The New York Times editorial board is not happy with a proposed constitutional amendment giving state legislatures the power to overturn any act of Congress with the approval of two-thirds of state legislatures. That's hardly a surprise. But the most telling passage comes toward the end, when the editorial argues that the primary problem with the proposed amendment is the federalist spirit in which it was offered:
These flaws make the proposed amendment self-defeating, but they are far less significant than the mistaken vision of federalism on which it rests. Its foundation is that the United States defined in the Constitution are a set of decentralized sovereignties where personal responsibility, private property and a laissez-faire economy should reign. In this vision, the federal government is an intrusive parent.
What a truly bizarre notion. I cannot imagine how anyone could think such a thing.
Cato's Roger Pilon has more.