Government

Florida's Pam Bondi Joins 11 Other States to Support 'Repeal Amendment'

By: Lane Wright | Posted: December 20, 2010 5:05 PM
Pam Bondi Giving Her Victory Speech 2

Pam Bondi giving her victory speech. Credit: Melanie Munger

Attorney General-elect Pam Bondi says she wants to help restore balance between the federal government and the states. Today she announced her support of the Repeal Amendment, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would allow two-thirds of the states to repeal any law or regulation of Congress.

So far, the legislative leadership in a little less than one-quarter of the states has committed to trying to get the amendment passed. Besides Florida, those states include Virginia, Texas, Montana, Iowa, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Missouri, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Utah. Bondi is one of just three attorneys general who have publicly announced their support.

"The federal government has significantly overstepped its constitutional boundaries by enacting a health care mandate that is not only unconstitutional and an abuse of government power, but will devastate our economy, create a shortage of doctors and a loss of jobs," said Bondi. "The Repeal Amendment would create an extraordinary remedy to fight back against the most extraordinary instances of federal overreach.”

Ken Cuccinelli, attorney for the commonwealth of Virginia, says the Repeal Amendment will act as an important check against an expanding federal government.

“I am enthusiastically supporting the repeal amendment in order to restore the balance of power between the citizens and the federal government," said Cuccinelli. "Over the past several decades, no matter which party is in charge, the federal government has been eroding the authority of the states and the liberty of citizens.”

But Sen. Dave Aronberg, who ran for attorney general in the Democratic primary and now serves on Bondi's transition team, says the effort to pass a repeal amendment is unnecessary.

"The framers of our Constitution were bright people and they came up with checks and balances that have worked well for the last 200-plus years," he said. "I don't see a need to meddle with their handiwork."

Had an amendment like this been in place now, it might have been used to try to repeal such laws as President Barack Obama's health-care legislation, he said.

Like Cuccinelli, Aronberg pointed out that both parties have been guilty of trying to expand the powers of the federal government.

In 2000, the Supreme Court stopped Florida's state-ordered recount in the Bush v. Gore case. That was an unprecedented ruling.

"That's an example of the conservative Supreme Court choosing to expand the role of government," said Aronberg. "This has been happening long before President Obama."

Sorry, you need to install flash to see this content.

Sen. Pres. Mike Haridopolos speaks about repeal amendment at press conference, Dec 2010 | Courtesy RepealAmendment.org

Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who is also working on a bill that would allow Floridians to opt-out of the Obama health-care requirements, has come out in support of the amendment.

“What we have seen over the past few years is a consistent, growing power grab from the federal government," said Haridopolos. "The idea behind the Repeal Amendment is federalism at its core – it gives power back to the states as the founders intended. If we do not stand now and stand firm, we are undermining our Constitution, and the 10th Amendment becomes meaningless. The Repeal Amendment takes that stand and that is why I am happy to support it.”

Thirty-eight states are needed to ratify.

In order to pass the amendment, it would have to get through both houses of Congress with a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. But states could bypass Congress altogether by filing an Article 5 application for an Amendment Convention. At the convention, the legislators could vote on it and if it's approved there, it goes back to the states for voters to ratify.

 

Lane Wright can be reached at lane@sunshinestatenews.com or (561) 247-1063.


Comments (3)

Nell H
5:31PM DEC 22ND 2010
Moral people take care of the poor among them. They do not deny health care to the poor. The health care bill might not be perfect, but it is a major improvement to the current situation.
Ed Rowe
12:38AM DEC 23RD 2010
The Constitution is quite clear on those responsibilities which are delegated to the government. They are specific and enumerated. If you want the Imperial Federal Givernment to be responsible for healthcare I suggest you amend the Constitution. Until such time, I contend the givernment is acting unconstitutionally.
Emergency rooms do not deny health care to the poor; Obamacare coddles, caresses and encourages the poor (and the lazy, and the illegal aliens, and the hookers, and the drug dealers, and the street thugs), while reducing the quality of care for those of us willing to work and pay for our own coverage! How can you possibly think that is better than what we have now?
Ed Rowe
11:02PM DEC 21ST 2010
Huge kudos to AG-elect Bondi and Sen. Pres. Haridopolos for taking a strong stand in support of the U.S. Bill of Rights!!
I now suggest Mr Aronberg be ejected from any "transition team" associated with AG-elect Bondi because he obviously does not have the intellect nor the honesty to be of any value to her. Had he either of those qualities he would understand that this proposed amendment is mostly necessary because of the adoption of the 17th ammendment, which was a case of politicians modifying the wonderful Constitution our Framer's drafted. I guess those pols felt " . . . a need to meddle with their handiwork."
Personally, I'd prefer to repeal the 17th ammendment, but thanks to the pitiful [and unconstitutional] government education system in this country it is impossible to expect the dumb masses to ever comprehend the damage which has been wrought by it.
The Repeal Ammendment will go a long way to reign in our current fascist Imperial Federal Givernment, regardless of who is in control., and put the power back in the hands of the people as the Framer's intended (read the 10th ammendment, Mr. Aronberg).

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.