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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @05:25PM
Sounds like a terrible reason to gut the First Amendment.
Yes, because speech and money are identical. I'll bet no one here can
tell the difference between a sum of money and speech.
But heck, let's test my theory out, which of these is speech?*
S: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
$: $776,687 (Cost of winning a US House election 1986 in 2014 dollars)
S: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
$: $6,625,932 (Cost of winning a US Senate election 1986 in 2014 dollars)
S: that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
$: $1,466,533 (Cost of winning a US House election 2014)
S: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
$: $9,655,660 (Cost of winning a US Senate election 2014)
S: The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire
against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more
despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish
than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question
their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great
enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the
rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.
$: $2.8 million (Lincoln's 1860 campaign spending in 2011 dollars)
S: If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be
led, like sheep to the slaughter.
$: ~$200 million (1896 McKinley vs Bryan campaign spending in 2011 dollars)
S: Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by
subduing the freeness of speech.
$: ~$600 milion (1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey vs. Wallace in 2011 dollars)
S: Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am.)
$: ~$1.3 billion (2008 Obama vs McCain in 2011 dollars)
* hint: it's not the ones starting with '$:'
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @07:45PM
Yes, because speech and money are identical.
I disagree [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @09:59PM
Hmmm.....I don't see "give money to" anywhere in that ammendment.
It's implied by the fact that speech, petitioning for redress, and defending rights in court cost money.
I can see where you're coming from, but I'd have to disagree with your disagree, heh. I would argue that the speech described in the first amendment is about the sharing of ideas without fear of Government reprisals. It's not about incredibly wealthy individuals and corporations controlling US politics because they can spend larger amounts of money on them than anyone else.
More to your point, it's arguable that speech costs money (e.g. talk on the corner, talk on youtube, etc.). But even accepting that there is a minimal cost to speech, to jump from that and court costs to what we have currently, no restrictions on anonymous funds controlling elections, seems like a pretty big leap in logic. It also fundamentally makes our form of government more of a Plutocracy (more money = more political control) and less of a Democracy (one person, one vote). I find the latter the most convincing reason not to allow unlimited, anonymous spending on elections.