Adding a New Amendment to the United States Constitution Not an Easy Task! The United States Constitution was written "to endure for ages to come" Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the
early 1800s. To ensure it would last, the framers made amending the document a difficult task. That difficulty was obvious recently when supporters of congressional term limits and a balanced budget amendment were not successful in getting the new amendments they wanted. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times since it was drafted in 1787, including the first 10 amendments adopted four years later as the Bill of Rights. Not just any idea to improve America deserves an
amendment. The idea must be one of major impact affecting all Americans or securing rights of citizens. Recently, an amendment to outlaw flag burning may be gathering steam and President Clinton has endorsed the idea of a crime victims' rights amendment. Other amendment proposals that are popular with some congressional leaders would allow voluntary school prayer, make English the country's official language, and abolish the Electoral College. Among amendments adopted this century
are those that gave women the right to vote; enacted and repealed Prohibition; abolished poll taxes; and lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. The amendment process is very difficult and time consuming: A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The ERA Amendment did not pass the necessary majority of state legislatures in the 1980s. Another option to start the amendment process is
that two-thirds of the state legislatures could ask Congress to call a Constitutional Convention. A new Constitutional Convention has never happened, but the idea has its backers. A retired federal judge, Malcolm R. Wilkey, called a few years ago for a new convention. "The Constitution has been corrupted by the system which has led to gridlock, too much influence by interest groups, and members of Congress who focus excessively on getting reelected," Wilkey said in a published series of lectures. But Richard C. Leone, president of the New York-based Twentieth Century Fund, a nonpartisan research group, says recent efforts to amend the Constitution go too far. "I think we're overreacting to some people's dissatisfaction with the government," Leone said. His organization hopes to balance the argument by publishing The New Federalist Papers, taking the name from the original Federalist Papers which were written to promote ratification of the Constitution. Polsby, the Northwestern law professor, said the number of proposed amendments is not uncommon. But he agreed that political fixes do not necessarily belong in the Constitution - with Prohibition being the prime example. Information Resource: Amendment Fever Grips Washington: by Laurie Asseo © Associated Press - edited for html by Robert Hedges Editor's note: If you'd like an email notice whenever we publish Ross Ramsey's column, click here. *Correction appended. Almost a year ago, Gov. Greg Abbott was cheered for asking the Texas Legislature to make ethics the signature issue of its 2015 session. Five months later, they sent back a bill he disliked enough to veto. Now, he’s attempting another grand act of persuasion that will require him to improve his salesmanship. He wants to amend the U.S. Constitution. The current generation of Texas Republicans has defined itself by its opposition to the powers that be in Washington. For 15 of the last 23 years, the nation’s voters have put Democrats in the White House. Texas, meanwhile, has had a Democrat in the Governor’s Mansion for only two of those years. It’s not just about party, though: The state’s leaders snarl at being on the collar end of a federal leash, no matter who’s in the White House. That’s the sweeping backdrop for Abbott’s proposal to convene the states to amend the U.S. Constitution. The official reaction from his fellow Texas Republicans, as The Texas Tribune’s Edgar Walters reported, has been distressingly muted. Abbott has to get the idea through his own statehouse, and then through 33 others, a task that will require persuasive abilities he hasn’t exhibited in his first year as governor. A success on something this big would give a leader a shot at the history books, a failure the stuff footnotes are made of. The so-called ethics session of the Legislature is already on the governor’s political vita. Abbott suggested a few reforms during his campaign for governor, but during the legislative session he left the details to lawmakers, who blew it. He presented his newest proposal to thunderous applause last week at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s convention, but that audience would cheer him for a smile and a wave. If Abbott is going to have more success this time, he’ll have to be both persistent and clear about what he wants. If getting new law in place is the object, he’ll have to do some work. Another way to put it: Would his initiative be considered a success only if the states assemble to talk about the Constitution? Or was the proposal itself the end result, issuing a report to a friendly audience that cheered, generated some headlines and then moved on to something else? The answer depends on whom he can persuade to join the cause. Abbott and others like him want to call a “Convention of States” to amend the Constitution. You’ll find that the proponents are touchy about words; they strongly object to calling this a “constitutional convention” — a term they use for a gathering that ditches the entire document and writes a new one. The Texas governor isn’t the first to try this. So far, only Congress has successfully proposed amendments to the Constitution, but it’s not the only way to do it. Agitation from the states prompted Congress to approve the amendment for direct election of U.S. senators. Proposals to convene the states in support of a balanced budget amendment have been approved by 27 states. The American Legislative Exchange Council — a conservative group of state legislators — has proposed a “model” version of the legislation required to apply for a convention of states. Another group called Citizens for Self Governance has been pressing for a gathering, too, according to Mike Ruthenberg, its executive vice president. The model from Ruthenberg’s organization — mirrored by ALEC — would have states calling a convention “for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.” That has the advantage, he said, of limiting the topics under consideration: “Single subject, but not single issue.” Instead of just saying, for instance, that they want a balanced budget amendment, the states would apply for a more general subject that includes a balanced budget and other things, too. According to Ruthenberg, it wouldn’t include subjects like abortion, civil rights, guns or same-sex marriage. Four states have already passed such resolutions: Alabama, Alaska, Florida and Georgia, according to Ruthenberg. Another 12 states got it through one of their legislative houses, but not both. At one point, 37 states were concurrently considering resolutions for conventions to amend the U.S. Constitution. That’s pretty interesting progress, but it is a long way from amending the Constitution. The requirements are simple, but not easy. Two-thirds of the states — 34 — have to apply for a convention and have to list the same reasons for it. Congress has no choice but to approve. If the states could get to a convention — this has been tried, but has never happened — they would have to agree on specific proposed amendments. Those, in turn, would have to be approved by the legislatures of at least three-fourths of the states; all but a dozen of the 50 states would have to go along. Last year, legislators in the Texas House voted on two different convention of states resolutions, but none came to a vote in the Senate. To force a convention, a resolution would have to win the support of two-thirds of the members of both chambers and in the same form as applications from 33 other states. Last year’s Texas bill proposed a convention to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government.” Abbott has proposed a convention of states to debate nine constitutional amendments limiting the reach of the federal government and of executive agencies in particular, requiring a balanced budget and giving states power to overrule court rulings and federal laws. The governor found out last year how hard it is to get Texas lawmakers to regulate their own behavior with ethics reform. His new project will show everybody how much he learned from that experience. Correction: The Texas House approved two resolutions for a convention of states in 2015; none came to a Senate vote. An earlier version said the full House had not voted. Disclosure: The Texas Public Policy Foundation has been a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune. A complete list of Tribune donors and sponsors can be viewed here. How are constitutional amendments ratified in Texas?The proposed additions to the Texas Constitution were passed as bills during this year's legislative session, and a majority of voters in the state must approve each amendment before it can be officially added to the Constitution.
Who can propose amendments to the Texas Constitution?The Texas Constitution provides that the legislature, by a two-thirds vote of all members of each house, may propose amendments revising the constitution and that proposed amendments must then be submitted for approval to the qualified voters of the state.
How are amendments to the Texas Constitution ratified quizlet?Amending the Texas Constitution requires two-thirds of the members of each chamber of the state legislature to adopt a proposed amendment, and only a simple majority of the voters to approve it in a constitutional amendment election.
What is needed to ratify amendments to the 1876 Texas Constitution?No legislative rules or other restrictions limit the number of amendment proposals, provided each receives the required two-thirds vote in both the senate and the house. Since 1876, the legislature has proposed 700 constitutional amendments.
|
Amendments to the Texas Constitution are successfully proposed by and are successfully ratified by
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 WIKIFI Inc.
