Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday December 11 2015, @05:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the pandora's-box dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:08AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:08AM (#275286)

    Actually it appears to be you who haven't actually cracked a history book. But since you at least put up a valiant attempt vs the totally moronic AC comments I'm going to actually deal with yours. Shocking low level of civics education on display here. :(

    1. Congress can (and has) pass(ed) new legislation in response to Supreme Court decisions, rendering those decisions null and void. The several states can (and have) overruled Supreme court decisions by ratifying amendments to the constitution.

    Not really. Sure, if Congress were really determined they could in theory simply impeach every Supreme and amend the Constitution but that in fact never happens. The States themselves have never had recourse against the Supremes. They -could- convene a Convention of the States, which is what is under discussion here, but since they haven't managed to pull it off in two centuries the threat doesn't seem to be a strong deterrent to an out of control SCOTUS. Congress can override some Supreme Court rulings with a normal bill but often imperfectly.

    There is a difference between what is technically possible and what the actual reality is. There is also benefit in formalizing the concept of Congress or the States being able to check the court when it oversteps its lawful authority. In actuality it is doubtful it would ever be successfully invoked, but it would be because the mere existence of it would change the political calculus of both the Court and Congress. Currently the Congress often secretly approves of the Court's activism but the People are outraged. So Congress engages in failure theater.

    My amendment ends that, requiring a straight up or down vote of disapproval, one the voters back home would unmistakably see in the record. And of course the Court would not just fear being overruled (and losing a Justice), the worst scenario would be a near miss. Imagine the nightmare scenario had this amendment existed when they legislated marriage redefinition. A majority of Congress approved of it but know it would be a career ending move to say it in public, so many would vote to override; knowing they would fail to achieve 2/3 because there are at least 34 Senators who will not oppose the Narrative for any reason. Which would have a Court making a law overthrowing the existing laws in a majority of the States and rebuked by a majority of Congress... and their law still standing. The fight would then move to pitched battles in the States, most of which had laws and recently passed Constitutional amendments of their own and would have angry populations demanding action... and again they would likely fail to get 2/3. The legitimacy of the court's authority would be broken in the process. However it still wouldn't be over since a majority of Congress would still be on record opposing, lesser remedies through regular laws would then be proposed, and having voted to override and remove a Justice, Congress would be hard pressed to fail without paying a horrific political price. Which would bring the POTUS in to veto and save the Narrative, throwing a poopstorm in that direction. And if the days of the Court making a claim to be a non-political entity was the only thing to be destroyed by the time the dust settled we would be very fortunate indeed. The Court, being politicians (despite protests of innocence), are smart enough to see that outcome of chaos. They wouldn't have made the ruling. If Progs wanted a new law in the future they would have to pass it through Congress instead of using the Supreme Court or at least be certain they could maintain a bare majority in Congress to uphold the Court's rule.

    Contrast to what actually happened. Despite a majority of the States having recently acted, despite Congress having passed DOMA back in the Clinton Admin, despite Obama himself running on a platform of opposition to marriage redefinition the Supremes made their law and everyone feigned helplessness and avoided paying a political price. This is the typical pattern. It must be ended, rule by an unelected, unrecallable, super legislature makes a mockery of our Republican form of government.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:54PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:54PM (#275563) Homepage Journal

    Actually it appears to be you who haven't actually cracked a history book. But since you at least put up a valiant attempt vs the totally moronic AC comments I'm going to actually deal with yours. Shocking low level of civics education on display here. :(

    1. Congress can (and has) pass(ed) new legislation in response to Supreme Court decisions, rendering those decisions null and void. The several states can (and have) overruled Supreme court decisions by ratifying amendments to the constitution.

    Not really. Sure, if Congress were really determined they could in theory simply impeach every Supreme and amend the Constitution but that in fact never happens. The States themselves have never had recourse against the Supremes. They -could- convene a Convention of the States, which is what is under discussion here, but since they haven't managed to pull it off in two centuries the threat doesn't seem to be a strong deterrent to an out of control SCOTUS. Congress can override some Supreme Court rulings with a normal bill but often imperfectly.

    Actually, Congress has overruled the Supreme court [prospect.org] on a number of occasions.

    What's more, Constitutional amendments have overruled Supreme court decisions (with just a quick review), including the Dred Scott [wikipedia.org] decision which was nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment [wikipedia.org] and Breedlove v. Suttles [wikipedia.org], overriden by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment [wikipedia.org].

    But since it wasn't stuff that you care about, it never happened right?

    What's more, as you point out, we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. This was by design, to make sure that minority rights would be protected from the tyranny of the majority. The examples you provide about marriage equality and DOMA are perfect examples of minority rights being protected by our constitutional republican system.

    You make my arguments for me friend. Thanks!

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr