Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.
Needless to say, some Democrats and liberals have already come out against the amendment. They consider it undemocratic because a theoretical supermajority of states can be had without representing a majority of the U.S. population. But that's also true about ratifying a constitutional amendment in the first place -- a fact that might temper some opponents' dismissal of the amendment's chances. Its chances may actually be doomed by the Senate remaining under Democratic control, but that could change after 2012. Then, it'd become a question of whether we have a supermajority of states-rights minded states, and the sparsely-populated mountain states might make a difference in the amendment's favor.
The amendment's boosters consider it necessary to "restoring our nation's economic liberty." That doesn't exactly follow, since any given state is in theory as much a danger to individual "economic liberty" as the federal government is. The Repeal Amendment really expresses an enduring fear of centralized government and a persistent sense of alienation from national identity in some parts of the country. But if it gets through Congress and gets ratified in the normal way it'll be the supreme law of the land. The least that can be said about its supporters is that they know what they want, know how to get it, and aren't intimidated by the odds against them. Amending the Constitution is within anyone's power, and the advancement of the Repeal Amendment on the national agenda ought to prod some concerned citizens into coming up with counter-proposals. If you don't like this amendment, come up with something better.