Technically, no.

But the Supreme Court can "interpret" it in absolutely any way they like.

No, but one branch or another has been doing it for over 200 years.

Actually, an amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, not 2/3. That's 38 of 50, not 34.

No but why do you ask? do you have something in mind?

The executive and the legislative can do any thing they like. Until the Supreme Court says otherwise. And the Supreme Court can ignore unconstitutional actions, or declare it illegal. Their perogative.

You might make the case that no branch morally has the right to do something that they know is unconstitutional. But practically speaking, they can do what ever they want.

In particular, the congress continually writes unconstitutional law.

The only protection we have from any of the branches getting out of control is the vote. Until such times as duely elected officials get too far out of hand. Then the last resort is for the people to excercise their 2nd amendment rights. And for good, or for ill, they have never done so.

you're suggesting a switch from a republic to a democracy.

For an example of the fabrication of a Constitutional "right", see the infamous Roe v. Wade SC decision here:

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/index.html

Excuse me, but we are already so far away from the constitution that it would be a radical idea just to return to it.

The courts have read into it rights that never exisited, have been writing laws for years. Congress certainly has overstepped its constitutional authority and so has the executive branch.

The question is not, can they? The question is, have they? And they most certainly have!

Probably impossible to make a genuine democracy work on a scale as large as the US.

But I've seen it in action on a small scale in New Hampshire, in the small town meetings. It's wonderful.

The one thing that's saved NH from much of the left idiocy is that their legislature has something like 400 members. Since its such a small state, that means you probably personally know your legislator. Elections don't cost enough money to require fund raising, so its not worth it for a special interest to "help" a legislator.

NH is a wonderful state. It's just so d**n cold!

Post 10 was supposed to go to you, rott.

the founders of the constitution deliberatly avoided a democracy because once people realize they are in charge they will vote themselves largess from the public treasury. But america is too advanced to fall for that.

Geez. Pull out a copy of the Constitution and read it. Article V is the amendment provision.

Amendments are proposed by 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress, or by a new Constitutional Convention (if Congress calls that into session).

Once any amendment is proposed, it is of no force and effect until it has been ratified. Ratification requires the approval of 3/4ths of the state legislatures, or if Congress chooses the other method of ratification, by Ratification Conventions in 3/4ths of the states, delegates being elected to those Conventions pledged either for or against the proposed amendment.

There has never been a second Constitutional Convention. All amendments to date have been proposed by Congress as described. Only one amendment has been ratified by state conventions for that purpose. All others have been ratified by the state legiuslatures.

Additional information: over 10,000 proposed amendments have been introduced in Congress over the years. Only 52 have managed to pass one House of Congress. Only 27 have been ratified and become part of the Constitution.

This process was intended to be difficult, so the Constitution would not be amended "at the mere whim of a majority," in James Madison's words. Article V has worked exactly as planned.

Whenever five Justices of the Supreme Court choose to ignore the Constitution and promulgate whatever they agree on as the "law of the land," they are attacking the Constitution and violating their oaths of office, IMHO. And I say that as a member of the Supreme Court's Bar who practices in that Court.

I hope this is helpful/

Congressman Billybob

it was helpfull..thanks :o)

Forgot about that Constitutional convention part. Duh.

In overturning the Texas law proscribing abortion the 1973 US SC in Roe v Wade said:

"The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause"

Thus, the "right" to murder an unborn child as a consequence of "liberty" was granted by a vote of 8 - 1 (Rehnquist dissenting).

We've already gone a long way towards voting ourselves stuff. The welfare state comes to mind.

But for some reason, it doesn't work out that way in what I've seen in direct democracy in NH. They argue about every coat of paint they're going to pay for on the schoolhouse.

good to see you congressmembers can read the constitution.

"The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause"

So where's my "personal liberty" to put drugs in my body if I so desire. Doing so might, or might not be a good idea. But if a woman has a "right to choose" an abortion. Then I have an absolute "right to choose" to abuse my body with drugs.

There's nothing wonderful about a pure democracy - it is nothing more than mob rule. The Constitution was designed with two things in mind: 1)to severely limit the authority of a central government and 2)to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority".

Al Gore would like a pure democracy. That's what he meant when he said, "If elected, I will breathe new life into the Constitution." Its every liberal's wet dream to be able to interpret the Constitution in any way they want in the moment. That would, of course, mean national suicide.