Amending the United States Constitution is no small task.
www.usconstitution.net/constam.htmlThe first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments.
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
Popular Amendment
One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."
It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.
Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of effecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.
www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.htmlU.S. Constitution - Article 5
"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."
~@~
The above text, taken from
www.usconstitution.net/constam.html is a summary of what has been proposed by this movement and the pitfalls such actions carry with them.
Every action or proposal which may come from the efforts of the members of this grouped will carry no weight without Leadership in both branches of Congress taking an active part in pushing forward an amendment for ratification. Many Constitutional amendments have simply languished for years, even decades, only to be lost and forgotten.
However, the issue we are dealing with today has alternative solutions to bring about change without going through this long and uncertain process. I will be writing more on that topic in another posting.
HOWEVER, the most important issue which every citizen must be made aware of and their direct participation in is in regards to the upcoming elections.
The 2012 United States House of Representatives elections will be held on November 6, 2012. Elections will be held for all 435 seats, representing the 50 U.S. states.
Elections to the United States Senate are to be held on November 6, 2012, with 33 of the 100 seats in the Senate being contested in regular elections whose winners will serve six-year terms from January 3, 2013 until January 3, 2019.
While it may be prudent to draft proposed language for an amendment, we must have co-sponsors in both branches of government as well as in our individual State legislatures.
From this day forward, we must lead the people to rightly elect representatives in all 435 seats, representing the 50 U.S. states.
That is where the people must focus their desires for change.
Without 34 State Legislatures willing to put forth and propose any amendment, all your efforts, anger and energy will be a complete waste of time.
I do have a plan (which also needs a super-majority in Congress) that would resolve our Campaign Finance Laws while preserving the actual human-beings right to vote.
Remember, it wasn't so long ago when Women, People of color were denied the right to vote.
Leaving behind this issue of an amendment for a moment, I wish to speak regarding On-line movements, uprisings of the peoples voices on the INTERNET and elsewhere.
Absent leadership, the sincere voices are always drowned out by the Anarchist who wish NO laws. Take the recently formed on-line movement called the TEAPOT Party. It grew quickly, Facebook pages were created nationwide and the angry voices of those effected by the specific topic roared across the airwaves. It soon became a joke rather than a true movement with a specific goal and Leadership leading this willing army of volunteers.
Sure, it's still ongoing yet, simple tweets meant to "rage against the machine" defined the entire movement in the eyes of the public and, the issues opponents.
I'm going off-topic here but, I do so as a warning to free unfettered snipes and jeers which lead to no results, only insults.
Until my next posting, take care,
Richard Owl Mirror
