Do you believe a constitutional amendment is?

[lfromnj]

Answer my goldilocks question plox

Should definitely be interesting,


I definitely feel its about right, It should be hard to amend the constitution in most scenarios to not allow unilateral change of our entire country unless one idea is so hated that a party can get in on the platform of purely amending that part of the constitution.

Recently I have noticed a flux among leftists who believe its too hard and prevents our country from experiencing true change^TM but this sort of institutional conservatism can also be helpful to liberal ideology even if it I would say it generally benefits conservatives more. Without such a high mark for amending the constitution, and if it was instead say 55/100 or 60/100 there would be a decent chance flag burning would be banned or allowed to be banned despite our first amendment which is one of the most powerfully enforced in the world, which is definitely an area where American exceptionalism does ring true to a degree.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Too arbitrary. Not necessarily too easy or too hard but also not good.

[Gary JG]

Probably too hard to alter the machinery of government provisions and about right to protect human rights protections.

[Donerail]

I'll say too hard — more specifically, it makes it very difficult to pass an amendment without a national organizing campaign behind it. If you don't have the people to put pressure on 38 state legislatures, it's almost impossible to pass an amendment. This has held up several non-controversial but unexciting proposals for amendments that would make the document more functional. The post-9/11 proposals for a continuity of government amendment and Orrin Hatch's amendment to let Arnold run for President are a couple of the more obvious examples.

[brucejoel99]

Yeah, it's definitely too hard to get an amendment ratified in the present day. You need crazy super-majorities to make it happen & that just ain't happening given today's polarized political climate. (Now, whether that's a good or a bad thing can be debated, & is probably a matter of which side of the ideological spectrum you lie on.)

[politicallefty]

Probably too hard to alter the machinery of government provisions and about right to protect human rights protections.

I absolutely agree with the new guy here. I'm extremely wary about anything that could tamper with the Bill of Rights (and most other rights for that matter, of course). However, I do think the overall structure of the federal government is in massive need of reform and updating. The only significant constitutional changes that have been made on that front since the founding are the 12th and 17th Amendments, the latter obviously being of much greater significance.

[brucejoel99]

Probably too hard to alter the machinery of government provisions and about right to protect human rights protections.

I absolutely agree with the new guy here. I'm extremely wary about anything that could tamper with the Bill of Rights (and most other rights for that matter, of course). However, I do think the overall structure of the federal government is in massive need of reform and updating. The only significant constitutional changes that have been made on that front since the founding are the 12th and 17th Amendments, the latter obviously being of much greater significance.

Not to disagree with your overall post, but I'd argue the effects of the 12th Amendment were still pretty damn significant in & of themselves, given that who knows what kind of crazy-ass mishaps would've resulted had the original Electoral College formula's defect (that if each elector followed party tickets, there'd be a tie between the 2 candidates from the most popular ticket) not been corrected.

[politicallefty]

Probably too hard to alter the machinery of government provisions and about right to protect human rights protections.

I absolutely agree with the new guy here. I'm extremely wary about anything that could tamper with the Bill of Rights (and most other rights for that matter, of course). However, I do think the overall structure of the federal government is in massive need of reform and updating. The only significant constitutional changes that have been made on that front since the founding are the 12th and 17th Amendments, the latter obviously being of much greater significance.

Not to disagree with your overall post, but I'd argue the effects of the 12th Amendment were still pretty damn significant in & of themselves, given that who knows what kind of crazy-ass mishaps would've resulted had the original Electoral College formula's defect (that if each elector followed party tickets, there'd be a tie between the 2 candidates from the most popular ticket) not been corrected.

I did consider that actually, but it's largely confined to how the individuals are elected. That's also true of the 17th, but I do agree with those predominantly on the right that it was a serious restructuring (and ultimately a limitation) of the power that states had over the federal government. Unlike those on the right, I don't think that was a bad thing. I think it's only a shame they didn't go even further back then. If we can't have a parliamentary system in this country, I would definitely prefer to see either the Senate abolished or its powers severely weakened (and I would also argue that the Presidency needs to be massively reined in as well).

[Former President tack50]

Slightly too hard, but that is more because of how gridlocked Congress is than the method itself. Although 3/4 of state legislatures ratifying seems excessive to me even if it gets less attention as an issue.

If I was designing an amendment method, I'd keep the 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

However instead of 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify; I'd change that requirement to a national referendum; taken alongside the midterms or presidential election (whichever comes first).

In said referendum, both a majority of people and a majority of the states must vote in favour to ratify.

[Pollster]

Probably just right at the time the process was devised, but now too hard given how the number of states has since exploded and how tribal American politics now is.

However, I can't think of how I would improve the process, if I could.

[Damocles]

A constitutional amendment shall be considered valid upon ratification by the legislatures of any combination of states, the sum total of their census populations representing not less than a simple majority of the sum total of the census populations of the several states.

At least one state legislature must ratify the amendment, from each of the following regions:

New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island
Mid-Atlantic: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware
Appalachia: Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky
Midwest: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan
Great Plains: Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota
South: South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas
Southwest: Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico
Mountain: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah
Pacific: Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada
Non-contiguous: Alaska, Hawaii

[The Mikado]

Slightly too hard, but that is more because of how gridlocked Congress is than the method itself. Although 3/4 of state legislatures ratifying seems excessive to me even if it gets less attention as an issue.

If I was designing an amendment method, I'd keep the 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

However instead of 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify; I'd change that requirement to a national referendum; taken alongside the midterms or presidential election (whichever comes first).

In said referendum, both a majority of people and a majority of the states must vote in favour to ratify.

I like this idea. 2/3rds of both Houses triggers a national referendum is a good way to do it.