I believe a super majority is needed for Congress to amend the constitution, and that ain't gonna happen.
Not only that, but a supermajority of the state legislatures must also ratify it. The later is true even if the amendment is proposed by a Constitutional Convention, the alternative method specified by the Constitution. The Con-Con itself must also be called by a super majority of the state legisaltures. (2/3 majority in both cases). Like you said, that ain't gonna happen.
posted on 06/03/2004 8:27:16 PM PDT
by El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: El Gato
I read on Free Republic within the past few days that Dems were trying to get some usually Republican states to split their electorates according to the popular vote in that state. That would be much easier for them to accomplish since it could be done at the state level and would be worse than a nationwide popular vote because the Dem voters from Republican states would get electoral votes but the Republican voters from Dem states would not.
posted on 06/03/2004 8:53:11 PM PDT
by Family Guy
(I disagree with what you said, but I'll defend to the death your right to shut up.)
To: El Gato
Well, the other possble route would be if the Congress sends any proposed Amendments to the States to be ratified by State Conventions, if three-fourths of State Ratification Conventions vote in the affirmative then a proposed Amendment may become law as happen in the February to December 1933 period for the 21st Amendment. This was the only time that the State Convention method has been used to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution and it has the advantage of allowing the People of the several States vote for Convention delegates in an election to carry out the will of the 50% + 1 voter majority of each State.
Maybe this approach could be used for the "Defense of Marriage" amendment proposal...
posted on 06/03/2004 9:28:07 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson