The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."
It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local.
2007-03-25 20:40:38 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The simple fact that CONGRESS has broken the law of the land by refusing to call an Article V convention should speak loudly to all that value their freedom. They are enviscerating the very basis of our society, creating laws that are against the law, refusing to obey the laws and all while lining their pockets and those of their big money supporters.
We are not free today and we are living under the rule of a tyrannical congress. Something has to be done to stop this.
2007-03-26 00:15:44 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Probably the most efficient way of allowing the people to directly amend the Consitution would be by Constitutional Convention.
However, this should scare the living Bejeezus out of everyone because there would be nothing to prevent the delegates to such a convention from completely eviscerating our most precious document.
No, I say the system in place is a pretty good one...let's not screw it up.
Good Luck!
;O)
2007-03-25 20:51:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
nicely, none if performed via the states. The states can chosen how they provide out their delegates. I want some thing like the district plan. It makes a president artwork to impression a extensive spectrum of political positions. because of the fact no state is inevitably disregarded, yet there is not any concentration on purely getting the numbers. this is the terrific of the two worlds. yet nonetheless, I often think of districts are written via human beings too bias. that's the only draw back.
2016-11-23 16:11:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People can change the constitution through initiative by securing the signatures of at least 10 percent of the registered voters but not lower than 2 percent of every district.
2007-03-25 20:46:36 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What you have described is called a direct democracy and was swayed away from by the foundering fathers on purpose. They were wise enough to recognize that when you give power to the masses to alter the constitution without recourse (first having the Supreme Court analyze the change) that the rights of minorities will be oppressed.
IE, if what you state were the case, segregation would still exist...
2007-03-29 15:33:38 · answer #5 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋