Why Most Ideas about Amending the Constitution Are Not Worth Suggesting

[MineralMan]

Before suggesting that we pass some sort of Constitutional Amendment to do something you think needs to be done, read this:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

It's not a long article. It lays out the process very clearly. Please read it before suggesting such a thing. At this time in our history, it is simply impossible.

[lapucelle]

1. Thank you for posting this. N/T

[MineralMan]

2. My pleasure.

However, I doubt it will be read by most DUers, so we'll probably continue to see calls for constitutional amendments, often for minor things. I just wanted to post a source that makes the process easy to understand.

Since we cannot even pass a voting rights law in the Senate, an amendment to the Constitution is a ridiculous idea right now.

[lapucelle]

5. Not only is it a facile suggestion bordering on magical thinking,

but it is also dangerous. A constitutional amendment is such a serious step. Such proposal should not be made lightly.

[MineralMan]

6. We have only to look at the Amendment that brought about

prohibition to understand that. It was enacted, but was repealed not long afterwards. It was a mistake to enact an amendment for something as foolish as that. I'm sure we learned a lesson from it. I hope so, anyhow.

[dpibel]

27. Wait, what?

Pretty sure the amendment process was the same back then as it is now.

Yup. No subsequent amendments changing that.

So you're suggesting that, somehow, somebody just casually said, "Hey! Let's outlaw booze," and, just like that, they amended the Constitution.

I think that's a little ahistorical.

Also, there may be some who think 14 years and "not long" are not synonyms.

[Ocelot II]

3. Some states - mainly conservative ones - have voted to hold a constitutional convention,

which could be a disaster; God knows what kind of authoritarian mess a new constitution might be if the right-wingers get to rewrite it. And the constant calls for amendments are absurd, as you point out. "Why don't we just amend the Constitution so (insert progressive idea here)?" More than 11,000 amendments have been proposed and only 27 have been ratified and enacted. And with only a few exceptions the process for each has taken years. That's not to say amendments should never be offered; only that "just" amending the Constitution is a very heavy lift and not a reliable remedy, especially in the near term..

[MineralMan]

4. Yes. So far in our history, no such constitutional convention

has ever happened since our original Constitution was completed. I don't expect that to change.

However, there have been 27 amendments to our Constitution. That can happen, but will not in the current political environment.

That the ERA failed to be ratified by 3/4 of the states is the simplest example of why casual suggestions for amendments are ridiculous.

[Ocelot II]

7. Indeed. The ERA was first introduced in 1923. Nothing happened for almost 50 years.

It was finally reintroduced in 1971 and approved by Congress in 1972. Since then it has been ratified by 38 states, which should be the 2/3 needed to authorize it, but in the meantime several states withdrew their ratifications under pressure from conservatives, so despite many procedures and efforts to extend deadlines the amendment hasn't been finally approved. Of all amendments this one should have been a no-brainer, but after almost 100 years it's still in limbo - which demonstrates how easily the whole process can be derailed.

[Ferryboat]

9. The Koch network has been funding various think tanks for years

Which have done extensive research and gaming out to seize control and direct a constitutional convention to further their goals.

I'm not sure how many states it takes to call for a convention, but I believe a few have already made a motion to do so.

Everything would be open to revision. Corporations would seize control of the political system. We the people would be a footnote.

[Stuart G]

8. Thank You for posting...K and R...Won't be done. Yes, Quote, "...it is simply impossible"

I know why................???..

..............................if it were easy..it would have been done.................................

...............................It is not easy. Amending the Constitution..........is..................................................................

.....VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY...............DIFFICULT/VERY HARD.

[Scrivener7]

10. Is it time for instruction on "subjects that mustn't be discussed" again already?

[MineralMan]

11. Apparently so. Thanks for dropping by.

[Scrivener7]

12. Time certainly flies. It seems like only yesterday since the last one.

[MineralMan]

13. You apparently have an outstanding memory.

Thanks so much for following my postings closely.

[Scrivener7]

14. You're too kind. But they occur so often it doesn't really require memory.

[MineralMan]

15. Well, thanks anyhow.

At least I'm reliable with such things, eh? It's always helpful when someone kicks my posts.

[Scrivener7]

16. Yes. Some seem to get a thrill out of that. Glad to help.

[dpibel]

17. "You gals just hush, now."

The country's just not ready for women to vote!

So don't even bring up the idea.

-- DU, circa 1900

[MineralMan]

18. Women's Suffrage took a very long to become a reality.

Despite it being an easy idea to understand, women have had that right only for 100 years. Similarly, lowering the voting age to 18 also took a very long time, despite 18 year old being subject to the draft. Those amendments were hugely significant. Many of the amendments people call for regularly here are for things that are not nearly that weighty. Amending the Constitution is such an important thing that any amendment will and probably should take decades to make happen.

When an amendment is not so fundamental and substantial, as with the prohibition amendment, it does not stick around long. That amendment is an excellent example of why minor amendments are not a good idea. The ERA is an excellent example of just how difficult it is to enact an amendment that becomes part of the Constitution, even when it is so clearly needed.

[dpibel]

19. You will note the date...

My post specified 1900. As we both know, the Women's Suffrage movement predated that.

So yes, I know that Women's Suffrage "took a very long."

That's rather the point I was making.

I'm sure there were many people back in the day explaining to the silly little women that Constitutional amendments are VERY HARD and take A VERY LONG TIME and REQUIRE THE PROPER POLITICAL CLIMATE.

And if the suffragists had listened to that oh-so-wise counsel, they would have shut up and the idea would have died aborning.

I'm not aware of the people you are trying to teach here. Is there some great number of posters saying, "Why didn't we have this amendment yesterday??"

I haven't seen it. I've seen people saying that we need amendments, and they're frequently right.

I'm not sure what the point is of, on a political discussion board, saying, "Don't say that. The time is not right."

But your M very clearly V.

[MineralMan]

20. In any given period of time, people post suggested amendments

to the Constitution here. Most are either trivial in nature or simply not well thought-out.

My post today was in response to one such proposal, made this morning. I posted a separate post, rather than an argument in the other post, which you can read at the link below:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216288365

I do that so as not to call out a particular proposal or poster. I'm happy, though, to share the post that is the reason for this thread. My post is more general in nature than specifically targeting a particular proposal.

[dpibel]

21. Limiting discussion is important!

Because on a political discussion website in a forum called General Discussion, there's such a thing as too much discussion, right?

And it is, of course, very important to give people advice on how to post.

I'm sure you readily receive and follow such advice, right?

[MineralMan]

22. Well, every new thread I start is an opportunity for discussion, isn't it?

Are you giving me some sort of advice? I haven't seen anything that looks like advice from you. But, you're welcome to advise me as you see fit. I will consider any advice you provide. I always do that when someone advises me. I might not follow your advice, but I will certainly receive it if you post it.

Thanks for joining this discussion.

[dpibel]

23. As is every "we need an amendment" thread, isn't it?

Perhaps I've misread your OP. It seemed to me you were telling people to refrain from creating those opportunities for discussion.

As for advice, I'm glad to hear that you're open to it. Not sure why I'd think otherwise.

[MineralMan]

24. Yes. And I replied in the thread at that link, too.

I post frequently on DU, and most of my posts are replies in other people's threads. I'm very active in discussing things here.

[MineralMan]

25. Note: I added the word "Most" to the title of this thread just now.

I should have included it when I posted.

[dpibel]

26. Maybe you should add this info to the OP

Because, as it sits, it's only if someone reads all the way through what is now a rather lengthy thread that they discover your original post was a pure prohibition, whilst you are now representing it as a qualified one.

That quite entirely changes the sense of some of the discussion that's been had here, wouldn't you say?

[MineralMan]

28. Uh, the title has been changed.

I also added a post to that effect, along with a note in the post history. I can do no more. Bye.

[dpibel]

29. Uhhh. You can edit the post.

Just like you edited the subject line.

Then it's clear up front that you changed your position midstream.

Farewell.

[MineralMan]

30. On another note,

On a trip to Playa del Carmen, I ate cochinita pibil several times. WONDERFUL! It's difficult to find achiote paste in Minnesota, but I can order it from Amazon. A favorite for me.