Under the new carry provisions,
We could use more laws like this. This is the 10th Amendment in action.
Alan Korwin
April 5, 2010
Reverse Tenth Amendment
[Unfortunately the feds didn’t have this imposed on them by the states, they imposed it upon themselves. It seems to me that in a more utopian world the state legislatures could have voted, with a simple majority, to overthrow any federal law. Sort of like an initiative process that occurs in many states when the citizens enact or repeal laws the state legislatures and/or governor refuse to do. The feds could only override the states on issues of rights that are infringed by the states.
My utopia is far from realized and I fear I will have to find my own planet to implement it.–Joe]
It seems to me that in a more utopian world the state legislatures could have voted, with a simple majority, to overthrow any federal law.
That was the original purpose of the Senate. The Senate was originally intended to represent the state governments at the federal level. That’s why every state has two senators…because every state’s government was supposed to get equal representation.
Over time, the States pretty much all relinquished selection of senators to the voting public and made them just another branch representing the people of the states. That was formalized by the 17th Amendment.
Basically, state legislators voluntarily gave up their own representation in congress when the 17th Amendment was ratified.
The states wouldn’t Need to “overthrow any federal law” if the Senate was still implemented in the manner envisioned by the founders…they’d (theoretically) represent their state legislatures in congress and prevent those bad laws from being passed in the first place.
I know I’ll sign up for the first colony ship headed to Micheal Z. Williamson’s Grainne.
Freehold and The Weapon were books chock full of libertarian ass-kick-ery.