Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tobyhill

Amending the Constitution???? This is all Fluff and Puff.

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The 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. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

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. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

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)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.

Who amount us this this could POSSIBLY happen?????


3 posted on 07/18/2011 3:37:33 PM PDT by radioone (How Can an Obscure Guy Who Did Diddly Squat in the Senate Become President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: radioone

Strike that last sentence:

Who among us think this could POSSIBLY happen?????


7 posted on 07/18/2011 3:40:36 PM PDT by radioone (How Can an Obscure Guy Who Did Diddly Squat in the Senate Become President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: radioone
It is fluff and that's why once the Senate rejects it, the House should come back with the same bill absent the BBA, send it to the Senate and tell Obama and the Rats to take or leave or even “Shove it”.
10 posted on 07/18/2011 3:44:53 PM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: radioone

LOL

So, Obama, the self titled “ constitutional expert “ thinks he can veto an proposed amendment to the constitution !?

Bu-wa-ha-haaa!!!!


20 posted on 07/18/2011 3:59:01 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: radioone
“It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798])...”

The above quote preempts the president from vetoing an amendment bill to require a balanced budget. I was wondering whether additional non amendment legislation contained within the bill could be separated from it and vetoed by the Marxist.

25 posted on 07/18/2011 4:26:27 PM PDT by Enough is ENOUGH (Fabian Globalism: Environmentalism halts production, forces population into dense controllable areas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson