I am very much looking forward to investing my available time into reading your blog now that I am aware of its existence.

Here is the text of the proposition in which I believe you refer… http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.49…

I have read this of course and find it’s possibilities to be very intriguing, though I remain cautious to advance something that may invite more Judicial tomfoolery into matters of state sovereignty.

We must remember that a Judicial courts opinion will not necessarily fail simply because it federally encourages unconstitutional stupidity.

A "repeal" amendment might not be a bad idea, but it isn't strictly necessary. Text of Article 5 of the US Constitution:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

This makes 2 things clear:
1. That 3/4 of the states can effectively repeal any Federal law by calling a constitutional convention (2/3 of the states) which proposes and passes (3/4 of the states) an amendment which nullifies that Federal law.
2. That Senators are representatives of the States, not of the people.

A "repeal" amendment would simplify the process of state nullification, and for that reason, it may be useful, but it is not necessary.

You stated, "Today we don't need 2/3, 3/4, 6/10 or any other threshold to stop the federal government. We need a firestorm from enough states to back the federal level up and in each instance of success it has taken less than a 2/3s number to do it. " There is a flaw in this reasoning because it implies that if a repeal amendment becomes law, the formula for nullification will change. I don't care what the number is according to whatever rule might exist, nullification is nothing but civil disobedience.

As to hampering nullification, how is pointing to the "2/3 requirement in a repeal amendment" any different than pointing to the 3/4 requirement in Article V. Everyone who is a proponent of Obamacare can legitimately say, "If you don't like it, convince 3/4 of the states." Nullification (i.e., civil disobedience knows no rules; that's the whole design of civil disobedience).

I am quite comfortable that Californians will still resist federal drug laws, even if we had a Repeal Amendment. Doesn't this seem obvious? Same goes for Real ID, gun laws and all the other nullification efforts.

Also, you stated, "If we are to embrace federalism, the grand experiment the framers and founders created, then this potentially flips too much power to the states. " Here, you should consider your own assumption. Your assumption is that if the founders were living today in the midst of our current governments, they would NOT enact a Repeal Amendment. I think this assumption is a tough leap. I could certainly see the founders, if they were here today, concluding that the original writing was not restrictive enough on the feds. On top of including the Repeal Amendment, they might have actually written Art. V differently. I wouldn't be surprised if they would re-write Art. V today to have the federal government sunset into non-existence every 20 years unless the states extend it in a con-con.

Finally, you state, "I would prefer seeing the emotional, financial, and grassroots investment spent on doing all we can to restore federalism as viewed at our beginning." Yes, that seems to be the goal for many of us. This does not mean, however, the if the founders were around today, they would have written a Constitution exactly the same way. Jefferson, for example, wrote frequently that the Constitution is flawed and that it will need to be frequently revisited after wisdom is gained into how it could be better.

So, if we are suggesting how to get what was "intended" from the beginning, it could quite certainly be that a whole new writing is in order – if for nothing more than proper clarification, but in some cases to put more effective checks in place where the original ones prove to be ineffective. As ought to be clear, the founders had no problem dispensing with the Arts of Confed quite quickly as not workable. What would make us assume they would not dispense with our Constitution if, armed with our hindsight, they could get together and have another do-over?

Anyway, these discussions have been enjoyable. Thanks for your thought-provoking article.

"The powers being proposed for the federal government would [not]change that fact."