IS THE AMENDMENT PROCESS FLAWED?

[ZombieGak]

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]

1. The Amendment process is appropriately difficult

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]

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]

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]

9. it really doesn't matter because...

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]

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]

15. I didn't know that

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]

2. Not really

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]

5. congress is another matter

I am just looking at one aspect of the amendment process.

[Strong Atheist]

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]

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]

7. no

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]

8. there are ways......

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]

10. yes!

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]

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]

11. it's not easy to get

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]

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]

14. The reason that

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]

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]

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]

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.