How can any state legislature amend the state constitution without a referendum?

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” –Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

“An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but isillegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.” – Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)

“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” –Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 177

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, in legal contemplation, IS AS INOPERATIVE AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED.“ – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 256

One more reason we need Read the Bills, Write the Laws and One Subject at a Time at the Federal, State and Local Level. You might want to contact James Babka of Downsize DC, which is registered in Virginia, but operating in Ohio.

872 Mark Dr. Akron, OH 44313 Contact us: [email protected]

Ok, here is his email detailing ALL that he has been able to pull out of it over the last 5 days and he isn't finished yet. https://mailchi.mp/b9ef5e413004/votevitale-13483415

Or Republican reps voted for it knowing exactly what was in it.

Did he give it a focus-group'd acronym? Y'know, like the LIKE bill, for the "Liquor Is Killing Everyone" bill? A cool acronym is one of the best indicators that they're not kidding around...

Link?