Wyoming Liberty Group
Over the past week some activity by the left—including President Obama’s campaign team—has given even this lofty lawyer the chance to chuckle and get in on some well-deserved ribbing of the latest attempts by progressives to either shut us liberty types up or, if that doesn’t work, smite us with platitudes.
Continuing from yesterday’s post, I’m rounding up and discussing arguments that have been made against the Repeal Amendment since it was introduced last week.
Today, “nullification” is the most effective label wielded against federalist challenges that would buttress the power of states. Especially with what I call “hard nullification”—where a state passes a law that expressly declares a federal law unconstitutional and sometimes enacts criminal penalties against federal officers who try to enforce said federal law—there’s plenty to be said against it. However, as indicated by the backlash against the Repeal Amendment from supporters of nullification, it’s not actually nullification.
The Repeal Amendment, having roots in Wyoming, received attention this weekend here and elsewhere. Some of the discussion has been very thoughtful, some not. In this post (one of a two-part series) I round up the criticism against the bill and address some of the arguments. There are a number of concerns that have yet to be raised, and I don’t claim to have answers to every possible scenario, but it’s already a long list. I believe these arguments can be classified as good, bad, or ugly, but leave that to readers to decide (but not without a little help from my commentary). The remaining arguments will be addressed tomorrow.
Yesterday a group of legislators introduced the Repeal Amendment in both the United States House and Senate. Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi is the main sponsor of the amendment in the Senate, and Senator John Barrasso and Representative Cynthia Lummis are co-sponsoring the proposed amendment in their respective houses. This proposed amendment to the United States Constitution reads: