TexasCHLforum.com

The that I see with problem with your proposal is that it does make possible the oppression of the minority by the majority. Your answer about not subjecting minorities to anything misses that the law repeal may be a law protecting minority rights.

For example, suppose the first law put on a ballot under your proposal is the Civil rights Act of 1964. Now suppose that the repeal effort wins. By not allowing the enforcement of laws against prejudice, we then allow minorities to be subjected to oppression again. Consider the interesting court case now progressing in California. The citizens passed a constitutional amendment removing a constitutional right for gay marriage recognized by the courts and legislature. A lawsuit against the amendment was filed arguing that you cannot remove a right previously recognized by changing the Constitution to deny it. Courts ruled that it was against the federal constitution. SCOTUS is expected to rule on it in June. Your proposal might work along these lines.

I like the concept of states negating federal laws, at least up to a point, but I am concerned if this is really needed or not. I am also somewhat concerned with the implementation. I am not convinced yet that this is a solvable problem at all.