From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:55:17 -0000
A great quote from ABC's The Note blog on the Constitutional Amendment:
"Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an amendment, we are amazed (OK: not really) at the degree to which the [mainstream press] casts the President's decision in purely political terms -- rather than a response to the tens of millions of real Americans who are fundamentally freaked out by what is going on in (Nancy Pelosi's) San Francisco and (John Kerry's) Massachusetts."
I definitely could say the same thing about brin-l.
Are you _really_ taking the stance that amending the Constitution is no big deal? Are you saying that having a sitting President endorse a constitutional amendment based on a moral, not politically-necessary judgement (equivalent to Prohibition, perhaps, as opposed to offering women and African-Americans the right to vote) is _nothing_ to be concerned with?
IIRC, _Carter_ was the last sitting President to endorse a constitutional amendment over two decades ago. Clinton swore up and down he'd veto any amendments that came his way. (I don't exactly recall if the Flag Burning amendment ever made it to his desk.)
The Constitution was not meant to be a static document, but a living, adapting one. But the founders made it very difficult to change for a reason. A President who endorses an amendment is most certainly not something to be taken lightly. If the press wasn't covering it, and the controversy being generated by it, I'd be completely and utterly shocked.
Jon
Only offering this as a history lesson, because I wasn't sure.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both halves 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).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention.
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.
Me again. Lots of thoughts, no time. Maybe later.
Kevin T. - VRWC
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
