Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hamid.H, May 18, 2019.
Just like the United Kingdom and India, I'm afraid.
have you heard of the first amendment or the second... or the 26th
''The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.''
What's that got to do with things. You would need a constiutional amendment to dump the electoral college?
Are you referring to gerrymandering? If it's unfair I would agree but to change it you need to win.
yes that's the point I am making...
''We reformed our electoral system in the 90s.''... you said
the US reformed their constitution in the 1790's... and their electoral system in the 70's
I would argue they are one and the same...
''Amid increasing support for a Constitutional amendment, Congress passed the26th Amendment in March 1971; the states promptly ratified it, and President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law that July''.
Different environment now. Sure you can theoretically amend the Constitution but the GoP won't sign off on dumping the electoral college. GoP/red States whatever.
Nope. Congress does not pass amendments, nor do presidents sign them into law.
please enlighten me on how amendments in your constitution become amendments... i would greatly appreciate it
thanking you in advance...
One method is exactly as described. The terminology is that Congress passes a proposed Amendment, which the states ratify. Both processes require super-majority, 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).https://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process
The President's signature is probably a formality, but has been done for multiple amendments. For example, Harry Truman proposed the 22nd Amendment, in 1941 IIRC, it passed in 1947 and, following ratification, Truman signed it into law in 1951. Interestingly, he was not subject to the Amendment and only withdrew his name from consideration after losing the NH primary in 1952.
The 27th Amendment, noted in the quotation, restricts increases in Congressional pay. It was proposed in 1787, at the same time as the Bill of Rights. Several proposed Amendments failed to get ratification in the time allotted, eg the Equal Rights Amendment which fell three states short when time expired in 1982.
now if you could possibly enlighten me on what happens after the ''Congress shall call a Convention for proposing amendments'' bit my understanding of how it works would be complete, apparently I seem to be slightly confused about the process
once again thank you for your time in walking me through this...
It's never happened, so we don't know.
I posted evidence. Where is yours?
Indeed, the idea scares a lot of people. Last time it happened, we threw out the Articles of Confederation and drafted the Constitution from scratch.
Again thank you for your time and quick response to my obvious confusion on this matter
I am still so totally confused how your process of amending the constitution works if you have 26 amendments and a constitutional convention has never been called
is that because according to the new york times
our system is so much more straight forward... thankfully
Really? have you met them?
Congress can propose amendments, it's authority ends there. The state legislatures can ratify amendments if they choose to. There is no fixed timeline. Many amendments remain in half-ratified limbo for years.
you yourself have 'met' two in this thread ( I am mildly confident J would agree with me on that statement)... thou personally I am waiting for the day my country has constitutional reform and we become a republic
There is no constituency for this. Secessionism looks like the end game.
Some of them. Political Science Professors, for example. A Constitutional Convention would have no restrictions on what they amended. As noted, the last convention threw out everything.
Thank you. You are gracious to acknowledge the point.
Congress can and does set a deadline for the states to ratify. As noted, the 27th Amendment took 203 years but newer proposed amendments have timelines defined in the proposal. Congress can also call a convention. Under certain circumstances, they may be required to do so.
There would not be sufficient consensus on anything to even call the meeting to order. Find better political science professors.
Separate names with a comma.