DEMOCRACY 101: how hard should it be to reform the Constitution?

[ulTRAX]

I suspect that most believe that the Constitution should be NOT easy to amend. Yet if it's too difficult, there is the obvious danger that at best government can become unresponsive to each generation.... and at worst: reform-proof.

So what is a REASONABLE hurdle to jump to amend the US Constitution?

Should the formula remain based upon states... which means it's subject to changing demographics which is giving a dwindling minority increasing power to thwart all amendments?

Should the hurdle be states that represent a given percentage of the US population?

Should amendments be put to a popular vote during Congressional or Presidential election years... then need super-majority to pass?

What if it took two such election cycles to insure an amendment had broad popular support and was not subject to the passions of the moment?

Your thoughts?

[Dookus]

1. I can't see a reason to change the current system....

Only ONE amendment (prohibition) seems to have been misguided and poorly implemented, and that was fixed rather quickly. One mistake in 200+ years doesn't strike me as worrisome.

I don't see a problem.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Well said

I think making it a methodical process ensures that we are not subject to the temporary whims or prejudices of people.

[ulTRAX]

6. but what's the hurdle?

I agree that the process should be immune to popular passion. But you haven't addressed the most important question I raised: just how high should the hurdle be?

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. I like the current hurdles

That's how high.

[ulTRAX]

22. please address the questions....

DIRECT QUESTIONS:

What percentage of the US population can in theory block ANY amendment? 50%? 60%? 80%?

In your opinion, at what precise point is that percentage of the population SO small that even YOU believe that it's immoral for them to block reforms desired by rest of the nation? 30%? 20%? 10% 5%?

[Dookus]

23. The direct answer to your question is:

.0000001161020%

that is the number of 34 Senators divided by the entire US population as of this morning.

[ulTRAX]

28. if you want to play that game....

then in reality it's just the DECIDING vote by one senator that either allows an amendment to go to the states or squashes it. So why isn't the number 1/292,846,603 of the population?

Or it could be the deciding vote in a state legislature in a key state?

Or a deciding vote in the House.

My point is NOT about Senators and I've only said that 4-5 times. But since you brought up the Senate... in our anti-democratic system... 50% of the seats represent a mere 15% of the population. Depending who they are, those 34 senators may represent a much SMALLER percentage of the US population.

If you want to do the population calculation for the 16-17 smallest states... feel free. I don't have my state population spreadsheet handy but my guess would be around 8-9% of the US population.

[Dookus]

29. because ONE senator, while being the deciding vote,

cannot block an amendment. You asked what is the percentage of Americans who can block an amendment. That number is derived by dividing the number of Americans who can block an amendment by the total population.

The first number is 34. The second number changes quickly, but is approximately what you wrote above.

But I'm not playing games, you are. You seem to want to discuss something, but you're trying to get some agreement on an arbitrary and meaningless statistic BEFORE you make your point.

I'm not going to play by your rules. I have given you the exact percentage of americans who can block a constitutional amendment. The answer is not to your liking. Fair enough.

Just say what you want to say. If you think the amendment process ought to be easier, just say so, and tell us what you want that process to be. Then, tell us why making it easier to amend the constition would, overall, be a good thing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. I did answer your question

I like the amendment process the way it is. As for percentages, you can figure them out any way you like.

[ulTRAX]

4. that wasn't the question

I didn't ask how many amendments were mistakes.... but how difficult it should be to amend the Constitution. A question I DIDN'T ask, but is nonetheless valid.... of all the 15 amendments (minus the 2 prohibition amendments) passed since 1791.... have any really brought basic democratic reforms our system or have they only tweaked an anti-democratic system?

[arewethereyet]

7. they did answer it, status quo since it is apparantly working fine

[ulTRAX]

9. what's the basis for that opinion?

Didn't our system give us George dWi aWol Bush? If a Constitution can't even offer a basic guarantee that an election winner takes office... what good is it? No.. I don't want to hear any lame rationalizations that it was Florida or SCOTUS that was responsible for Election 2000... it was the anti-democratic EC formula.

[bowens43]

18. Huh?

The winner of the electoral process DID take office. The EC process worked as it was intended to work, we just disagree with the outcome. I have a feeling that if the situation was reversed and Bush had the popular vote but didn't win the electoral votes you would be singing the praises of the EC. And this is PRECISELY why the Constitution should be VERY difficult to amend. Passion should have no place in the amendment process.

[ulTRAX]

25. No one who believes in democracy would EVER defend the EC

bowens43 wrote: "I have a feeling that if the situation was reversed and Bush had the popular vote but didn't win the electoral votes you would be singing the praises of the EC."

I DETEST EC... as would ANYONE who is actually truly committed to democratic principles and the concept of morally legitimate government . I have ALWAYS here called for a popular vote with a runoff to insure that ANY president takes office with 50%+ of the vote.

[Dookus]

8. I understand what your question was....

it was "how hard should it be to amend the constitution?"

My answer is "exactly as hard as it is now."

Have any amendments brought basic democratic reforms to our system? umm.... yeah. Most of them have. I don't know how one could even ask the question. Ending slavery, ensuring the right to vote for African-Americans, women, 18-year olds, ensuring direct election of Senators, applying federal rights against the states via the 14th amendment, etc. etc.

[ulTRAX]

10. let me ask you this....

Currently, what percentage of the US population can, in theory, block ANY amendment? Is this percentage less or more than it was in 1787? Is this percentage growing or shrinking?

[Dookus]

11. The percentage of the US population that can block ANY

amendment is very very small.

It consists of 34 people, all with the title "Senator". It has grown over the years due to new states being added.

[ulTRAX]

12. not my question...

But since you brought up the Senate... one of the most anti-democratic representative bodies in all of the advanced democracies...

Currently it gives 50% of the seats to 15% of the US population. The 17 amendment stripped away any pretense that senators represented legal entities called states. It's nothing but a vote weighing scheme. Soon 50% of the Senate will represent only 10% of the US population. At what point does this formula become SO anti-democratic that even you will agree it must be reformed?

As for my question... currently states with a mere 4.5% of the US population can block ANY amendment. As with the Senate, this number is shrinking. At what point is the amendment process held hostage by too few Americans... depriving the vast majority of reforms they may want? At what point does the Constitution become reform proof to ANY basic democratic reforms?

[Dookus]

14. It WAS your question

And I answered it.

Please explain how the number of senators who can block an amendment is shrinking?

Furthermore, you seem to think that somehow people vote on amendments. That is not true. It is the legislatures of the 3/4ths of the states that decide such things, along with 2/3rds of the House and Senate.


But what is your point, anyway? You want to make it easier to amend the constitution?

And what about your questioning whether any democratic reforms have ever been instituted by the amendment process? Care to reply to my answer?

[ulTRAX]

15. THIS was my question....

"let me ask you this.... Currently, what percentage of the US population can, in theory, block ANY amendment? Is this percentage less or more than it was in 1787? Is this percentage growing or shrinking?"

I NEVER asked about Senators.

[Dookus]

17. Senators are part of the US population

and 34 of them can block an amendment.

Why keep farting around with this silly technicality and just say what you want to say?

Do you want to make it easier to amend the constitution? If so, why? What do YOU think would be a better system? If it's easier to amend, explain why we shouldn't fear a boatload of BAD amendments passing?

[ulTRAX]

19. since when is a direct question a technicality?

Unless you don't want to address it?

I was as CLEAR as I could be in my question. I even provided you the God damn answer. Don't pass off YOUR inability to focus by saying I was unable to ask a clear question.

[Dookus]

21. No need to get snippy

you asked a technical question, and I gave a correct technical answer.

Now why not just say what you want to say? And why not address WHY you would even ask if the amendment process has expanded democratic liberties?

[ulTRAX]

24. enough excuses

I asked a DIRECT question: "let me ask you this.... Currently, what percentage of the US population can, in theory, block ANY amendment? Is this percentage less or more than it was in 1787? Is this percentage growing or shrinking?"

You have now wasted FOUR posts AVOIDING the question yet pretending to have answered it. Then you have the nerve to accuse me of getting impatient. Well golly gee.

I think I've wasted enough time on you. You have nothing of value to add to this thread.

[Dookus]

26. Except that I HAVE answered the question repeatedly

it is 34 people.

the percentage is .0000001161020


If you want to argue that we need to change the electoral college, then let's discuss that. But this silly game of percentages is meaningless.

Citizens do NOT vote on constitutional amendments. I *THINK* you're trying to say that the population of the 13 smallest states, when added up, is the number you're looking for. But that's a meaningless statistic.

Why not just discuss what you want to discuss? If you want to make it easier to amend the constitution, tell us what YOUR plan is, and tell us why it wouldn't lead to more bad amendments being passed.

[ulTRAX]

32. there have NEVER been any REAL reforms to the Constitution

Dookas wrote: "Have any amendments brought basic democratic reforms to our system? umm.... yeah. Most of them have. I don't know how one could even ask the question."

You can't understand my asking because we are using two different sets of principles upon which we base our analysis. I've gone back to basic democratic principles such as one person, on votes.... and all votes should weight the same. You are using the 1787 rationale used to sell the anti-democratic Constitution to the people as your base assumptions.

"Ending slavery, ensuring the right to vote for African-Americans, women, 18-year olds, ensuring direct election of Senators, applying federal rights against the states via the 14th amendment, etc. etc."

Nothing but minor tweaks. Slavery should never have been protected by the Constitution... nor should have white men with property have been given the exclusive right to vote. The ONLY reform that might be considered a real reform was the 17th amendment which gave citizens the right to vote for their Senators. Unfortunately the underlying principle of the Senate itself is anti-democratic.

So in reality NONE of the core anti-democratic features of our Constitution... the Senate, the EC, the amendment process, the special responsibilities of the Senate for ratifying treaties and judicial nominations... have EVER been reformed. In the meantime... the Constitution is getting MORE anti-democratic. Where once states with some 7% of the US population could block an amendment.... it's now down to about 4.5%. Where once the 50% of the Senate represented about 23% of the population... it's now down to 15%... and is heading to 10%. Then there's the EC which can deprive the American People of morally legitimate self-government. Getting the picture?

[cryofan]

30. No, NOT well said!

We need a WHOLE new constitution: the current one was written by a group consisting of many slaveowners and slumlords. We need a Constitution organized around the principle that the CITIZEN is the central aspect of America, and not property owners.

[ulTRAX]

33. the framers did a GREAT job..

The Framers did a GREAT job in protecting the rights of those special interests that attended the Constitutional Convention. Perhaps we would have gotten a more democratic Constitution if a broader section of the population had been invited to the Convention instead of just propertied white men presenting their states... and their state's priorities.

[Burma Jones]

3. Very Hard

Just look at California.

[ulTRAX]

5. very hard what?

Just how easy or hard is it to amend the California Constitution? Without some basic info... what are we to make of your comment?

[bowens43]

16. I think that they got it right the first time.

I see no reason to alter the process.

[ulTRAX]

20. on what basis is your opinion based?

Just making a claim mean nothing. WHY is the current formula just fine? You mean you OPPOSE reforming a system that IMPOSES a presidential election LOSER on the People of US... making a mockery of self-government and forever changing our history? Wasn't our nation born... dedicated to the proposition that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed? Is that what we now have?

[sweetheart]

27. The republican answer

Well, we don't have to change the constitution. We just ignore it
and violate it whenever we see fit. It is not enforceable anymore.
The same court that appointed us over the people's choice, can
reinterpret the constitutionn to be a communist infiltation if
we need it wiped out or changed. The fact that we have removed 2
of the bill of rights with patriot does not mean we've changed
the constitution.

Y'all democrats are so fooled trying to follow the rules and all.
Dint'ya hear, there's a war. There are no rules in war. We
torched the constitution ages ago... you dummies still think it exists.

Just remember, if you're an american citizen, i'm out to FUCK you.

Love ya,

GWB's administration.

[Scottie72]

34. Here are my answers and thoughts:

I suspect that most believe that the Constitution should be NOT easy to amend. Yet if it's too difficult, there is the obvious danger that at best
government can become unresponsive to each generation.... and at worst: reform-proof.

So what is a REASONABLE hurdle to jump to amend the US Constitution?

First of all there are several hurdles for an amendment to jump before it becomes a part of the constitution. Amending the constitution was designed to be very difficult. The constitution has only been amended 17 times (excluding the original ten, this includes an amendment repealing an earlier amendment.

Let's deal with the hurdles of the house and senate:

2/3 majority vote. I feel this is a very reasoanble hurdle. Almost anything more would make it too difficult and anything less might make it too easy.

3/4 of the States legislatures needs to ratify the amendment by majority vote. I also believe there is a time table for this to ocurr also but not too sure of what it exactly is right now. I also believe this is a reasonable hurdle.


Should the formula remain based upon states... which means it's subject to changing demographics which is giving a dwindling minority increasing
power to thwart all amendments?

I am not quite sure I follow your question. I think the current formula is quite fine and the answer would be a yes.

Should the hurdle be states that represent a given percentage of the US population?

Are you asking that before a state can have a say in this process that it needs to have a certain population? My anyswer to this question is NO.

Should amendments be put to a popular vote during Congressional or Presidential election years... then need super-majority to pass?

No. The constitution gives a very clear process for amending itself. It should not be left up to a popular vote no matter what year it is

What if it took two such election cycles to insure an amendment had broad popular support and was not subject to the passions of the moment?

The constituition already insure that it is not subject to the passions of the moment. Obtaining a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress is not an easy task. Especially when it enlvolves changing the constitution. Many represenatives might agree with the issues raised with an amendment but feel that an amendment is not necesarry. It is already difficult enough for an amendment to become part of the constitution.

I believe the founders did find a very good formula for the amendment process. Granted it is difficult, but yet very possible have an amendment become part of the constitution.

The "percentage of the population" that is able to block an amendment probably has dwindled in the 200 years. From 17 out of the population in the late 1700's to 34 out of 280 million of today. I feel that if atleast 34 senators can stand up and say no to an amendment that it shouldn't be amended no matter what states they represent. The numbers they represent are large enough to say that the issue should not become an amendment.

[cryofan]

35. Depends on what kind of reforms you are talking about

If you mean corporation-friendly reforms and reforms meant to help out the investors and the wealthy, then that kind of reform is VERY doable. And right away!

If you mean citizen-empowerment reforms, then that kind of reform can be done as soon as porcine aviation takes off in a big way...

Of course, all Constitutional reforms should be made directly at the ballot box by citizen voters. And, indeed, much of the non-mundane governmental decisionmaking should be made at the ballot box. We should be voting once a month or so. And voting should be mandatory.

America is a business, and we are the owners. Imagine if you will a business where the owners give everything over to hired managers and then only come in to sign some papers once a year in November. How long do you think it would take for the managers to start ripping off and embezzling the owners?

Guess what? They are ripping us off, and they have been doing it since the country was formed.....