I believe IronJack in post 11 hit your “ELSE” “no you don’t choke” when he said, and it is worth repeating; “In the end, it would not be possible for Congress to so brazenly defy the will of the people and still demand respect for the laws it enacts.”
and follows with;
“So either Congress would have to yield to the will of the people or the people would withdraw the authority of Congress to make law.”
If the congress chose to ignore 2/3’s of the State Legislatures the end result would be in total agreement with IronJack. They would have lost their legitimacy and along with that their authority.
and follows with;
“So either Congress would have to yield to the will of the people or the people would withdraw the authority of Congress to make law.”
If the congress chose to ignore 2/3’s of the State Legislatures the end result would be in total agreement with IronJack. They would have lost their legitimacy and along with that their authority.
I did see that and agree with Jack that the political pressure on Congress would be irresistable. I was speaking of Constitutional structure in general, though. I had in mind some sort of apparatus that could work more routinely and on a shorter time frame than a Convention and could act to restrain any of the three branches. Levin's suggested amendments get at some of this. Jack, I think was addressing the problem specifically of how do you get these amendments in place in the face of one branch's [Congress] failure, inability, refusal to act on its prescribed duty.