1. This article is an 'editorial' from the Wall Street Journal that talks about the possible proposition of a 'Repeal Amendment' that means ""Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed." Basically, the author believes that this would be a good step towards checking federal power (which is what Federalist No. 51 and the Constitution is all about), and that, even if the law were passed, it requires too much of a majority to be effective (an 'amendment convention' could also be called with 2/3 of the states consent--it's never happened). It is, in a sense, an "anti-Federalist" paper, but it talks more about power-abuse limitations than total states'-rights. In addition, the article explains that even if the bill were passed, it would serve more as a check/balance and less as a states'-rights power.
2. The article references specific parts of different amendments:
"The 13th and 14th Amendments limited the original power of states to violate the fundamental rights of their own citizens, while the 15th and 19th Amendments extended the right to vote to blacks and women. The 21st Amendment repealed another "progressive" reform: the 18th Amendment that empowered Congress to prohibit alcohol."
[examples of constitutional amendments as necessary]
The article sums up the main reasons why, in the author's opinion, the amendment would be good:
"The Repeal Amendment would help restore the ability of states to protect the powers "reserved to the states" noted in the 10th Amendment. And it would provide citizens another political avenue to protect the "rights . . . retained by the people" to which the Ninth Amendment refers. In short, the amendment provides a new political check on the threat to American liberties posed by a runaway federal government. And checking abuses of power is what the written Constitution is all about."
3. I thought that this article made a very convincing argument that was rational and logical, even if it could be called one-sided. Several quotes argue better than I can:
"Congress could re-enact a repealed measure if it really feels that two-thirds of state legislatures are out of touch with popular sentiment. And congressional re-enactment would require merely a simple majority. In effect, with repeal power the states could force Congress to take a second look at a controversial law."
"Perhaps its most important effect will be deterring even further expansions of federal power. Suppose, for example, that Congress decides to nationalize private pension investments. Just as it must now contemplate a presidential veto, so too would Congress need to anticipate how states will react. "