Constitutional Amendments

Time For Reality Check On Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment And Third Party Potential For Success In Presidential Elections

Ronald Leave a comment

Unfortunately, many Americans, probably a vast majority, live with a false set of facts about American government, as it stands under the Constitution. There is a major need for a reality check!

Many people, including Republicans in Congress, seem to think that a balanced budget amendment will solve our economic problems, when there is absolutely no chance of that occurring! Any constitutional amendment required a two thirds vote of the House of Representatives, followed by a two thirds vote of the US Senate, and then a majority vote in each of the two houses in three fourths or 38 of the 50 states, with the only exception being Nebraska, which only has a one house or unicameral legislature.

We are not ever going to bring about 290 out of 435 votes in the House of Representatives and 67 out of 100 votes in the Senate for such an amendment! Only 36 proposed amendments have EVER achieved this two thirds vote, and the number of failed amendments is in the hundreds over our history!

But notice, even with 36 amendments making it through the Congress, we have only 27 amendments, telling us that NINE amendments failed to gain a three fourths support of state legislatures. Another way to put it is that IF there is a one vote majority in one of the two houses of the state legislatures against an amendment in just THIRTEEN states at a minimum, the amendment fails to be added to the Constitution.

There is no realistic possibility of a balanced budget amendment EVER making it into the Constitution, no matter what politicians say! And were it to happen, it would create a strait jacket, paralyzing us in a time of economic collapse, war, or natural disaster, no matter what limitations are put into such an amendment. It is time for serious minded people to give up the idea that such an amendment will EVER pass, and instead, take responsibility for the fact that the federal government IS necessary, and that we are all going to have to pay more taxes, whether we like it or not, and that it is PATRIOTIC to pay our fair share, including the super wealthy being thankful for their good fortune, and paying the tax level they used to pay from the 1940s through the 1970s, and certainly at the least, the levels of the Bill Clinton years in the White House!

It is also time for “dreamers”, who have the view that a serious third party movement could lead to the election of a President, to get a reality check as well!

Our electoral college system, which can only be changed by a constitutional amendment, which is not going to happen either, prevents a third party candidate from winning, with Theodore Roosevelt performing the best as a third party candidate of the Progressive Party in 1912, but only winning six states and 88 electoral votes, about a third of what is needed to win the White House. The only reason even he did that well was that he was a former President and extremely popular. Such a scenario will NEVER happen again, particularly with the 22nd Amendment, which limits Presidents to two complete terms in office, something not existing in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran for what would have been a third, but non consecutive term as President.

Even if such a thing could happen, a third party candidate without major party backing would have an impossible situation gaining support to govern effectively, as indeed, independent Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota discovered in his term from 1999-2003!

For good or for bad, we are stuck with the two party system, and we will be electing a Democrat or a Republican for the Presidency for the long term future!

So forget the constitutional amendment route for a balanced budget, and ignore the thoughts of a third party movement electing a President, and instead accept the reality of the American future–we need to work within the system and just pick better people for public office, as we always have the right to do by voting and organizing, and stop hating our government, which with its faults, is still essential and necessary in our daily lives, as much as we would wish otherwise in our dreams!

The False Promise Of The “Balanced Budget” Constitutional Amendment

Ronald Leave a comment

Tea Party activists and conservative Republicans, led by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, are touting the idea of a constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget on the nation in the future.

This is nothing new, as it was proposed in the past by Republicans in the 1980s and 1990s, and never went anywhere.

These political leaders seem to forget that a constitutional amendment requires a two thirds vote of the House of Representatives and a two thirds vote of the Senate, and then would need 38 states (three fourths) out of 50 to put it into the Constitution.

If this had been easy to do years ago, it would have been accomplished.

The fact is that the idea of such an amendment is preposterous, and will NEVER happen!

Who can see 290 House members and 67 Senators agreeing to such an amendment, and no more than 12 states rejecting such an idea?

Who cannot understand that a one vote margin of defeat in one of the two houses of the state legislatures in no more than 13 states will kill such an amendment, if it ever made it through Congress?

This is a political ploy which will go nowhere, and were it to become part of the Constitution, it would create many crises whenever an emergency arose, whether war, natural disaster, or another economic downturn.

There is no way for anyone or any government to plan precisely on what emergencies will arise, so the amendment would cripple a government’s ability to respond.

So chalk the discussion up to political posturing, and nothing else!

Why Not The Equal Rights Amendment For Women 40 Years After Its Origin?

Ronald 1 Comment

The Republican Party has actively been promoting amendment after amendment to the Constitution in the past two years, and the thought has emerged that it is time to re-introduce the failed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, passed through Congress in 1972, reaching 35 states ratification by 1976, and then collapsing, with no more support, and failing of ratification by 1982, three states short of adoption.

Women have seen their fortunes change amazingly these past four decades, and are now the majority of the work force, attending universities at a higher percentage than men, and entering all of the professions in tremendous numbers, with them being the majority in more and more occupations.

Women have been “liberated” from the old controls that religion and conservative values put on them, and there are even many Republican women in the House of Representatives and a few in the US Senate.

So why not promote the adoption of the amendment which would put women into the Constitution directly, for only the second time, after the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote after a 72 year battle in 1920?

Even the arguments used by evangelist Jerry Falwell and conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, among others, no longer have any validity, as if they had justification at the time of the ERA!

These and other critics argued that passage of the ERA would:

1. Promote Lesbian marriage–which now exists in six states and Washington, DC.
2. Advocate Unisex public toilets–which now exist all over the nation in shopping malls and many hotels and other public restroom locations.
3. Allow the involvement in combat situations of women in the military–which now occurs on a regular basis.

With all of the great advancements of woman in the past two generations, this is the time to institutionalize what has happened by laws and by natural evolving over that time!

We should put Republicans on the line for a modern Equal Rights Amendment, make them stand up for human rights for women, at a time when Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are potential future Presidents! They, the other women in the Republican party in Congress, and the men of the party, need to show that they believe in true EQUALITY for women and have no problem making it a permanent part of the US Constitution, that they claim they revere!

Human Rights Vs. Popular Vote, Religion, And Constitutional Amendments

Ronald Leave a comment

With the passage of gay marriage rights in the New York State legislature, the debate is again beginning about the opposition of religious groups, the call for a vote of the people on the issue, and talk of a federal constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage nationally, and in the states.

Only once has a constitutional amendment been passed to limit human rights–the 18th Amendment ban on the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages–and it was repealed by the 21st Amendment fourteen years later.

The purpose of amendments has always been to improve on human rights, not restrict human rights, and gay marriage is a human right!

Organized religion has often been opposed to human rights internationally, as well as in this country, as witness the religious groups which supported slavery, racial segregation, and denial of equality for women. Of course, not all religious groups promoted denial of human rights, and there are glorious crusades on the opposite end of these issues that dignify America’s history as a country improving its human rights record over time. But should any religious group or individual views on gay marriage be determinant of such a human right existing? The answer is clearly NO!

Should the American people be able to vote on the issue of human rights, and deny unpopular groups their basic human rights? Again, the answer is NO, as it is clear that if one had had a vote on interracial marriage in the 1960s, the vast majority would have opposed it, but so what? It is none of anyone’s business what other adults do in their personal lives and for their personal happiness!

It is likely that large percentages of Americans today do not like interracial marriage, do not like racial integration, do not like that women have become so equal with men, but that is a personal thought, and should not rule on the issue of human rights!

Human rights should be inviolable, not subject to anyone’s whims or prejudices! No one should be able to deny or take away anyone’s human rights under any circumstances, as this is democracy and human freedom on its grandest scale!