Let's Amend the Constitution!
I have posted on political message boards for about a dozen years, which is apparently too long: The same topics keep coming up again and again and again and ag---well, you get the idea. One of these topics is amending the Constitution of the United States. Bottom line: I don't think it realistic, unless we want to make the COTUS more conservative. Then, New Democrats just may cooperate with the right. For the heck of it, though, let's assume we seek one or more amendments that will make that document more liberal.
Within the Constitution of the United States is a provision for amending the Constitution of the United States, namely Article V. How handy! Except it isn't, because Article V requires super majorities every step of the way. Even faux "originalist" Scalia thought the COTUS too hard to amend. http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/index1.html
Amending the COTUS was always cumbersome. However, in these days of bitter division, it's almost impossible--and that's just the bitter divisions among various sectors of the alleged left. Looking at the entire left versus the entire right, the divide is a chasm. Should that chasm close, I fear a "No Labels" closing, where liberals are (falsely) deemed the left's equivalent of the Tea Party. But, I am skipping ahead.
Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland Okay, Your Majesty, the beginning:
Article V of the Constitution of the United States
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Let's look first at an amendment initiated by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress, which I make today to be 67 Senators and 290 members of the House. FYI: What used to be called the House Progressive Caucus, now the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has dwindled from a high of 100 members circa 2006 to about 60 today. https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71
I don't consider all members of that caucus liberal, either: Senator Sanders founded the House Progressive Caucus when he arrived in Congress and chaired it for its first eight years, yet precious few of its members endorsed Sanders in the primary over New Democrat Clinton. CPC member Gutiérrez even pretended not to know former Chair Sanders' name, so he (Gutiérrez) could refer to Sanders as "What's his name--the Ssssocialissst." Then, there's the Senate. The Congressional Progressive Caucus includes one, count 'em, one Senator, Senator Sanders. Even Warren does not self-identify with that Caucus.
When was the last time a liberal piece of legislation got the support of 60 Senators, let alone 67? Even the Affordable Care Act, which was based on a plan developed by Republicans, could not get a single Republican vote in the Senate when our economic system was on its knees, in part, for lack of a health care bill. So, good luck getting any liberal amendment to the Constitution out of Congress.
For fun, though, let's assume we manage to get at least one measly liberal Constitutional amendment out of Congress. Next comes the daunting process of ratification by 3/4 of the states. The process is currently a creature mostly of statute and practice, since the COTUS does not spell out the specifics beyond specifying the requisite portion of states. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/ I make 3/4 of the states currently to be 38 states--all states but 12. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
No even mildly controversial amendment to the Constitution has been ratified since the Eisenhower Administration--including the Equal Rights Amendment. An amendment giving women rights equal to men should have been ratified in a cake walk. To understate it greatly, the ERA did not get ratified. http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html
As far as a Constitutional Convention, we have not had one of those since they came up with the Constitution. Let's see why: First, we'd need at least 2/3 of state legislatures (again, currently, the legislatures of 34 states) to sign on to a Constitutional Convention for purposes of making the COTUS more liberal. Again, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states However, let's say we do manage to get a Constitutional Convention: Katy, bar the door!
In a Constitutional Convention, the entire Constitution (and Supreme Court cases decided under it) will be up for grabs--free speech, free press (remember, Obama and Difi wanted the power to decide who is a "publisher" for purposes of First Amendment Freedom of the Press); Griswold v. Connecticut; Roe v. Wade; equal marriage; right to counsel; the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (sometimes known as "torture"); how much the Second Amendment does or does not allow government to regulate "arms"--the whole ball of wax, plus new stuff that is not already in the document. Heck, I'd love me some changes to the COTUS, but even I would vote against opening up all that, if I were a state legislator. Which is probably why we speak of "THE Constitutional Convention," and not "Constitutional Conventions." See also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_Un...
And then, we'd still need we'd still need the legislatures or conventions of 3/4 of the states to ratify what could be an entire new Constitution. Again, good luck with that.
And, Your Majesty, I hope that is, for me, the end of my posting explanations about amending the COTUS. Henceforth, I will just link to this blog entry.
Comments
According to In These Times, the USA is only 6 states away
from calling for a Constitutional Convention, ostensibly over a balanced budget amendment; but, with no rules in place to govern such a convention, anything and everything can be up for grabs.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
ALEC may be only six states away.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18940/alec-balanced-budget-corporate-con...
Anyone whose state voted for this should be racing to the state house to protest.
However, if even ALEC hasn't been able to "git 'er done," how much of a shot do liberals have, realitistically? And do we really want to open up the entire Constitution, anyway? If we do, what chance will liberals (If any) at the Convention have against the ALEC people?
The sad thing is, very well-meaning liberals have been petitioning for a Constitutional Convention, too. And it doesn't matter if liberals seek it or if ALEC seeks it, once the the necessary number of states sign on, our goose is cooked.
BTW, even ALEC will need ratification by 3/4.
The business press is divided on the issue which is a good
sign to me because it shows that those who control the economy would rather stick with the sweet deal they have now than take a chance on a runaway constitutional convention.
I think if a CC were to be held soon, those of us on the left would be left out - at best - and perhaps suffer more with some provisos written into the Constitution at this convention.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
As so often happens, duckpin, I agree with you.
Thanks. Your diaries are always on the money and I
look forward to your posting them.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I cannot express how much I appreciate that, duckpin.
I learn so much from your replies to my blog entries and those of others.
How will the delegates
be elected/selected? State by state and nationally what are the governing laws, including ballot access and campaign finance if delegates are elected; and what is the likely response, considering their current party affiliations and policies, by specific governors or state legislatures if delegates are selected?
If I understand your post correctly, you are asking for
the laws of 50 states, plus the federal government, regarding a constitutional convention that hasn't been held since 1787, and that I think would be a horrific idea and that, IMO, is highly unlikely to result in a Constitutional amendment if it does happen, given the 75% ratification requirement.
I have not read this, and so disclaim responsibility,
but it may answer some of your questions. Or, it may refer to state constitutions. I have no idea.
https://ballotpedia.org/Rules_about_constitutional_conventions_in_state_...
Since the legislatures have to vote on having a Constitutional Convention, anything not resolved by a state constitution or existing state law would, I imagine, be resolved by the legislature when they vote to call a Constitutional Convention. But, again, I am taking no responsibility.
The link refers to state laws
for state conventions to amend state constitutions.
In my opinion people on the left who think a national convention is a good idea have a responsibility to indicate how anyone reflecting their views would get on the ballot and/or appointed by state legislatures, at least in their own state; and also to reflect on the effort that would be required state by state to pass good amendments, if any, or to defeat bad ones.
That's confusing. I expressed horror
at the idea of a Constitutional Convention to amend the COTUS, yet you asked me for that info.
Although I did not say it was a good idea, I disagree with your claim about a poster's responsibility. I am not going to debate it, though, because respective poster responsibilities has nothing to do with blog entry and I don't want to derail the thread.
Apologies
Sorry, I meant to voice a specific objection to the call for the convention, and a responsibility that I think belongs to people on the left who consider supporting it. It shouldn't have come across as a criticism of your post. Extremely carelessly written comment on my part.
Not a problem. No worries.
I don't think it's entirely fair
to assume that red state legislators are all super conservative. Plus, I'm sure there are liberal amendments that red state legislators would be willing to back. Most people who self identify as conservative do tend to favor liberal positions, after all.
Example: gun regulation. People favor it, regardless of political self identification, overwhelmingly. So it's feasible that the 2nd amendment could be amended to reflect that.
I hope you are correct but I think with the $$$ the NRA & allies
can bring into play and the scare tactics and bullying tactics they will use, I think the 2nd Amendment will drop its militia clause and be "all guns all the time." It seems to me that what the American people want, as expressed in polls, is irrelevant in this neoliberal day and age.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
At the federal level, sure
But things do still get done at the state level. And I don't think the state legislators can take a proposed amendment from the people, and make it the opposite. I believe it's just a yes, they'll support it, or no, they're not going to. So I think we have literally nothing to lose by trying to amend the constitution to be, at the very least, more modern.
Did not see this sooner. Of course we have something to
lose by diverting focus, time, energy, money from things that may be achievable and dividing society over something that is highly unlikely to happen while Americans. A serious attempting to amendment the U.S. Constitution or to convene a Constitutional would require all those things and probably many more.
@Thaumlord-Exelbirth
Yes, people favour it but what about the NRA, perhaps other powerful lobbyists and billionaires? You know the people for whom corporate politicians actually 'get things done'?
http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oliga...
That doubtless 'burdensome' (and generally ignored) Constitutional Bill Of Rights which the more progressive US Founders fought to have included - how popular is that going to be among the psychopathic crowd who want nobody but themselves to have anything, especially rights?
There might be 'clarified' statements cementing the right of Americans to purchase and freely carry lots of weapons, written by arms industry interests - and that might be the only portion retained relating to guaranteed American rights... the rest might simply refer to the rights of, say corporations and the super-wealthy, now directly filling top governmental and advisory positions, clear up to the Presidency.
Edit to add: yes, this is necro, but people are being directed here now...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Please quote the language from my post indicating that
I assumed that all red state legislators were super conservative.
Also, I think it's one thing to agree to a concept in a poll and quite another to agree on specific language in a Constitutional amendment while the NRA and its minions are lobbying heavily.
Again, I point to the equal rights amendment. Do you believe that, a few years before Congress passed that bill, a lot of people in a lot of states would have disagreed conceptually with women having legal rights equal to those of men?
Moreover, if both the right and the left agree on something, what makes it either a liberal idea or a conservative one? For example, I think most or all people agree that murder (not self defense, or war, but murder, as defined in state criminal codes) is wrong. Is that liberals agreeing with a conservative idea, or vice versa or neither? Sometimes, it's just sane vs. crazy.
It will not happen. Fear of the New is rampant.
Asking anyone currently in government to risk writing out their role is absurd. Unfortunately.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.