Is it right for a simple majority vote to be enough to amend a federal or state constitution?

Question

Let's say the issue is one on which many citizens approve and many oppose.

Let's say that 51% want an AK-47 in every home.

Okay, why should a state constitution be any different?

I agree that requiring an assualt rifle in every American home is not in America's best interests at this time, and I'm not propsing it, although Switzerland DOES require all able-bodied men to have a government-provided military automatic rifle in their homes, and to practice with it.

Come on guys, I'm losing you. What about the proposed Missouri Constitutional Amendment which will reauire ALL citizens to fund EMBRYONIC stem cell research? They will be taxed, with NO LIMIT and NO RECOURSE, even though many oppose this method on moral grounds, and several viable methods of research have been discovered, including adult stem cell research, which is FAR ahead of embryonic stem cell research.

Answer 1

Nope.
Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.".
Franklin was brilliant and this statement was one of his greatest. He was a great proponent of democracy and majority rule. But, he also knew that minority rights should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority just as they should not be subject to the tyranny of a King.
That is why we have the Bill of Rights. To protect peoples rights even though the majority may not be in favor of them.

Thanks for asking this question. I think a lot of us have forgotten a lot of our 6th grade history (I include myself). It does us all good to discuss how and why our country was created..

I'll get off my soap box now.

Answer 2

No, that's why (If I remember correctly) it takes 2/3 vote in both houses plus a large (3/4) percentage of states have to ratify amendments to the constitution.

State constitution is a different story...

An ak-47 in every home is lunacy....

Answer 3

Yes, the country was founded on majority rules