Comments on: Constitutional Amendments that Failed in Congress

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:17:26 +0000

\”politically charged ones with a loud-and-loyal constituency, but that are not going to be particularly popular (e.g., right-to-life amendment).\”

Or that ARE particularly popular, (Balanced budget amendment, term limits.) but just not with members of Congress. So they have to be stage managed so that the members who need to can vote for them, without risk of getting that two thirds.

I don\’t think it\’s the two thirds rule or support for the text as it is. I think it\’s that a supine federal judiciary \’amends\’ the Constitution by interpretation whenever Congress really wants something it doesn\’t permit. So Congress doesn\’t need the Article V amendment process anymore.

By: Gerard Magliocca

Gerard Magliocca — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:11:22 +0000

Well, perhaps the sample is too small, but I don’t know that assessing selection is impossible if somebody did a detailed study.

By: dave hoffman

dave hoffman — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:21:55 +0000

But Gerald, you can’t really look at the data to assess selection.

By: Gerard Magliocca

Gerard Magliocca — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:15:53 +0000

Howard,

Yes, I think that’s a plausible alternative, though one would have to look at whatever the data is to assess that hypothesis (or mine).

By: Howard Wasserman

Howard Wasserman — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:01:49 +0000

We might draw a different inference from this point: Because everyone knows the hurdle for an amendment is so high, serious amendment ideas never are proposed or move forward. The only ones that get proposed are politically charged ones with a loud-and-loyal constituency, but that are not going to be particularly popular (e.g., right-to-life amendment).