Is amending the Constitution really difficult?

[Vandeervecken]

that's not the point. How do you know the average joe of that time, the one who never had a second of formal schooling, would have been any less qualified to attend the Constitutional Convention had they had the opportunities the the Founding Fathers had? Sure, they may have demonstrated their intelligence, but they must first have the intelligence to demonstrate. Do you think a regular person of 1776 would have refused to demonstrate their intelligence had they been given the opportunity of education?

What I'm trying to say is the Founding Fathers merely had opportunities that few people had at that time. They were no more gifted intelligently then a farmer. They merely had more opportunities.

Many others had the same and better opportunities than our Founders did, and failed to rise as they did. Your nonsense is just that, nonsense. This was one of the greatest congregation of intellect that every came about in world history. I know, they are White and Male and therefore to be minimized and despised, right?

 

[dstebbins]

Many others had the same and better opportunities than our Founders did, and failed to rise as they did. Your nonsense is just that, nonsense. This was one of the greatest congregation of intellect that every came about in world history. I know, they are White and Male and therefore to be minimized and despised, right?

okay, now you're just dodging me. You know good and well that I'm talking in a general sense, dumbass. Sure there have been people with the same opportunities as the founding fathers who failed, but how do you know everyone who didn't have the opportunities would have done just as poorly?

You know exactly what I mean. Why can't you infer?

 

[Vandeervecken]

okay, now you're just dodging me. You know good and well that I'm talking in a general sense, dumbass. Sure there have been people with the same opportunities as the founding fathers who failed, but how do you know everyone who didn't have the opportunities would have done just as poorly?

You know exactly what I mean. Why can't you infer?

It is not that I cannot infer, it is that I utterly reject your claim as a silly thing. The fact that you are reduced to calling me, "dumbass," makes my point for me. I suspect you would not know intelligence if it crawled into your skull and begged for a home. I think it might be time for me to figure out how the ignore list works here.

 

[dstebbins]

It is not that I cannot infer, it is that I utterly reject your claim as a silly thing. The fact that you are reduced to calling me, "dumbass," makes my point for me. I suspect you would not know intelligence if it crawled into your skull and begged for a home. I think it might be time for me to figure out how the ignore list works here.

and yet you cannot comment on the rest of that message, where I stated that I was talking in a general sense when talking about opportunities.

 

[RightinNYC]

intelligence-
a. the capacity to acqire and apply knowledge.
b. the faculty of thought and reason.
c. superior powers of the mind.

according to definitions a and b, intelligence is a measure of the ability to learn, not what you already know.

Right.

Well, you go find me a kid in the ghetto who speaks ebonics, slangs rock on the corner, and dropped out in 8th grade, and I'll take an Oxford grad who might have a slightly lower potential intelligence.

Lets put em on jeopardy together and see what happens.

 

[mike49]

If amending the Constitution were not difficult, it would have been done more than 27 times in the more than 200 years we have lived under it. Especially telling is the fact that more than a third of those amendments, the first 10, were passed in one fell swoop. That means only 17 more times in the next 200+ years.

The difficulty factor is not the problem. It is not difficult at all, any more difficult than electing a President. If the public finds reason to amend, then we could amend it next election very easily. The reason we have not amended it often is because there has not been a reason to do it or the amendment was not popular. The difficulty only exists in convincing others that a change is warrented.

 

[dstebbins]

Right.

Well, you go find me a kid in the ghetto who speaks ebonics, slangs rock on the corner, and dropped out in 8th grade, and I'll take an Oxford grad who might have a slightly lower potential intelligence.

Lets put em on jeopardy together and see what happens.

We're talking about two completely different types of knowledge here. Jeopardy is a game that requires trivial knowledge, not practical knowledge. All their questions involve "What kind of font is this question written in?" or something like that. How much math do you see on Jeopardy? How many sentences do you need to correct? The only practical knowledge you ever see on jeopardy is history, and if the man dropped out in 8th grade, how is he going to know a lot of history? Trivial knowledge is something that you just know. Anyone can acquire trivial knowledge.

 

[RightinNYC]

We're talking about two completely different types of knowledge here. Jeopardy is a game that requires trivial knowledge, not practical knowledge. All their questions involve "What kind of font is this question written in?" or something like that. How much math do you see on Jeopardy? How many sentences do you need to correct? The only practical knowledge you ever see on jeopardy is history, and if the man dropped out in 8th grade, how is he going to know a lot of history? Trivial knowledge is something that you just know. Anyone can acquire trivial knowledge.

Alright, I really can't get too involved in this thread because its making my brain hurt. Simultaneously being forced to explain that Yes, it IS actually difficult to amend the constitution and that Yes, the founding fathers actually WERE smart is more than I anticipated.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Alright, I really can't get too involved in this thread because its making my brain hurt. Simultaneously being forced to explain that Yes, it IS actually difficult to amend the constitution and that Yes, the founding fathers actually WERE smart is more than I anticipated.

Rather amazing no? Soon you may be required to tell people that yes, water is wet, and molten lava is hot.

 

[RightinNYC]

Rather amazing no? Soon you may be required to tell people that yes, water is wet, and molten lava is hot.

Did you know that if you poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick, it hurts?

And that that pain you feel is your body's way of telling you not to do it again?

I have the feeling we've got a lot of repeat pokers....

 

[Connecticutter]

The difficulty factor is not the problem. It is not difficult at all, any more difficult than electing a President. If the public finds reason to amend, then we could amend it next election very easily. The reason we have not amended it often is because there has not been a reason to do it or the amendment was not popular. The difficulty only exists in convincing others that a change is warrented.

It's fairly difficult, but the fact that it's been done every once in a while shows that it's not impossible. That's how we want it - we don't want any political party in power to be able to ammend at their whim.

One of the reasons for writing the constitution was because the articles of confederation was impossible to ammend and inflexible. Everytime the congress tried to do something, little Rhode Island could block it, which they were known to do from time to time.

 

[dstebbins]

Okay now you guys are just running from me. Basically everyone is now saying "The founding fathers are smart. period. Now go suck a ****." No one is trying to prove me wrong through reasoning and logic.

 

[Harshaw]

Okay now you guys are just running from me. Basically everyone is now saying "The founding fathers are smart. period. Now go suck a ****." No one is trying to prove me wrong through reasoning and logic.

1) The Constitution is hard to amend. It can be done one of two ways -- it can originate in Congress, be passed by both houses, be signed by the President, and then be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Or, 2/3 of the states can call a Consitutional Convention, wherein they could chuck the whole thing and write a new one if they wanted. It's hard to amend because it's supposed to be hard to amend. It defines the government of the entire nation; it's not some 4H club bylaws. It's hard. And that's good. Deal with it.

2) The Founding Fathers were the best-educated men in America at the time, all having been educated at the finest institutions in America and around the world. Build a bridge. Get over it.

What more could you possibly want?

 

[dstebbins]

1) The Constitution is hard to amend. It can be done one of two ways -- it can originate in Congress, be passed by both houses, be signed by the President, and then be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Or, 2/3 of the states can call a Consitutional Convention, wherein they could chuck the whole thing and write a new one if they wanted. It's hard to amend because it's supposed to be hard to amend. It defines the government of the entire nation; it's not some 4H club bylaws. It's hard. And that's good. Deal with it.

I never said it wasn't good that a constitution is hard to amend. You use the supermajority as an excuse to say it's hard to amend when a corrupt Congress can use the excuse of popular demand to pass a corrupt amendment when the popular demand was actually a well-distributed minority.

2) The Founding Fathers were the best-educated men in America at the time, all having been educated at the finest institutions in America and around the world. Build a bridge. Get over it.

I never said they weren't educated. I said that they had the same potential as many of the farmers and slaves that never got the opportunity. Booker T Washington is famous for his leadership in education, but he never got the opportunity to even become literate until he was freed. How do we know so many farmers and women of 1776 could have done exactly what the Founding Fathers did had they had the same opportunities? I never said they were not educated.

What more could you possibly want?

I want you to actually pay attention to what I say so that you don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Harshaw]

I never said it wasn't good that a constitution is hard to amend. You use the supermajority as an excuse to say it's hard to amend when a corrupt Congress can use the excuse of popular demand to pass a corrupt amendment when the popular demand was actually a well-distributed minority.

I never said anything about a "supermajority excuse." No excuses offered here. It's hard to amend, period. That's a fact.

I never said they weren't educated. I said that they had the same potential as many of the farmers and slaves that never got the opportunity.

OK, and . . . so?

I want you to actually pay attention to what I say so that you don't put words in my mouth.

After reading through this thread a number of times, I still have no idea what your overall beef is.

What is it, in simple terms, that you want answered?

 

[Vandeervecken]

After reading through this thread a number of times, I still have no idea what your overall beef is.

What is it, in simple terms, that you want answered?

Her overall beef is that she hates white males obviously and cannot bear to think anything any of them have ever done might have value.

 

[dstebbins]

I never said anything about a "supermajority excuse." No excuses offered here. It's hard to amend, period. That's a fact.




OK, and . . . so?




After reading through this thread a number of times, I still have no idea what your overall beef is.

What is it, in simple terms, that you want answered?

you're basically saying that the Constitution is hard to amend because it just is. Since when was "just because" a suitable response? I'm trying to bring to your attention that a minority can force an amendment through Congress. I was never really asking a question per se. I'm trying to bring to your attention a flaw in our government.

 

[Vandeervecken]

you're basically saying that the Constitution is hard to amend because it just is. Since when was "just because" a suitable response? I'm trying to bring to your attention that a minority can force an amendment through Congress. I was never really asking a question per se. I'm trying to bring to your attention a flaw in our government.

It takes a 2/3 vote of Congress to PROPOSE an amendment. 2/3 is a MAJORITY. In fact it is a super-majority.

Even this is not enough. Getting Congr4ess to vote on it is merely the very first step. THEN they have to get 3/4 of the states to vote on it. You might note that 75% of the states is once again a super majority of the states.

Only in your world is a 66.6% majority plus a 75% majority equal a minority.

The Constitution is hard to amend for the simple reason our brilliant founders (Yes I know you think they were lucky dullards and every field slave and homeless wanderer was their intellectual superior) designed it that way. The process they set up in article 5 is very hard to do as history has shown.

 

[Harshaw]

you're basically saying that the Constitution is hard to amend because it just is. Since when was "just because" a suitable response?

I'm saying it's hard to amend because it was intentionally designed that way, and rightly so.

I'm trying to bring to your attention that a minority can force an amendment through Congress.

That is utter and complete nonsense.

 

[dstebbins]

It takes a 2/3 vote of Congress to PROPOSE an amendment. 2/3 is a MAJORITY. In fact it is a super-majority.

Even this is not enough. Getting Congr4ess to vote on it is merely the very first step. THEN they have to get 3/4 of the states to vote on it. You might note that 75% of the states is once again a super majority of the states.

Only in your world is a 66.6% majority plus a 75% majority equal a minority.

The Constitution is hard to amend for the simple reason our brilliant founders (Yes I know you think they were lucky dullards and every field slave and homeless wanderer was their intellectual superior) designed it that way. The process they set up in article 5 is very hard to do as history has shown.

Did you read my original message at all? 2/3 is a supermajority, but the civilians who are asking for the amendment in the first place are not. Yes Congress needs a supermajority of themselves to pass the amendment, but if it were a corrupt amendment, it would get them removed from office the next general election UNLESS a majority of their particular district supported that vote. If a majority of 290 districts accross 37 states (the 3/4 necessary to ratify it on the state level) petitioned for the amendment, that doesn't necessarily mean that a majority of the American public approve of it. If 67% of 290 Congressional districts accross 37 states petition for an amendment and 10% of the remaining 145 do the same, that's only 48% of the total American population. Do the math; you'll see what I'm talking about.

Your next argument is going to be that it would be incredibly hard to get a well-distributed minority like I'm suggesting. That's why I used the numbers 67 and 10 instead of 51 and 0: To make room for fluctuation. The majorities of people in the 290 districts could be 57%, 52%, 53.5%, 61%, or whatever, and the total of the American public petitioning for the amendment would STILL be a minority. I'm not saying a minority of Congress. I'm saying a minority of the American public who want the Amendment in the first place.

I stated ALL this when I started the thread. Dear God.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Did you read my original message at all? 2/3 is a supermajority, but the civilians who are asking for the amendment in the first place are not. Yes Congress needs a supermajority of themselves to pass the amendment, but if it were a corrupt amendment, it would get them removed from office the next general election UNLESS a majority of their particular district supported that vote. If a majority of 290 districts accross 37 states (the 3/4 necessary to ratify it on the state level) petitioned for the amendment, that doesn't necessarily mean that a majority of the American public approve of it. If 67% of 290 Congressional districts accross 37 states petition for an amendment and 10% of the remaining 145 do the same, that's only 48% of the total American population. Do the math; you'll see what I'm talking about.

Your next argument is going to be that it would be incredibly hard to get a well-distributed minority like I'm suggesting. That's why I used the numbers 67 and 10 instead of 51 and 0: To make room for fluctuation. The majorities of people in the 290 districts could be 57%, 52%, 53.5%, 61%, or whatever, and the total of the American public petitioning for the amendment would STILL be a minority. I'm not saying a minority of Congress. I'm saying a minority of the American public who want the Amendment in the first place.

I stated ALL this when I started the thread. Dear God.

Repeating nonsense, doesn't make it any less nonsensical. Repeat it 100 times, it is still nonsense.

 

[Harshaw]

Note, too, that even in the twisted reasoning needed to make this scenario "work," it depends on dismissing the votes of state legislatures because "nobody cares." I assure you, people do.

This is not unlike a high school physics teacher of mine who said that if any part of an equation is giving you trouble, cover it up with your hand and it doesn't affect the rest of the equation.

In any case, that 109 million or whatever you cited actually would be a majority of the population which is eligible to vote.

 

[RightinNYC]

Did you read my original message at all? 2/3 is a supermajority, but the civilians who are asking for the amendment in the first place are not. Yes Congress needs a supermajority of themselves to pass the amendment, but if it were a corrupt amendment, it would get them removed from office the next general election UNLESS a majority of their particular district supported that vote. If a majority of 290 districts accross 37 states (the 3/4 necessary to ratify it on the state level) petitioned for the amendment, that doesn't necessarily mean that a majority of the American public approve of it. If 67% of 290 Congressional districts accross 37 states petition for an amendment and 10% of the remaining 145 do the same, that's only 48% of the total American population. Do the math; you'll see what I'm talking about.

Your next argument is going to be that it would be incredibly hard to get a well-distributed minority like I'm suggesting. That's why I used the numbers 67 and 10 instead of 51 and 0: To make room for fluctuation. The majorities of people in the 290 districts could be 57%, 52%, 53.5%, 61%, or whatever, and the total of the American public petitioning for the amendment would STILL be a minority. I'm not saying a minority of Congress. I'm saying a minority of the American public who want the Amendment in the first place.

I stated ALL this when I started the thread. Dear God.

And if every district were gerrymandered so that 51% of the population supported the republican candidate, the house would be 435 republicans.

And if I were to **** out a monkey, it just might fly away.

 

[dstebbins]

Repeating nonsense, doesn't make it any less nonsensical. Repeat it 100 times, it is still nonsense.

and yet you cannot elaborate on why it's nonsense.

In any case, that 109 million or whatever you cited actually would be a majority of the population which is eligible to vote.

proportionality, my friend; proportionality. This reminds me of a little chemistry riddle that my son told me about. If you have one mole of calcium carbonate, how many moles of calcium do you have? One, because there is one calcium atom in one formula unit of calcium carbonate, and whatever you do on one side of the equation, you have to do on the other side. All you do is change the unit from atoms to moles, and nothing more. There's no catch; it's that simple.

Likewise, just change 67% and 10% of the total population to 67% and 10% of the registered voters in a district. Instead of having 48% of the total population, you have 48% of the registered voters. Simple, eh?

 

[Harshaw]

You know what?

I'll do better than you.

I don't pretend to know how many members of each state's legislature there are.

But say the minimum number of people needed to vote an amendment into being is 1,500. Or even 6,000. That would be about 0.02% of the population.

If you could get the exact minimum number of people you need in all the exact places of the levels of government you need them to be in order to effect the votes . . .

You could rule the country and do anything you wanted to the Constitution with only those 6,000 people.

It's mathematically possible.

But it's about as likely as all the air molecules in this room spontaneously jumping into the northeast corner -- which is physically possible. But is it going to happen?

So, what, AGAIN, is it that you're so worked up about?