The New York Times has a news article about the "repeal amendment," a proposed constitutional amendment that would give two-thirds of the states power to repeal any federal law or regulation:
Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.
More from the Times article: "Still, the idea that the health care legislation was unconstitutional was dismissed as a fringe argument just six months ago — but last week, a federal judge agreed with that argument." The "was dismissed" formulation is a classic of the Times passive voice. The article doesn't say who it was doing the dismissing. A more accurate account would be that "Just six months ago, Speaker Pelosi and New Yorkl Times reporters and editors were dismissing as 'fringe' the Wall Street Journal editors, Republican politicians, and respected law professors who were arguing that health care legislation was unconstitutional."
