High school civics recap: There are two main ways to begin the process of amending the Constitution. One is through Congress, and another is through a Constitutional Convention. Never in the history of the United States has the Constitution been amended the second way. One writer is so thoroughly fed up with Congress that he wants a radical change: If Congress refuses to act, make them act, seems to be the goal. Cut out the middleman and do the damned thing yourself. You can read the article here: http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2007/05/27/columns/columns01.txt It's actually not a bad idea. Change is good. The only question is how much change there'd be, and how quickly it'd be implemented. Any proposals would still need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states, so it isn't as if they could install a monarchy or anything like that.
As much as it appeals to my burn it all down mentality, it's probably a lousy idea. Polls show most Americans think the First Amendment goes way too far, and that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind be searched, etc. Hell, almost half of them have fallen for the global warming scam, and most think universal health care is a good idea. So no, I'm not keen on turning the keys over to the vox populi.
Good points. The states would still have to ratify any proposals, however, so that's some reassurance against wigged-out changes to our way of life.
Right, but the people's wishes are intermediated through the legislative process, just as in Congress. The writer's point was that Congress has become enamored of special interests that openly defy the reasonable wishes of the people. There's a vast conceptual distance between being the pawn of political oligarchs and serving as the duly elected representatives of the citizenry.
Nothing would change unless you throw lots of money at it. If you notice, both parties are unwilling to secure the borders against illegals. I personally believe it's because big money is behind the drive to give them Amnesty. That's really the only reason why they're not listening to the people on this one when most Americans do not support Amnesty. If you notice, they're also trying to get around the Amnesty issue by changing the language in the bill. Trying to snooker the American people.
^It's obvious neither party would want to do anything about securing borders. The elites of American society run these parties and of course, it is in their best interest to keep a massive cheap labor force within the national borders. The bottom line rules in this situation unfortunately.
Sounds like a damn good idea, but there is no pecedent in place for it, but if the guy keeps the idea and espouses it then it might work as people realize there is an option. That kind of thing is how arnold ended up governor.
