Slash Boxes

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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:32AM (#275359)

    Already present. More amendments won't enforce what laws won't enforce.

    The federal drug war is unconstitutional already, but it would be nice to take more oppressive powers away from the state governments as well.

    But you do seek out the pointless. It's just more laws to ignore.

    But they will be more difficult to ignore, because even the courts won't be able to lawyer-logic it away.

    Treason has a particular definition.

    Many people in the government are the enemy and they are trying to overthrow our constitutional form of government. They have taken tangible steps to do so (passing laws, aiding enemies like the NSA, etc.). In what way is that not treason?

    And who will decide what is unconstitutional and thus, treason? If one can be imprisoned for doing something unconstitutional, they can be imprisoned for obeying the constitution as well.

    What do you propose, then? Allowing the government to continue violating the highest law of the land with impunity? The worse possible result for them is that they get voted out. Unacceptable. They need to be in prison. Maybe we could take into account intent, the number of times they've violated the constitution, and a few other things to make sure the occasional crazy judge doesn't screw everything up, but doing nothing is intolerable.

    Taking power away from the government is, to me, usually a good thing. What we have now is a government that has too much power, not a government that is 'oppressed' by the courts; the courts are usually in favor of more power for the government, not less. So, to me, the issue you describe doesn't seem to be an issue that would actually exist. Even if it did, it's still a better result than allowing the government to violate the constitution with near impunity.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 12 2015, @05:12PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 12 2015, @05:12PM (#275446) Journal
    What do any of these concerns have to do with the Constitution? The electorate chooses to allow this to happen. No matter what you cram into another constitution (assuming it's not suborned from the start) that problem still exists. Tighter or more explicit wording doesn't fix the problems that are breaking the current constitution.

    But they will be more difficult to ignore, because even the courts won't be able to lawyer-logic it away.

    Sure, they will. It's only a little harder than breathing. For example, where does it say in the Second Amendment that gun ownership and usage is a collective right but not an individual one (that is, a right that everyone has, but nobody in particular has)? Apparently, someone back in the 19th used some brain cells to come up with that. No one else has since except to occasionally put a little more lipstick on the pig.

    Wording doesn't stop tyranny. Division of power stops tyranny. An involved, informed, empowered citizenry stops tyranny.