SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. Constitution has 27 amendments; each was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states.
However, the Constitution sets forth another procedure, never before used, for amending the Constitution. At the request of two thirds of the states, a constitutional convention would be held, at which amendments could be proposed. Any proposals would become part of the Constitution if three fourths of the states ratified them, either at state conventions or in the state legislatures.
Currently, 27 of the needed 34 states have petitioned Congress for a constitutional convention, for the ostensible purpose of writing a balanced-budget amendment (BBA). However, the convention might propose other changes in addition or instead of a BBA—even a total rewrite of the Constitution—if 38 states agreed, the changes would become law.
In November, legislators from 30 states met in Salt Lake City to discuss the matter.
- Forbes article from 2014 (mirror)
- John Birch Society (has a map)
- utahpolicy.com
- Deseret News
- Yellowhammer News
- The Universe—Brigham Young University
- San Francisco Chronicle
- KSTU-TV
- The Columbian
- Washington Post blog about historical attempts at constitutional conventions
- The Spokesman-Review
(Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Friday December 11 2015, @07:15AM
With the general contempt for the Constitution by the so-called "Justice" department, DHS, FBI, NSA, CIA, state and local police forces, the current constitution is being treated like a floormat [albeit, well-praised in public by said institutions].
Adding more amendments now would be a large corporations and these institutions wet dreams.
First, the concept of 'rights' will be reversed. Individuals will only have the rights explicitly enumerated in the document.
Second, all the institutions will want so much, it will make the Patriot Act look like it was designed to protect peoples privacy.
Third, corporations are only a 'person' now due to a legal ruling, which could be reversed. They will be a person, or rather a 'super-person' as part of this convention.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 11 2015, @07:22AM
Troll much?
Why would citizens vote for any of that?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday December 11 2015, @07:27AM
Do the people have to vote for the changes, or just the state policitians?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 11 2015, @08:27AM
That too is up to the voters.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @05:14PM
Clearly, you have had your rose-tinted glasses on far too long!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 11 2015, @07:35PM
That too is up to the voters.
Clearly, you have had your rose-tinted glasses on far too long!
You should have learned this in the 7th grade. Its not too late, you can
Continue your education here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ratifying_conventions [wikipedia.org]
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_acon.html [usconstitution.net]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @07:55PM
Perhaps you didn't get my point. While, theoretically, the voters get to choose, practically speaking, not so much. These days it looks more and more like the genuine choices are made by big-money interests. The people are basically just left to ratify the final decision between the giant douche or the turd sandwich. I hope this clarifies my comment.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @07:45AM
Who says the citizens get a say? And who says that most citizens aren't unintelligent authoritarians?