And if the laws were not Constitutional, court rulings would be able to chip away at them or repeal them.

Do you believe the current interpretations of the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses are consistent with the Constitution as it was intended?

If not, how do you reconcile that with your optimism that court rulings are sufficient check on the legislature and executive?

You’re arguing to give in to their ignorance. Politicians pass shitty laws all the time

And they appoint shitty judges that give great deference to their shitty laws.

FDR could have passed every idea he ever came up with and we’d still face the same problem; we’d still have the challenge of explaining to the public why the unintended consequences of his ideas outweigh any benefit.

And if the laws were not Constitutional, court rulings would be able to chip away at them or repeal them. With an amendment, that option is off the table.

The primary difference would be that we wouldn’t have to spend X% (where X is a significantly large number) of our time debating interpretations with people don’t even bother to read their mortgage papers, let alone a court opinion.

You’re arguing to give in to their ignorance. Politicians pass shitty laws all the time, but with our Constitution we have an ability to overcome those…even if it hasn’t been particularly effective during this administration. Your solution of making it easier to pass amendments would erode the very foundation of our protections, though.

I’m sorry Jeff, but I’m not seeing the upside here for individual freedoms…no way.

If we can’t get rid of Social Security and the damn thing’s not even an amendment what makes you think it would be easier to get rid of an amendment for “universal” health care or “universal” employment?

The reasons mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 at 9:49.

You’re forgetting that they’d be easier to repeal as well.

Nope, I just realize that laws are tough to get removed as is and amendments will likely be even tougher. If we can’t get rid of Social Security and the damn thing’s not even an amendment what makes you think it would be easier to get rid of an amendment for “universal” health care or “universal” employment?

Courts change, political administrations change, but amendments rarely do. Had it been easier to pass new amendments back in the New Deal era I have little doubt that FDR would have re-written our Constitution (as he planned to do until he died), Social Security and employment would now be constitutionally guaranteed rights and we’d be in a much worse fix once that system finally goes bankrupt.

You’re forgetting that they’d be easier to repeal as well. You’re also forgetting that most of the country already considers those things guaranteed rights.

FDR could have passed every idea he ever came up with and we’d still face the same problem; we’d still have the challenge of explaining to the public why the unintended consequences of his ideas outweigh any benefit.

The primary difference would be that we wouldn’t have to spend X% (where X is a significantly large number) of our time debating interpretations with people don’t even bother to read their mortgage papers, let alone a court opinion. The drastic change in policy would be a matter of record.

Instead, we have nearly a hundred years of court precedent that completely bastardized the plain meaning of some pretty simple language and completely neutered several key concepts.

Courts change, political administrations change, but amendments rarely do. Had it been easier to pass new amendments back in the New Deal era I have little doubt that FDR would have re-written our Constitution (as he planned to do until he died), Social Security and employment would now be constitutionally guaranteed rights and we’d be in a much worse fix once that system finally goes bankrupt.

Fine as is.

Probably the biggest reason why we haven’t seen many amendments in recent years isn’t the difficulty of getting amendments passed, it is the ease in which we have bypassed the Constiitution in those years. We are passing so many laws and doing so many things that are so obviously unconsititutional that people don’t seem to care anymore about what is constitutional and what isn’t. For politicians it is so much easier to just act like the Constitution doesn’t exist than amend it.

We should be trying to get people to better understand what the Constitution really stands for than try to make it easier to amend it.

Drug laws are bad because they infringe on the individual’s right to engage in non-violent consensual activity. Repealing or lessening them is a way of strengthening individuals’ rights and returning power to the individual.

I said look at the proponent’s argument, because I think you’re falling into a similar trap. We’ve created a black market for Constitutional amendments. That’s not good, no matter how you slice it.

Rewind to the New Deal era. Let’s say the bar was lowered. Let’s say 3/5 of both houses plu 2/3 of the states. Let’s say they passed an amendment that added sweeping powers to Article 1 Section 8 and then proceeded to pass all of the legislation that they were going to pass anyways.

Now fast forward back to present day. We would still face the challenge of undoing the programs they started, but at least we’d still have a literal Constitution to work with.

Instead, we have nearly a hundred years of court precedent that completely bastardized the plain meaning of some pretty simple language and completely neutered several key concepts.

I agree that a high bar and perfect enforcement would be better, but let’s be honest here; that obviously hasn’t happened and I’m not sure what we can change to make it happen.

If you’re still not willing even consider it, ask yourself this: why 2/3 and 3/4? Why not 3/4 and 4/5? They’re all arbitrary numbers and the founders were imperfect.

It was bad enough when I had the Paulistians breathing down my neck, now you’re going send the suffragettes after me ;)

I understand where you’re coming from and I’m not entirely sold on the argument that Volokh and Hills make. But I think it’s worthy of consideration.

I considered it and reject it, for all the reasons I listed.

No direct election of Senators….but now that you mention it ;)

UC’s disclaimer: Just to be clear to any female readers, I am not in any way, shape or form in favor of eliminating womens’ suffrage and hereby take this opportunity to distance myself from Doug “Sexist Pig” Mataconis who I can neither confirm nor deny was once drinking buddies with Bob Packwood. :)

No direct election of Senators….but now that you mention it ;)

I understand where you’re coming from and I’m not entirely sold on the argument that Volokh and Hills make. But I think it’s worthy of consideration.

Of all the Amendments that have been proposed over the years, the only one that would come close to ratification under Volokh’s amended Article V would be the Equal Rights Amendment and even that one would have fallen 3 states short.

If 66% of the country really believes that a certain law is just or fair, they can implement it in their respective states. While Congress is denied the power to outlaw marijuana, individual states are free to do so.

If Congress lacks the power to outlaw abortion, there is nothing preventing a state from outlawing it.

If Congress lacks the power to compel states to legalize assisted suicide, there is nothing preventing individual states from permitting it.

I agree with everything tarran’s said (although I thought the fed had outlawed marijuana and were claiming that the states had no right to legalize…although I’d agree that should be beyond the scope of their authority).

Or my favorite pet project which I know will never happen, repealing the 17th Amendment.

Women’s suffrage?

:)

I agree about the creating “new rights” idea, but we’re also talking about structural reforms here. Term Limits, for example.

If the people want term limits badly enough, they can still amend the Constitution. It’s been done 27 times already (which has been more than enough). Making amendments easier to get in term limits also means you’ll be making it easier for amendments regarding flag-burning, outlawing gay marriage, abortion (either way), limiting states’ rights, or any number of things that I can’t think of off the top of my head. Not worth it…the amendment process is fine as is.