Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(139,803 posts)

29. The drafters purposely made it hard in order to limit frivolous changes

Reply to The Grand Illuminist (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 27, 2024, 07:34 AM

Jul 27

and regardless of how it is started, it still requires 3/4 of states to ratify.

But initiating it in Congress at least doesn't require the states to "organically" think about starting up a pile of conventions and puts the idea out there as a heads-up about apparent interest in making a change. This then gives the states an opportunity to consider taking the lead using the alternative method instead (particularly if they agree with the Amendment language that Congress might come up with and adopts that for their conventions).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NY Democrat introduces constitutional amendment reversing Supreme Court immunity ruling [View all] BumRushDaShow Jul 25 OP

Let's keep it up. Sure, not a chance in hell but it's a record, a record of what OUR Project '25 looks like! n/t Cheezoholic Jul 25 #1

Some battles should be fought markodochartaigh Jul 25 #9

...and should NEVER be given up on. calimary Jul 25 #13

"...NEVER be given up on." markodochartaigh Jul 25 #14

The Subversive Court was absolutely wrong. Hermit-The-Prog Jul 25 #2

"According to law." That's what the "official acts," just made up whole cloth from "doctrine" factories who ancianita Jul 25 #7

They aspire to royalty; they set themselves up to determine what is official and not Hermit-The-Prog Jul 25 #10

All that for sure. ancianita Jul 25 #12

Sorry. Didn't mean to preach. I get mad every time I think about them. Hermit-The-Prog Jul 26 #17

No worries! I feel ya! ancianita Jul 26 #21

kick! pat_k Jul 25 #3

K&R That ruling MUST be reversed. Think. Again. Jul 25 #4

Hopefully republianmushroom Jul 25 #5

Get the ball rolling Bundbuster Jul 25 #6

wonder if republicans will be lining up for this barbtries Jul 25 #8

With the current Supremes it makes no difference. Scruffy1 Jul 25 #11

Biden could jump-start this by undertaking a few "official acts" Orrex Jul 25 #15

You know the problem with that jmowreader Jul 26 #19

Pass a resolution saying Congress does not recognize the SC's right to extralegally amend the constitution V850i Jul 26 #16

Dead on arrival The Grand Illuminist Jul 26 #18

"introducing amendments in its traditional method will not work" BumRushDaShow Jul 26 #20

I don't think we can afford to wait 200 and change years. The Grand Illuminist Jul 26 #22

The point of the suggestion BumRushDaShow Jul 26 #23

The problem is getting 2/3s of both House and Senate to bring it to the states. The Grand Illuminist Jul 26 #25

I would think... appmanga Jul 26 #27

If that is the case. So when Harris wins the presidency... The Grand Illuminist Jul 27 #28

The drafters purposely made it hard in order to limit frivolous changes BumRushDaShow Jul 27 #29

Then there is this. The Grand Illuminist Jul 27 #30

But then remember BumRushDaShow Jul 27 #31

K&R Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 26 #24

DOA - You can't get 2/3 of any group to agree on anything anymore. Ratify an amendment? LOL Runningdawg Jul 26 #26