Constitutional Amendments

[bgavin]

A Constitutional Convention opens the Constitution for ALL amendments.
Including a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
This is not an undertaking to be done lightly.

There are enough big cities to swing a state to Blue.
Texas is too close already.
The loss of TX electoral college votes would mean the GOP will never seat another president.
The close race between Ted Cruz and Beto the Fake Mexican reveals how narrow this already is.

If the Blue states could swing a Convention, we will lose all sorts of Constitutional protections.

Edited August 1 by bgavin

[Ozark Huckleberry]

Article V of the Constitution provides for the states to require congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. But that does not mean the states have ANY say-so in the convention, other than pushing congress into acting.

 

Who in their right mind would give the congress we have a blank slate to change the Constitution?

 

Who determines the scope of the convention? The convening authority. The convention could, within the scope of what is directed by Article V, write an amendment that literally throws out the entire Constitution and replaces it with something more . . . 'contemporary'.

 

Who determines the membership? Again, the convening authority. Consider a convention membership that parallels the electoral college, but with additional delegates for counties with populations over, say -- 500,000, plus delegates added to represent non-citizen residents. 

 

As far as ratification goes, it's an open argument -- is there a time limit? Or does the ratification process just lay there on the table until it's either forgotten about or until it is ratified by one more state legislature to achieve the three-quarters mark, regardless of how long it takes?

 

Considering all the dark money, double-dealing, dirty tricks, and back room negotiations that go on with a presidential election -- what does anyone think would happen if there was a chance to completely change the U.S. government?

 

Congress is completely able to propose amendments that can be scrutinized and either advanced or defeated on their own merits. 

Edited August 1 by Ozark Huckleberry

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

4 minutes ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

As far as ratification goes, it's an open argument -- is there a time limit? Or does the ratification process just lay there on the table until it's either forgotten about or until it is ratified by one more state legislature to achieve the three-quarters mark, regardless of how long it takes?

The Equal Rights Amendment from the '70's never was ratified. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) passed Congress in 1972 and was quickly ratified by 35 of the 38 states needed for it to become part of the Constitution. As the seven-year time limit for ratification approached in 1979, Congress and President Jimmy Carter controversially extended the deadline three years to June 30, 1982. When this deadline expired, only 35 of the necessary 38 states (the constitutionally required three-fourths) had ratified the amendment. The ERA is therefore not yet a part of the U.S. Constitution.

[Chantry]

They know that neither of these "amendments" will ever pass, they are going to use them against the Republicans in Congress during the election to say something along the lines 'We proposed two Constitutional amendments to reduce corruption in the government and the Republicans voted against these wonderful amendments".  And a lot of the voters who don't pay attention to politics might even believe it.

[Ozark Huckleberry]

14 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

The Equal Rights Amendment from the '70's never was ratified. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) passed Congress in 1972 and was quickly ratified by 35 of the 38 states needed for it to become part of the Constitution. As the seven-year time limit for ratification approached in 1979, Congress and President Jimmy Carter controversially extended the deadline three years to June 30, 1982. When this deadline expired, only 35 of the necessary 38 states (the constitutionally required three-fourths) had ratified the amendment. The ERA is therefore not yet a part of the U.S. Constitution.

You make a good  point, and further illustrate the idea that an amendment that radically changed the Constitution could creep along out of sight/out of mind, to be resurrected at a politically opportune time.

 

Another example would be the 27th amendment, which was finally ratified in 1992 -- 203 years after being sent to the states for ratification in 1789.

Edited August 2 by Ozark Huckleberry