.jpg){kind=logo}
Like a bunch of three-year-olds throwing temper tantrums, several current and would-be Republican members of Congress want to amend or repeal the Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments of our Constitution because life isn’t giving them what they want. I have no problem with change itself; we must evaluate proposals on their merits. And these proposals don’t have any merit.
Earlier this week I wrote that our founders left us a living constitution. From the comments that I’ve received it’s apparent that some people don’t know what a metaphor is. They need to sue their fourth grade English teachers for malpractice.
As progressive as I am, I truly do believe in following the rules. And the rules in our Constitution allow our government a good bit of flexibility. Yes, really. Read Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 18. They’re not there by accident. Our founders had the foresight to include Article V, giving us two methods for amending their work. For those who failed fourth grade English, to “amend” means to “change”.
Mitch McConnell (KY), John Boehner (OH), John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), Jeff Sessions (AL), Rand Paul (KY), Sharon Angle (NV), Mike Lee (UT), Kelly Ayotte (NH), and John Boozeman (AR), among others, have recently called for “review” or repeal of the fourteenth. I don't know what a "review" is. There's no such thing in the Constitution. It always amazes me that so many people are so willing to swear an oath to uphold a document that they've never bothered to read. It's like signing a contract without reading it.
The fourteenth confers US citizenship on everyone born in the US, regardless of where their parents were born. It also contains that pesky equal protection and due process stuff. I’m kind of partial to the fourteenth. My grandparents came to Pittsburgh from Ireland in the 1920s. My father was born here in 1929. They were legal immigrants, but did not become citizens until 1947. My father was an American because of the fourteenth amendment. And that’s what makes me an American.
Several tea party candidates have expressed support for a campaign to repeal the seventeenth. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) wants a constitutional convention to propose the repeal amendment. He has not introduced an amendment to Congress. The original text of the Constitution (Article I, Section 3, Clause 1) provided two senators from each state, and that the state legislature was to choose those senators. The Seventeenth Amendment changed that process to a direct election of senators by the public. Republicans argue that this takes power away from the people. Go figure.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of our nation. It establishes the government, divides the power among three equal branches, and describes the powers and duties of each branch and the requirements for holding each office. James Madison wrote most of the text in 1787, and the states ratified it in 1788. The first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Constitution has been amended 17 times in 222 years, most recently in 1992.
Congressional Proposal
Any member of Congress may propose an amendment. Two-thirds of each chamber – at least 290 House of Representatives members and 67 Senators – must approve the amendment. At least 38 state legislatures – three-fourths – must ratify it.
Constitutional Convention
Two-thirds of the state legislatures – 34 states – can jointly propose a constitutional convention for considering amendments. Three-fourths – 38 – of the states must ratify any proposed amendment from that convention. All 27 U.S. Constitutional amendments came about through Congressional proposals. The constitutional convention process has never been used to amend the constitution.
Can you imagine trying to get 34 state legislatures – that’s HUNDREDS of politicians – to agree to a time, place, process, and organizational structure for a convention? Who would pay for it? Imagine the organizers trying to get all of them, and hundreds more, to agree on the results of those debates. Good luck with that.
Community Organizing
It sounds much easier than it is. Any constitutional amendment would cost millions of dollars and require a major community organizing campaign. And we all know how much Republicans despise community organizers. It took many years and a lot of hard work to convince enough legislatures to ratify prohibition (and its repeal), women’s suffrage, and the 18-year-old vote. Some of you remember the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. It failed because the Republicans launched a terrorist lie campaign against it. Sound familiar?
The plan sounds bold. It sounds fierce. It sounds like action. It actually sounds like a plan – something the Republicans have lacked until now. However, more than 10,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789, and only 16 succeeded.
So, if a political candidate promises you that s/he will repeal the Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, don’t count on it. And ask them exactly why they want to take your rights away from you.
For more information
Read the Constitution. I dare you.
It won't bite you. Monsters will not get you. You will not turn into a frog.
Be sure to read every installment of the Pittsburgh Public Policy Examiner.
Click “subscribe” above.
Click “subscribe” above.
Comments
The author shows her obvious ignorance regarding a convention. She dismisses without bothering to explain why it is the states have already submitted sufficient applications to cause a convention call. See www.foavc.org for the over 700 examples of public record showing application. The fact is a convention will work and has worked hundreds of time at the state level as well in many nations. Also she should read her constitution. Article V clearly designates Congress to issue the call meaning it decides the time and place of a convention.
I've read the constitution more time than you have written the word.
It does NOT require Congress to call for a convention.
And it has NEVER benn amended through that process.
If it's so easy, then WHY hasn't it been done?
If we repeal the 17th amendment we might get senators that actually represent the states. The 17th amendment has allowed a democracy of idiots to fill the highest chamber of congress with those willing to lie and cheat their way to the top. Perhaps a state legislature with the cajones to actually vet a candidate and hold responsible for the interests of the states will be better than the phony senators we have now who play on the stupidity of the general public. The 17th amendment is a good idea as long as people are willing to be educated and make wise and informed decisions.
The same logic would dictate that democracy itself is a waste of time. If we can't vote for senators, what makes us more capable of voting for anything else?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!