The Right of Repeal

Here’s a hot one for you: This January, the General Assembly will consider proposing a constitutional amendment. The so-called “Repeal Amendment” would give two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation. Here’s the text:

Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.

The idea was floated today in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. The authors were Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown law professor, and William J. Howell, Virginia’s speaker of the House.

“At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution,” write Barnett and Howell. “A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.

Hear! Hear! The nation desperately needs another mechanism to stem the overweening power of the leviathan state. This should make for a rollicking good debate in the blogosphere this fall. What a bold stroke, gentlemen. Let Virginia lead the nation in reclaiming powers rightfully belonging to the states!

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


37 responses to “The Right of Repeal”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    I certainly must misunderstand the concept of federalism in addition to the reason for the Recent Unpleasantness (a.k.a., the War of Northern Agression, Civil War.) I guess I was just another lazy Boomer hung over in Poly Sci 101 and American Civ 102.

  2. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Wow, Let's go back to the days of States Rights!

    The days of George Wallace, Pitchfork Ben, Lester Maddox and Strom Thurmond!

    Or maybe 1861.

    We can secede from the Union! Keep our slaves!

    Shame on Howell for peddling this BS. Why do we bother electing Congress?

    Peter Galuszka

  3. Just let every law expire every five years. That will keep the legislature busy re-passing and refining all the necessary laws and the lower priority ones will fade into oblivion.

    You could call this sunset legislation the Legislators Full employment Act.

  4. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Ha, ha, Peter, I knew that would be your reaction! You can't stand the thought of erecting barriers to the leviathan state. But one day, mark my words, you'll be glad we have a federal system. Just wait until Sarah Palin or some other left-wing bogeyman becomes president. You'll be a sudden convert to the concept of countervailing powers.

  5. it's a provocative concept that appears to me to potentially remove the courts and/or override the original Constitutional Amendment process in the Constitution.

    The Courts take great pains when ruling on a law – to understand how that might apply to other similar laws potentially invalidating them – and to consider other case law and precedents.

    My take away from this is that there is such a level of frustration with govt these days – that changes that were once thought inconceivable and actively pursued.

    And not without some irony – coming from those who have often characterized themselves as "strict constructionists" who are opposed to the courts "legislating".

    So.. now they want the ability to trump – individual laws – not the Constitutional tenets the law might be based on – but a specific law.

    So we'll have two laws – very similar in basic concept that apply to two different applications and one gets vetoed and the other stands… and then a court challenge occurs that involves the basic concept in both laws – then what?

    Sure sounds to me that we'll end up with some truly bizarre case law.

    My sense is that this idea has unintended consequences written all over it.

    There's another key part to this and that is the idea about whether U.S. Senators should represent citizens or should they Represent the elected politicians of a State.

    The 17th Amendment.

    Are we, to see – a movement for the states to repeal the 17th amendment.

    That would have a very dramatic impact on governance in my view.

  6. I could never see the entire text of the WSJ article but I note that Mr. Howell has the full text on his website – and it deserve close reading because he is also talking about repealing the income tax:

    " Also responsible are two “progressive” constitutional amendments adopted in 1913. Both dramatically increased the power of the federal government at the expense of the states, creating a constitutional imbalance that needs to be corrected.

    The 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to impose an income tax, allowing it to tax and spend to a degree previously unimaginable. This amendment enabled Congress to evade the constitutional limits placed on its own power by effectively bribing states. Once states are “hooked” on receiving federal funds, they can be coerced to obey federal dictates or lose the revenue."

    I think this is amusing as the States do the same thing to the localities.

    Groveton ought to be supremely conflicted over the concept of "Federalism" as compared to the practice of Dillion Rule where Virginia sucks money up in all manner of ways from NoVa and then not only does not give it all back but has strings attached to what they do give back.

    I wonder if Mr. Howell would be so inclined to "correct" this practice also?

    What say you guys.

    Is it hypocritical for Mr. Howell to want to muzzle Federalism but not Dillon?

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    I guess that the speaker and the WSJ would support an amendment to the Virginia Constitution to allow 2/3rds of the local governments to override laws passed by the General Assembly. Now that is power to the people! I'd vote for that one. Bosun

  8. I like Bosun's idea. Why don't we put that question to Speaker Howell?

    so if the localities don't like what our legislators did with the Feds – we could outvote them also, right?

    what's not to like about that?

    Finally, the citizens get more power than the professional politicians and lobbyists and corporate money.

  9. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    You maniac! We have had a federal system for 223 years (please check my math).
    Peter Galuszka

  10. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    "Anchors Aweigh!," bubba.
    Peter Galuszka

  11. "Groveton ought to be supremely conflicted over the concept of "Federalism" as compared to the practice of Dillion Rule where Virginia sucks money up in all manner of ways from NoVa and then not only does not give it all back but has strings attached to what they do give back.".

    I am not conflicted at all.

    I think this is a great idea.

    The government closest to the people governs best for the people.

    I'd rather have Democrat Janet Howell than Dem Harry Reid making decisions for me.

    And … I like Bosun's idea.

    LarryG … there is no pony express anymore. Localities can govern themselves quite effectively without the nanny state sending the parttime representatives to Richmond once a year to think for us.

    Similarly, in areas outside of national defense, the Commonwealth can make decisions for itself.

    The United States will be at its best when the federal government is as small as it can possible be (and no smaller).

    This is a GREAT idea.

  12. so if West Virginia wants to let a chemical company dump Kepone in the headerwaters of the Potomac River – that's their right and not a Federal issue?

    New Mexico decides that in response to Arizona's Neanderthal immigration policies that it is going to become an immigration sanctuary state?

    or the company that produce a billion salmonella-infest eggs in Iowa is Iowas business and not NoVa?

    or.. the chinese can make any many toys as they want with lea and other nasty poisons and that's a problem for each state to deal with?

    Each state will have it's own NTSB and CDC and FBI to deal with these issues in their state?

    Your prescription drugs and OTC drugs only have to meet your own states regs.

    California can require companies to disclose the amount of mercury in tuna no matter what the Feds think?

    West Va will have the ability to not require UL standards on electrical products.

    North Carolina can place $1 a mile tolls on I-95…

    methinks the anti-govt mindset …fostered from right-wing sound-bite blather.. is about to meet up with some deeper realities that will find even tea party people at each other throats over what govt we don't need at the Fed level.

    We don't have "big" govt because people ideologically wanted a big "nanny"… but instead we got "mission creep" enthusiastically supported by many – who now consider themselves opposed – to the things they personally don't benefit from and don't want.

    The only problem is that every single one of the "useless" or "intrusive" govt functions has supporters and standing right next to the – the folks who are ideologically "aligned" with each other – will believe that that same function is important.

    So the TRICK here is agreement.

    The beauty of the movement is that you don't need specific agreement on the front-end – only agreement that change is needed.

    Does that concept have a familiar ring?


    Unspecified Change?

    I basically support the challenge to our existing govt.

    In many, many ways, it's become a convoluted CF controlled by lobbyists and moneyed interests and corporate money….

    I'm not sure where we are headed and I'm pretty sure not everyone that comes to be is going to be a good thing.

    That's why I refer to some of their efforts as political vandalism.

    They're like gangs expressing their displeasure of the current status quo – by defacing and destroying symbols of the status quo.

  13. Finally, the citizens get more power than the professional politicians and lobbyists and corporate money.


    Like I said, put the budget on the back of the tax return and have people indicate where they want THEIR money spent.

    Then, if some people indicate they are willing to have their money spent funding abortions for poor people that want them, those that are opposed to abortion won't be able to claim THEIR money is being used for an immoral purpose, as long as the government does not spend more money than was allotted.

    This solves a lot of problems.

    But it does not solve them all.

    Suppose you allow health insurance to be sold across state lines.

    First the insurance companies all flock to the state that gives them the most protection and their customers the least. Everybody except citizens of that state have to buy acrross state lines.

    But now, insurance is in interstate commerce and the feds get to regulate it.

  14. the health insurance example is a stitch.

    The very same folks who say they want the Fed govt out of health care – say that THEIR ALTERNATIVE IDEA is instead of the govt mandating insurance that – insurance companies should be "allowed" to offer insurance across state lines.

    Who is preventing them from doing this in the first place?

    and who among the anti-govt folks would dare suggest that some govt – at the State or Federal level should "force" companies to offer insurance across state lines?

    If a company CHOOSES to NOT OFFER insurance across State Lines – then tell me again why this is a situation that requires govt intervention?

    And if an insurance company does not want to sell insurance to someone with health problems – tell me again what the "get govt out of health care" anti-govt types would suggest.

    They would actually advocate that govt would "force" these companies to offer insurance to everyone?

    This is the fundamental lie that was being (and still is) "promoted" as the conservatives "alternative" to ObamaCare.

    Just stating their supposed alternatives illustrates just how much of a 180 degree turn they attempt to make on their stated beliefs that the govt should not be involved in HC.

    THEIR ALTERNATIVE, it seems, ALSO REQUIRES govt to implement it.

    But we know from the previous 8 years and just from listening to them that they fundamentally are opposed to the govt being involved in HC so what they are offering is either highly hypocritical or it's nothing more than smoke & mirrors …bait & switch tactics by "suggesting" that we "might" do this or that without ever really committing to doing ANYTHING.

    Pay attention to the Repeal & Replace narrative and see if you can sense that their "Replace" is essentially replacing one govt action for another or if what they are really suggesting is that no govt will be involved and HC should revert to a pure marketplace product.

    This is the Republicans biggest sin in my view.

    I could respect them for taking a position that is consistent with their stated principles – and we could all choose between their vision of HC or the Dems vision.

    But no, that's not what the Republicans are saying.

    They are IMPLYING one thing not that different than a conversation that you might have with a shyster car salesman but what they are suggesting as an alternative – ALSO VIOLATES their fundamental beliefs so what they are doing – is simply trying to appear as something different than what they actually believe – in a clear attempt to not have voters truly understand their true intent about govt involvement in HC.

  15. Socialists love totalitarian regimes. While Obama may (or may not) be a socialist, many of his supporters clearly are socialists. In fact, some of the supporters probably don't even see what they are saying.

    We have the "state's rights" balderdash. Here's a case where we could learn something from our British allies. It's not "state's rights" it is "states' rights". Not the rights of an individual state but the rights of a super-majority of states. To believe this is an invalid idea you'd have to believe that 1/3 of the states will save the nation from the dumb assed ideas held by 2/3 of the states. Frankly, I am very happy to have Virginia disassociated with the failed socialist policies of voters from California and Massachusetts. Virginia would be a far better place if we could have limited the inept ideas flowing to us from people like Nancy Pelosi and the late Edward Kennedy.

    The same absurd argument is made in relation to pollution. West Virginia will dump mercury in the Potomac River and pollute Virginia. And Virginia will not be able to do anything about it. Idiotic reasoning. Here's what would really have to happen …

    1. West Virginia pollutes the headwaters of the Potomac with mercury.

    2. Virginia's legislators (probably joined by Maryland's legislators, etc) pass a federal law to stop mercury pollution.

    3. 2/3 of the state legislatures over-rule that law.


    It would never happen that way.

    The laws that would get over-ridden are the self-serving, incompetent abuses of power foisted on the American people against their will. Like Obamacare.

    And the socialists like it this way. Because, when you are a socialist, you know you are forcing your narrow view on the people. And the last thing you'll allow is an avenue for the people to say "no".

  16. " 1. West Virginia pollutes the headwaters of the Potomac with mercury.

    2. Virginia's legislators (probably joined by Maryland's legislators, etc) pass a federal law to stop mercury pollution.

    3. 2/3 of the state legislatures over-rule that law.


    It would never happen that way."

    ha ha ha

    you seem so sure about something that is clearly fraught with uncertainties.

    and..I was not clear whether or not your supposition included the idea that Senators are elected by State Legislatures or not…so clear that part up.

    you say …so flippantly…

    that Virginia and Md will pass a Federal Law.

    ha ha ha ha

    what part of majority or in the case of today's realities do you not understand about 60 votes … that will apply to ALL states and once rivers are included in the discussion what about air pollution and acid rain, etc?

    See.. you are RELYING on the POWER of the FEDERAL GOVT here and you are ASSUMING – in the face of anti-Federal sentiment that Senators (perhaps not elected by the people by by special-interest laden legislatures (like Virginia's) will vote, in fact to INCREASE and SUSTAIN Federal dominance over the states because who would you actually have enforce those laws?

    ..not the EPA? but you'd "delegate" it to state entities?

    ha ha ha

    you're pretty confused on this guy but that's to be expected because you clearly can't see the difference between a "socialist" and a "ring wing wingnut"… and the guy in the middle asking rational questions about how states "rights" would work – any differently than the did initially.. when issues of this kind surfaced..and the response was, in fact, the Federal rule that applied to ALL the States – not just the supposed aggrieved ones…

    tsk tsk – Grovteon.. I expected deeper thinking that this.

    It's obvious that your're stilling feeling your way through this brave new wingnut world.

  17. "many of his supporters clearly are socialists. In fact, some of the supporters probably don't even see what they are saying."


    There is a fine line between being a socialist and recognizig, as EMR states, that there can be bad collective results from individual actions, actions that cost everybody.

    That is what my equation says: TC = PC + EC + GC. Arguing too hard in favor of any individual term on the right side is liekel to raise your costs on the left side.

    I don't see that preventing bad collective results – results that affect individuals – is socialism, even if the solution requires some kind of contribution from everyone.

    I think you are right, some people don;t even realize what they are saying, because they percieve too small a part of the overall problem. At the same time, if you percieve only the overall problem, then you are a socialist, for sure.

    That is why I insist on stong property rights, such that the winners in a socialist policy have to pay off the losers. That is the most effective brake on socialism: make them pay for what they get.

  18. "…incompetent abuses of power foisted on the American people against their will. Like Obamacare."


    I would restate that as:

    incompetent abuses of power foisted on (that portion of) the American people (who think they have health insurance that will actually pay out when they need it) against their will. Like our former system of health care.

    What we had was broken, and not avaialble to many people. I don't think too many of them, or many people who got dumped by the system like myself are being counted in your version of "The American People" that is a gross generality that is not worthy of your usual fine reasoning.

    At one time, we had Hupmobiles, and Tatras, and White motorcars that didn;t work very well, spewed pollution and onth the rich could afford. That is the era health insurance is in. Unfortunately, there was no Henry Ford in the insurance industry to fix it.

    There is no incentive for young, healthy people to buy health insurance, no matter how foolhardy it is not to have it. In order to make it work, the risks have to be paid for and they have to be distributed. That means we cannot pay for unlimited risk (we will have SOME KIND of rationing) and insurance is inherently socialistic, so requiring participation to distribute the risk both generationally and status wise is not inconsistent.

    What is inconsistent is the whole idea of private, free-market, insurance.

  19. Free markets:

    It is instructive to look at a place that is essentially without law to see how markets work there.

    Take Mogadishu, for example. It turns out they have a very complex system for resolving property disputes and thereby protecting trade. It is, just as Groveton Suggests, very close to the people that it controls.

    But without some kind of protection, markets don't work. Question is, do you really want a market like Mogadishu?

  20. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Regarding Somalia… I can't think of a single conservative who thinks that a free market economy can function in a country that lacks (a) a legitimate government and (b) a rule of law.

    That said, it is extraordinary that Somalia's economy functions as well as it does. The per capita income of $600 per year (that's an estimate, nobody really knows because no one keeps statistics) is higher than that of four other countries, including Zimbabwe, which *does* have a functioning government. Also, it is worth noting, Somalis may be economically more prosperous in a state of violence-plagued lawlessness than they were when the country had a functioning government.

  21. I think the socialist label is pretty overworked and is for some
    'shorthand" for those who suspect that some Obama supporters are looking for more handouts but those who hate Obamacare also apparently don't care, and never did about how broken the system is and had ample opportunity to do something about it but the plain truth is that conservatives do not think the govt should be involved in health care in the first place.

    and the problem is – they won't admit it so that Americans can understand the difference between their view and the Dems view and make the choice.

    so the Conservatives play a fundamentally dishonest game with regard to health care claiming that they are in favor of doing "something" but when you get into the nitty gritty of it you find that there is no unified view among conservatives and they run the gamut on their opinions which leads to them not agreeing to do anything at all – 8 years worth of that approach and that is still their approach but they play this game so that the clueless sound-bite folks don't really "get" what the Republicans are really about on this.

    Groveton and company all they know is they don't like socialism – and they have not firm view about health care – and this is the most important part – they'll not throw the Republicans/conservatives out of office for doing nothing about health care… it's not a priority with them.

    that's the unvarnished truth.

  22. In Mogadishu your competitors do what the mob did in this country.

    You pay protection or you stop existing…

    that's true capitalism.

    Even the hard core conservatives turn into do-gooders when the mob starts showing up at their door.

  23. re: " it can be worse than a kleptocratic government — which the United States incresaangly resembles!."

    yes.. the Conservatives think govt is there to "protect" business from the lawless….

    but… paying taxes to get the protection is a bad thing.

    but at the end of the day..they'd rather pay "protection" to the govt than to the Mafia, eh?

  24. See

    For a view of what free market means in Mogadishu.

    People can't affford the $3 it costs to see a doctor and many die of easily treatable problems.

    There are seven checkpoints between what passes as the airport and downtown – Each run by a different militia and each with a shakedown.

    There are multiplr forms of currency in circualtion, incuding some printed by private businessmen.

    Passports are also "privatized" and you can become a native born Somali citizen or even a diplomat for a few dollars.

    There are no working schools or hospitals.

    "I just want a government, any government will do," one man told me."

    We all seem to enjoy criticising our governments but life in Somalia shows the alternative is far worse, as Hobbes wrote 350 years ago.

  25. "Displaced, nomadic Somalians live beyond the reach of media. In spite of the public warnings, on May 19, fishermen in Kismayo beach, 500 kilometers South of Mogadishu, attempted to open a washed up container with axes. The container exploded, killed four people, and severely burned the skin of eight others. Toxin containers have now washed up at fifteen known sites. In addition to the deaths and burns, exposed Somalian villagers have suffered respiratory infections, mouth ulcers, abdominal hemorrhages, and skin lesions.


    Multinational resource corporations covet Somalia’s uranium, iron ore, copper, natural gas, and possible oil reserves. It appears now, that these global corporations and/or nations dump toxic and radioactive waste in Somalia’s waters, likely with pay-offs to local officials and warlords to keep quiet. The UN estimates that dumping waste off the coast of Somalia can be achieved for 1/100th of the cost in Europe or North America. As a UN no-go zone, the country provides the perpetrators with protection from scrutiny. However, the tsunami has exposed this destructive shadow of free-market globalization."

  26. the right wing thinks that the current state of the US is a horrible aberration based on European socialist concepts rather than an optimized and "civilized" Mogadishu model.

    The only reason the right wing went along with these "socialist" concepts is they kinda liked the idea of not having to have bodyguards and live behind bars and concrete walls.

    But now.. it's gone "too far".

    When folks start to get "uppidty" and actually want to live middle class lives.. and the ruling class has to actually pay taxes also..things have clearly gotten out of hand….

    The left wing is dumb as stumps.

    They have yet to understand that the right wing is world class when it comes to riling up the clueless middle.

    It's tried and true.

    We are held hostage to the clueless middle who are influenced by sound-bite dialogs.

    The right wing says that Congress has "special" health care an pensions – despite the fact they get exactly what every other Federal employee gets.. but the clueless middle believes the right wing and "demands" that Congress be "forced" to take the same kind of health care and pensions that "average" people get.

    One could argue that the pension and health care that all Federal employees get (along with Congress) is too "rich" but the right wing insists that they get "special" pensions and health care – and the clueless middle – rather than check the facts – accepts what the right wing says -as truth.

    And the right wing has figured out that the clueless middle is not at all inclined to fact-check anyhow so they can "feed" them the most preposterous misrepresentations and not only will it be believed.. it will find it's way onto blog sites and chain emails.

    I received a chain email today that "demanded" that we take away the "special" pensions and health care that Congress gets and force them to get the same benefits as "average" people.

    No where in the email did it acknowledge that Congress gets the EXACT SAME pension and health care as the 10+ million Federal Govt employees get.

    How can any kind of an intelligent discussion about the role of Congress and govt take place when fundamental information like this is not recognized?

    And the funny.. no scary thing.. is when you give them the facts – they suggest that it is a lie – a conspiracy to misrepresent the facts…..

    It's crazy.

  27. I'm becoming a total cycnic.

    Yesterday I spoke to a man who was vocferous in his beleif that all government is bad and corrupt, that everyone in it is corrupt, and the sole goal of government is to learn what you have and take it from you. The best thing is to minimize government and let business run everything.

    I have heard that pitch a lot, lately, and these are not uneducated or underpaid people.

    One man told me he had moved 100% of his assets into gold, and another into cash. The beleifs of such people feed on each other and create spirals of increasing financial terror.

    There is no point in arguing with such people, so I merely pointed out to the one who was in all cash that this represented pure faith in government certificates, with no intrinsic value. I would prefer a little more diversification and potential for growth, I told him.

    Cynically, I'm beginning to hope that the Tea Party Takes over the Republicans, they win, in September, eject Obama two years heance and then go on a binge of even more radical Bush style economic management, with a resultant recession several multiples worse than this one.

    Evidence that compelling and repeatable might put an end to lunacy economics and palpable fear of our own government.

    Funny thing is, these same people hoarding cash and gold are also complaining about the slow recovery!

  28. Ugh, Beliefs,not beleifs, sorry.

  29. here's the deal. The folks who are professionals at this – are hunkering down and hoarding money.

    what does that tell you?

    The folks who are on the fringes are like lambs in the field.

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    I'm not following you.

    These guys I'm talking to are on the fringes as far as hating government goes.

    If the recovery is starting, this is no time to be on the sidelines, sitting on cash or gold.

    There are companies with hordes of cash. Look for them to uy some other company or be bought for their liquid assets.

    This is no time to be sitting on cash, I don't think. Not at these interest rates.

  31. the reason the recovery is stalled is not due to tea party folks.

    People are inherently greedy and that's a separate emotion from politics.

    The people who are hoarding money and hunkered down run the gamut politically.

    The common theme is that they are afraid and are not reassured and believe that if they commit what money they have left (remember many have already lost gobs)… they could end up destitute.

    so better safe than sorry.

    the folks that are "in" ..many are nibbling around the edges.. they're not about to bet the house – literally.

    In the old days… they'd call this "profit-taking". right?

  32. Most of what they laost was paper money ayway: money they never really had but was part of the bubble – swing away from the long term mean.

    You lost money if you did not get out at the top. But the situation now is that youlose money if youare not in atht "bottom".

    Especially since recoveries (in the market) can come pretty fast. If yoou lost the 20 best trading t=days over the last 20 years, you lost a significant protion of your overall gain.

    This is no time to be sitting the sidelines. Some cash is necessary, sure, but 100% ccash? At 0.04% interest, that is freaking crazy. And in the case of this gentleman, I'm afraid his cash position is a direct result of his political fears.

  33. Read this:

    " September 22, 2010 by Al Harris
    A government program to help enterprises secure cheaper bond financing and stimulate the sluggish economy has so far been fruitless.
    Eight projects in Richmond have sought financing through Recovery Zone bonds, which allow enterprises to raise funds through the sale of tax-exempt bonds, but none have been able to bring theirs to market. And not one of the proposed projects has started work."

  34. This sounds like an inability to get the bonds to market, not an inability to sell them.

    If there is a problem selling them, it is because the return isnt high enough. That would be an indication of a good economy (other investments are available), or fear of inflation.

  35. Anonymous Avatar

    " is important to remind people that their rights aren’t the inventions of politicians, not even majorities, but come from their human nature. That way we can check the power of governments, insist that they stick to the job of securing these rights instead of becoming unrestrained seats of sheer power from which “rights” may be granted or withheld willy-nilly!"

    Tibor Machan

  36. well… okay… we have ….depending on who you talk you a Constitutional Republic where are elected "decide" for us ignorant (and I've often heard this expressed by Conservatives"…who generally oppose citizen-initiated referenda……

    and now we hear the same Conservatives screaming about doing what the people want and reworking the Constitution to grab these elected officials by the short hairs and do what the people tell them to do.

    so much for the Constitutional Republic theory, eh?

Leave a Reply