Posted on 12/12/2008 2:05:34 AM PST by Man50D
Like the NRA couldn't get one house of the state legislature to refuse to ratify. This is utterly and completely a non-issue.
For an amendment to pass it requires not only overwhelming support nationally, but also that this support be more or less evenly distributed geographically. Controversial issues will never ever get this support.
That's why the only truly controversial amendments to ever pass were the 13th thru 15th, which passed only because Congress extorted ratification, using arguably unconstitutional methods, from southern states.
I would much prefer to see amending the constitution made easier, if we could at the same time somehow limit the ability of the Court to amend it by fiat.
A Constitution which cannot be amended to settle controversial issues encourages end-runs around it, which is exactly what we have. The people and the states have been bypassed, and the most critical issues are decided for the entire country by one person, the swing voter on the Court. In recent years, Justice Kennedy has in some ways been the most powerful man in the country.
There is nothing in the constitution about rescinding a vote. Congress has never legislated on the matter.
Also uncertain are the right of a state to rescind its ratification of a proposed amendment and the right of Congress to extend a deadline for ratification. In Coleman v. Miller the Court strongly indicated that only Congress could decide the rescission issue. Congress never dealt with the question, however, because the child labor amendment had not been ratified by enough states. Earlier decisions on rescission were inconsistent. At Congress's direction, the secretary of state counted the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by three states that had voted to withdraw their approval of the measure. But the secretary of state apparently accepted North Dakota's rescission of its ratification of the Twenty-fifth Amendment (the presidential disability amendment added to the Constitution in 1967). Both the rescission and extension issues arose in October 1978 when Congress passed a thirty-nine-month extension for approval of the ERA, which needed ratification by three more states to be adopted. Opponents of the amendment challenged the extension, while supporters hoped to nullify the actions of four state legislatures in voting to rescind their previous ratification of it. In 1981 a federal judge in Idaho ruled that Congress had exceeded its power in extending the ratification deadline. He also ruled that states could rescind their approval of the amendment if they acted during the ratification period. Early in 1982 the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from those rulings. After the ratification period expired on June 30, however, the Court dismissed the case as moot, leaving the questions unresolved.
The actual text of Article 5:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Canada doesn’t really have a “constitution”. It is a sham.
> Canada doesn’t really have a “constitution”. It is a sham.
(big grin!!)
I agree it’s a sick joke that was foisted unwanted upon the longsuffering Canadian public, but it *is* technically a “Constitution” and it contains an “Entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms” that essentially supersedes nearly 1,000 of British Commonlaw, and it is signed by nine out of ten provinces. It does away with the British North America Act (BNA).
I rued the day that our politicians got away with that fast one. I can remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard it had been signed.
It was a black day for Canada. Just like the day Mulroney the Traitor rammed GST thru the Senate by appointing “special senators”.
“He says that “all” you need to do is get the states to pass a carefully worded, limited resolution that will ONLY allow the con-con to do these things, and nothing else.”
That would work if and only if the ‘resolution’ were an ammendment to the costitution. Good Luck.
Time to dust off the “Gillotine”.
“Neal Boortz has been on a rant about getting a constitutional convention,
in order to get rid of the 16th and 17th amendments
and to implement the fair tax.”
- - -
That’s right with a teeny-tiny minor correction:
Boortz has suggested that his listeners contact their state representatives and
urge them to call for a constitutional convention for the explicit purpose(s) of:
1-repealing the 16th amendment;
2-repealing the 17th amendment; and
3-implementation of term limits.
Grouped together, he believes these three things would have massive appeal to the citizenry
(who may or may not be particularly “excited” by or
recognize the significance of the Fair Tax on its face value).
He says that the implementation of the Fair Tax or something similar
would naturally, logically, and immediately follow, as congress would
have a critical need to make up for the loss of revenue from the income tax.
In my opinion, the Constitution has been dead for years now. I mean, how many times in the past year alone has Big Brother trampled on it, never mind the past fifty years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.