Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-13-2014, 01:31 AM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,770,017 times
Reputation: 1930

Advertisements

I am genuinely curious about this--I apologize if this is a stupid question, but here goes: Are there any limits on how the U.S. Constitution can be amended? In other words, are there any ways in which the U.S. Constitution cannot be amended? For the record, by this, I don't mean the process of amending the U.S. Constitution, but rather the amendments to the U.S. Constitution themselves. If enough people, politicians, judges, and U.S. states hypothetically want an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to say whatever possible thing that they want, would they be guaranteed success in amending the U.S. Constitution in the way which they want to amend it?

Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-13-2014 at 06:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2014, 01:50 AM
 
Location: Virginia-Shenandoah Valley
7,670 posts, read 14,184,477 times
Reputation: 7464
Constitutional Amendment Process

The Constitutional Amendment Process
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 04:54 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,950,999 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
If enough people, politicians, judges, and U.S. states hypothetically want an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to say whatever possible thing that they want, would they be guaranteed success in amending the U.S. Constitution in the way which they want to amend it?
The qualifying statement in your sentence is "if enough." If there are "enough" then, yes, they would by definition be guaranteed success.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 922,811 times
Reputation: 416
Article V, which lays down the amending process, includes the clause "but no state, without its consent, to be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". So that point at least cannot be amended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 08:52 AM
 
3,433 posts, read 5,727,806 times
Reputation: 5471
Why bother.

The people of Arkansas amended their state constitution a few years back.

A few days ago all it took was one lower ranking judge to overturn it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,014,227 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
Article V, which lays down the amending process, includes the clause "but no state, without its consent, to be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". So that point at least cannot be amended.
Unless they decide to amend Article V. Even the amending process is subject to amending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 03:09 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,950,999 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddy52 View Post
Why bother.

The people of Arkansas amended their state constitution a few years back.

A few days ago all it took was one lower ranking judge to overturn it.


Based upon the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,214 posts, read 11,271,446 times
Reputation: 20827
The principal point here, as this writer sees it, is that the framers of the U S Constituion intended their work to be subject to modification and improvement, but only after a long and very well-defined process, in order that the workings or parliamentary procedure not be subject to a stampede caused by the whims and short-sight of a particular interest group.

In other words, that the rule of law not be permitted to degenerate into rule by a mob.

And since that time, a process once restricted to the few has been extened to the many; it has held up and served well pricisely because a constantly-growing proportion of the electorate has recognized that it must exercise the franchise with an eye turned more toward what could be lost, that to what short-term gain could be realized by the compromise of one's (or someone else's) basic rights and liberties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,014,227 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
The principal point here, as this writer sees it, is that the framers of the U S Constituion intended their work to be subject to modification and improvement, but only after a long and very well-defined process, in order that the workings or parliamentary procedure not be subject to a stampede caused by the whims and short-sight of a particular interest group.

In other words, that the rule of law not be permitted to degenerate into rule by a mob.

And since that time, a process once restricted to the few has been extened to the many; it has held up and served well pricisely because a constantly-growing proportion of the electorate has recognized that it must exercise the franchise with an eye turned more toward what could be lost, that to what short-term gain could be realized by the compromise of one's (or someone else's) basic rights and liberties.
Very good points, 2to, they apply not just to the constitutional amending process, but to the government which was created as well. The US was extremely fortunate to have its operating charter written by pragmatic men. They grasped that the chief destabilizing agent of governments was extremism by any side, and set out to create one where it was deliberately difficult to get things done. A distribution of power among three distinct branches, a two house legislature and an independent executive meant that nothing was going to get done without compromises. They made it really hard for extremists to have much of an impact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:16 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top