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: 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.