ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 06:31 PM
Original message |
IS THE AMENDMENT PROCESS FLAWED? |
|
Currently the 12 smallest states that can block any constitutional amendment contain a mere 3.8% of the US population. Some believe the bar to amending the Constitution SHOULD be high... and that a vast majority of the population should support amendments before they are ratified. But how high is high? Should the amendment process be tied to population or states?
What's your view?
Here are the numbers:
Wyoming 506529 Vermont 621394 ND 634366 Alaska 655435 SD 770883 Delaware 830364 Montana 926865 RI 1080632 Hawaii 1262840 NH 1299500 Maine 1317253 Idaho 1393262 TOTAL = 11,299,323 2004 CENSUS ESTIMATE FOR US =293,655,404 12 SMALLEST STATES = 3.8478% of US POPULATION
|
Charlie Brown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 06:38 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The Amendment process is appropriately difficult |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 06:39 PM by Charlie Brown
We would already have amendments against abortion and gay marriage if it was "easier."
The state constitutional amendment are tied mostly to a 50% majority of the popular vote, and they have become so wattered down and corrupted as to be meaningless.
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. how would these amendments pass? |
|
There seems to be a big gap between making amendments nearly impossible and too easy. Of course if they were too easy, why don't you think amendment PROTECTING abortion or gay marriage could not be passed?
Amendments are a dual-edged sword... and if we are concerned about how bad amendments being passed... then we need to see if the current formula gives some states too much power.
I personally believe the state based formula is fatally flawed not just for giving 3.8% of the population the theoretical ability to thwart any reform... but that states representing a MINORITY can also ratify any amendment. The 38 smallest states that can pass an amendment contain about 40% of the US population. I'll post the numbers if you'd like.
|
Charlie Brown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Can you think of any elected reps who support gay marriage? |
|
Kucinich is the only person I can think of, and he's kind of viewed as a joke.
Even the "blue" states would not support a constituional amendment protecting gay marriage. Massachusetts is currently involved in a bitter battle to amend its own constitution to prohibit gay marriage. There will end up probably being between thirty and forty states that pass const'l amendments against gay marriage, the latest being Florida and Virginia (yes, Kaine has said he'll support the amendment).
I am glad the federal constitution is extremely difficult to alter.
Theoretically, we do not need const'l amendments guaranteeding the right to choose, as that is already covered by the first and fourth amendments.
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. it really doesn't matter because... |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 08:07 PM by ZombieGak
In the end the CURRENT amendment process may allow for representatives of a minority of the population passing a proposed amendment in Congress... and states representing a minority of the population passing it.
How would this work in Congress? Currently 15% of the population gets 50% of the Senate seats.... and Gerrymandering can give a party 70% of the seats with 50% of the votes.
If you're like me and believe in democratic principles... that's reason enough to oppose this system. But if you DO like this system... you have to deal with it's flaws... and hoping the stars will never align in this way I described isn't really much cause for comfort, After all... it's somewhat unlikely a losing presidential candidate will win in the EC... but it can happen. Odds have a funny way of building up.
|
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
13. Just about the entire Progressive Caucus does |
|
Bernie Sanders, Jim McDermott, Maxine Waters--all the usual suspects. And of course my man Dennis.
|
Charlie Brown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 08:36 PM by Charlie Brown
still, though. A very small percentage of House reps, and no one in the Senate, I believe.
The argument that it would be just as easy to pass "progressive" constitutional amendments as conservative amendments is simply flawed.
|
firefox
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 06:41 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 06:44 PM by firefox
Because if it is a good enough idea to pass all the legislation by the states, it should have enough merit to pass on the federal level.
Your basic premise has more importance to the imbalance of representation in Congress than it does to the amendment process. It would be an imbalance that would be hard to correct though, because it would take a Constitutional amendment and an argument that people would listen to. It would take an idea like proportional representation in government to change it.
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. congress is another matter |
|
I am just looking at one aspect of the amendment process.
|
Strong Atheist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Same problem with the electoral college... |
|
I have been bitching about that since the early eighties when I learned about it, and look what happened in 2000 x(
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-14-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
19. US federalism is a system of....... |
|
US federalism is a system of vote weighting/dilution schemes illegal on all other levels of govenment. The EC is one... the Senate another, and the amendment process a third.
|
Innocent Smith
(466 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 07:29 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I say no because I think it should be difficult to amend the Constitution. There are times that we all know of where the American public gets taken up with some irrational short-term mania.
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
It doesn't take much imagination to envision a popular-vote amendment process that protects democratic principles AND prevents short-lived passion from becoming the law of the land.
So... base the amendment process on a popular votes held during 2 or 3 consecutive presidential election years and the bar to passage can be anything from a 50% majority to a super majority of 66 or 75%.
Would THAT assuage your fears?
|
Bill McBlueState
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 07:59 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Many of the posts so far praise the process because it's difficult to amend the Constitution.
It should definitely be difficult.
Your question is whether it's fair. When the twelve smallest states, with 4% of the population, can block an amendment, that's unfair.
I think anyone with an interest in democracy would agree that the amendment process should be two things: difficult and, more importantly, fair.
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
18. it's also crazy to have 3/4 of the states contain 40% of the population |
|
For those who believe that needing 3/4 of the states is some guarantee that a vast majority of Americans will support an amendment.... here are the numbers:
US CENSUS 2004 US POPULATION ESTIMATE = 293655404
Wyoming 506529 Vermont 621394 ND 634366 Alaska 655435 SD 770883 Delaware 830364 Montana 926865 RI 1080632 Hawaii 1262840 NH 1299500 Maine 1317253 Idaho 1393262
12 SMALLEST STATES =11,299,323 = 3.8478172% Nebraska 1747214 WV 1815354 NM 1903289 Nevada 2334771 Utah 2389039 Kansas 2735502 Arkansas 2752629 Mississippi 2902966 Iowa 2954451 Connecticut 3503604 Oklahoma 3523553 Oregon 3594586 Kentucky 4145922 SC 4198068 Louisiana 4515770 Alabama 4530182 Colorado 4601403 Minnesota 5100958 Wisconsin 5509026 Maryland 5558058 Arizona 5743834 Missouri 5754618 Tennessee 5900962 Washington 6203788 Indiana 6237569 Massachusetts 6416505 38 SMALLEST STATES = 117,872,944 = 40.1398859%
|
Burning Water
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 08:01 PM
Response to Original message |
|
an amendment passed, but it's plenty doable. The fact that only 3.8% of the population resides in those states does not mean that every one in all the other states would support the said amendment.
The process is OK as it is. Sometimes progressives will win; sometimes they'll lose. That's pretty fair.
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. fairness should be based in democratic principles.... |
|
Fairness should be based in democratic principles.... not on on a crap shoot that the odds that an anti-democratic process can work to either side's advantage.
Ultimately the current amendment process, like the EC, magnifies the voices of small states that tend to lean to the Right.
So where's the comfort in that for Democrats or Progressives?
|
Burning Water
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
these protections were put into place in the Constitution was to protect the citizens of small states from the majoritarian dictates of the citizens of very large states. It's a check & balance, like the Supreme Court, or the two party system. This seems to me to be something that any progressive should support.
Anyway, it only slows change, and give people a chance t really reflect on the changes they wish to make. It cannot stop the majority for ever, if only because some other way will be found to get their way.
Yes, I think it's fair enough, but certainly you are entitled to your own opinion.
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
16. no TRUE Progressive would support anti-democratic government |
|
There are other ways to protect minorities besides giving SOME citizens a bigger vote than others... and the Bill of Rights proves it.
Problem with the Framer's "solution" is it can lead to MINORITY government.... and election 2000 proves it. US and world history were changed against the will of the People.
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-13-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
17. you can have a slow reflective process without.... |
|
You can have a slow reflective process WITHOUT resorting to anti-democratic government. I suggested a simple method in another post to this thread. Put amendments to a popular vote in 2-3 consecutive presidential election years. Just what vote you use is another question. I don't mind a super-majority for constitutional issues. But I also know that the average voting rate in the US is 50-52% of the voting age population. In off year elections it's 38%. So I believe there would have to be some extra efforts made to boost citizen participation. But our system is so dysfunctional most citizens probably don't give a damn.
|
ZombieGak
(341 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-14-06 05:59 PM
Response to Original message |
20. 1790 NUMBERS....... trend is towards a more anti-democratic Constitution |
|
In the early republic the first amendments to be ratified were the Bill of Rights. During that time the 3/4 amendment formula gave 4 states of 15 the ability to block any amendment.
Using 1790 Census numbers, the 4 smallest states at the time which could block any amendment contained 7.5% of the US population (excluding Maine which was not yet a state).
The 3/4 of the states needed to ratify any amendment could contain anywhere between 48.5% and 92.5% of the population (excluding Maine). It was already possible that states with a minority of the population could ratify any amendment.
Today's numbers are 3.8% of the population can now, in theory, block any amendment, and the 3/4 states needed to pass an amendment can contain as little as 40% of the population.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 05:18 AM
Response to Original message |