Amendments: Introduction

As you may have gathered, I'm an engineer. It's not just my trade, it's my personality. I identify problems, and I find solutions. I'm also interested in politics. Many of the problems I observe in the American political system derive directly from the ground rules laid out in the US Constitution. To that end, I'll be posting about various amendments I'd propose.

In case anyone objects to this idea, let me point out that the Constitution is not perfect. It is not divine writ descended from the Holy Founders. It was a political compromise, hammered out to fit the needs of the time. It was a very good compromise, but if it was expected to be perfect, there would be no way to amend it.

The founders expected us to face new challenges, and meet them head-on in whatever way we decided best. Their central belief was that people didn't need a king; we can solve our own problems, thank you very much. But we treat the Constitution as if it is perfect, and the founders as if they had every answer and we need not think for ourselves. The fact that amendments aren't considered by the people on a regular basis is an insult to them!

I'm going to be covering a lot of suggestions, so I'll be breaking them up into sections. First, the amendment process itself. Presently, amendments have to go through two stages. First, an amendment must be proposed. This can be done one of two ways: 2/3 of both houses of Congress can approve an amendment; or an Article V convention can be called by the states. No Article V convention has ever been called, though we've gotten close a time or two.

A word about Article V conventions. A lot of lies are told about them by people who want to avoid one. The most common lie is that a convention could rewrite the entire Constitution. Well, I could do the same thing on the back of a napkin, and it would have just as much weight. Remember, nothing the convention does means anything on its own. Two-step process.

The second step is ratification. Once an amendment is formally proposed, either by Congress or by a convention, 3/4 of the states must ratify it. Otherwise, it has no effect. I don't propose changing the ratification process, at all. Only our methods of proposing amendments should be changed.

First, one concern about Article V conventions needs to be removed. It's presently impossible to call a convention that's limited to a specific purpose. Once called, a convention can propose amendments on any topic, regardless of the original reason. That should be changed, to reduce the (already unwarranted) fear of a convention.

Now, why should we have to hold conventions or wait on Congress? If 3/4 of the states ratify an amendment of the same text, why does it matter whether it was formally proposed or not? One potential problem is that, under article V, ratification can be either by state legislature or by popular vote in the state. Bypassing both congress and convention means that if one party were to control enough state legislatures, it could rewrite the entire constitution without popular consent. We do need a second level of checks in place to ensure the will of the people is being represented.


So I propose the following amendment:

1) Should 3/4 of states ratify identical amendments to the Constitution, and at least 1/2 of the total number of states containing at least 1/2 the total population of the US ratify that amendment by popular vote, that amendment shall be adopted, regardless of whether or not that amendment has been proposed by Congress or an Article V convention.

I'd love feedback on the numbers.