understand rule of law, that the contract means what was agreed upon when the amendment was ratified, which for the 14th was simply to give freedmen the right to enter contracts, own property, and to sue.

I don't have time right now to review why he feels that the 14th was not properly ratified, but the real argument is that the 10 states that were part of the Confederacy were not granted their "equal suffrage in the senate" as Article V guarantees them.

I think this is what he is saying

The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

He is also saying that it changes you from a citizen of your state, to a citizen of the District of Columbia. It also imposed a new court system, which it did. These judges routinely discard constitutional limitations upon federal power while they needlessly hamstring the states in the legitimate exercise of their police powers.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein