Yes, we could. Would we? Never. The idea of requiring two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-fourths of all the state legislatures to comply is a sufficient hurdle to keep ideas like slavery from making it to the Constitution. Instead of slavery, ask about defense of marriage. If that successfully makes it to the Constitution via Article V conventions, would it be "constitutional?"
It does? I don't get that idea at all. Root is simply saying that even that major effort cannot justify infringing upon our basic rights.
My only knowledge of the subject was your quote. My first take on it was that Root, defending a brewer, was trying to invalidate the method that the amendment made it to the Constitution, thereby invalidating the amendment. My impression was that he was suggesting that circumventing the Congress was something to fear. To me, when Root says "You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of... may enact any legislation they please...," he at first lays out the laborious path to enactment and then trivializes it with "any legislation they please." First, it's a sufficiently high hurdle that just "any legislation" is unlikely to pass it, and second, it's a rigorous enough process that it isn't likely to occur that frequently. That's why I said what I did, because it seemed to me that Root ultimately wanted to Court to reject the amendment by rejecting the path of its enactment, by suggesting that it was easier and more likely to happen for any odd legislation that the People wanted.
Given that the Constitution was designed as a limiting powers document, designed to protect our rights from gov't infringements; -- does it make any sense to let 'majority rule' amend away those rights?
First, I'd say that isn't just a majority, but a super-majority. Second, I'd say that majority rule is the basis of how the legislature works, so what's wrong with it here? Third, the Constitution is established by "We the People," so what's wrong with the People having a direct path to amending the Constitution? After all, it is a government by consent of the governed, and one way of reminding the government of that is to let the people also have a path to amending the Constitution. Now, if the people are going to do something stupid and harmful to their rights, that's why you need two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures to concur.
The question before the Court in 1920 was whether 'majority will' can amend the Constitution, depriving us of a basic right. -- Sadly, the Court refused to give us a clear answer.
I'm not sure I follow your original point. Are you against Article V conventions for amending the Constitution? Ultimately, the right to amend our governing document is also a basic right of the people.
-PJ
The question before the Court in 1920 was whether 'majority will' can amend the Constitution, depriving us of a basic right. -- Sadly, the Court refused to give us a clear answer.
I'm not sure I follow your original point. Are you against Article V conventions for amending the Constitution?
Of course not. Root was arguing that [constitutionally speaking] such a convention cannot deprive us of inalienable basic rights, as our Declaration makes clear.
Ultimately, the right to amend our governing document is also a basic right of the people.
'We the people' do not have the power to enslave our neighbors.
Yes, we could. Would we? Never. The idea of requiring two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-fourths of all the state legislatures to comply is a sufficient hurdle to keep ideas like slavery from making it to the Constitution.
I doubt that. -- History shows us that 'super majorities' are capable of anything.
Given that the Constitution was designed as a limiting powers document, designed to protect our rights from gov't infringements; -- does it make any sense to let 'majority rule' amend away those rights?
First, I'd say that isn't just a majority, but a super-majority.
Second, I'd say that majority rule is the basis of how the legislature works, so what's wrong with it here?
'Whats wrong' is that it could be used to deprive people of inalienable rights, even enslave them; -- and you agree we have a 'right' to do so.
Third, the Constitution is established by "We the People," so what's wrong with the People having a direct path to amending the Constitution?
Nothing, as long as 'we the people' are limited by Article VI to honor our Constitution, as are ~all~ gov't officials. -- Apparently. you contend we are not. Read our Oath of Citizenship. -- All of us are obligated to protect and defend our Law of the Land.
After all, it is a government by consent of the governed, and one way of reminding the government of that is to let the people also have a path to amending the Constitution. Now, if the people are going to do something stupid and harmful to their rights, that's why you need two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures to concur.
Tell it to those who lost their lives to 'super majority' endorsed governments in the 20th century.