A.) Steve voted D up until recently, which shows you that, even well into adulthood, he was mediocre-at-best in his thinking about the Constitution and the American political tradition.
B.) An Amendment to enact Steve's first four provisions, and an amendment to make amendment easier are two very distinct issues. It would be entirely cons…
A.) Steve voted D up until recently, which shows you that, even well into adulthood, he was mediocre-at-best in his thinking about the Constitution and the American political tradition.
B.) An Amendment to enact Steve's first four provisions, and an amendment to make amendment easier are two very distinct issues. It would be entirely consistent for someone to be very much in favor of the former, and very much against the latter.
C.) Ignore those who insist on the necessity or magic of a new Convention--the Article V provisions for any amendment., 3/4 of the state legislatures or STATE conventions, and 2/3 of Congress, apply regardless of which path you take. Having begun the process with a by-the-rules Convention of delegates doesn't change that.
D.) Originalism is the correct philosophy for judicial interpretation. Period. (This is why 30 years or so of voting D, which was always a vote for the illogical & corrosive philosophy of living constitutionalism, is evidence of civic irresponsibility.)
E.) To enact an easier path to amendment is to up the chances BOTH of very good outcomes, and very bad ones. It is not something to try unless the Republic is pretty sick. Even if your doing it allowed you to save the Republic circa 2020s/2030s, later on it is certain that some very stupid amendments would get enacted. (Of course, the stupidity would then be easier to repeal also.)
F.) The Republic is very sick. The depredations of the last 4 years, which have all taken place in the wake of the conservatives finally reaching the goal of a majority-originalist SCOTUS, shows you that the plans of the progressivist and technocratic tyrant-oligarchs could unfold entirely aside from the power of the Courts. It was a conservative delusion to have worked so hard to place originalist guardians in the area where the many of the most disturbing attacks on the constitutional order circa 1960s-2010s had been occurring, but to have done nothing to place similar guardians in the areas of administrative law-making, big media, education, and election security. Oh, and in that of pandemic policy! 2020-2024 reveals that the Constitution could be chucked even with originalists having a majority on the Court. The people could be so corrupted, so demoralized, so etcetera, that the grossest of anti-democracy power plays could be gotten away with. (Sure, the Const. still stands, but who has been punished? Were these not bids for tyranny?) And don't forget that the Dems in 2021 were one or two votes away from federalizing election oversight, and maybe ten or so votes away from packing SCOTUS.
G.) Thus, I do not think it is against conservative political philosophy or against proper constitutional reverence to be for making the Constitution somewhat easier to amend. As for whether it is good tactics, that is a question which shifts about. But I know--and this is where I pull out my PhD. in pol. sci. and my several years of teaching con-law and put them on the table--that it WOULD NOT CONTRADICT ORIGINALISM. Indeed, there are writings of Scalia where he comes close to arguing what I have, that in having made the Const. so difficult to amend, the natural pressures to adjust it would come out in judges doing defacto amendment under the cover of "Living Constitution" interpretation.
H.) Thus, even over a decade ago, I argued for what I called the "Responsibility Amendment," an amendment of Article V which would take the thresholds down to 55 and 66 percent, respectively, of Congress, and of state legislatures (or conventions). The present 66 percent and 75 percent are too high to allow anything but the most widely-backed amendments. No amendment of any partisan dispute can pass. Only amendments with widest popular support, or more likely, with widest "uniparty"/elite-class support, can pass. I provide more of my reasoning there. https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/08/mark-levin-meet-herbert-croly
I.) The chances of getting that Responsibility Amendment, however, are very slim. For the same reasons the chances for getting any amendment are. Generally, we are going to have to rely on statutes in regular legislation, national and state.
A.) Steve voted D up until recently, which shows you that, even well into adulthood, he was mediocre-at-best in his thinking about the Constitution and the American political tradition.
B.) An Amendment to enact Steve's first four provisions, and an amendment to make amendment easier are two very distinct issues. It would be entirely consistent for someone to be very much in favor of the former, and very much against the latter.
C.) Ignore those who insist on the necessity or magic of a new Convention--the Article V provisions for any amendment., 3/4 of the state legislatures or STATE conventions, and 2/3 of Congress, apply regardless of which path you take. Having begun the process with a by-the-rules Convention of delegates doesn't change that.
D.) Originalism is the correct philosophy for judicial interpretation. Period. (This is why 30 years or so of voting D, which was always a vote for the illogical & corrosive philosophy of living constitutionalism, is evidence of civic irresponsibility.)
E.) To enact an easier path to amendment is to up the chances BOTH of very good outcomes, and very bad ones. It is not something to try unless the Republic is pretty sick. Even if your doing it allowed you to save the Republic circa 2020s/2030s, later on it is certain that some very stupid amendments would get enacted. (Of course, the stupidity would then be easier to repeal also.)
F.) The Republic is very sick. The depredations of the last 4 years, which have all taken place in the wake of the conservatives finally reaching the goal of a majority-originalist SCOTUS, shows you that the plans of the progressivist and technocratic tyrant-oligarchs could unfold entirely aside from the power of the Courts. It was a conservative delusion to have worked so hard to place originalist guardians in the area where the many of the most disturbing attacks on the constitutional order circa 1960s-2010s had been occurring, but to have done nothing to place similar guardians in the areas of administrative law-making, big media, education, and election security. Oh, and in that of pandemic policy! 2020-2024 reveals that the Constitution could be chucked even with originalists having a majority on the Court. The people could be so corrupted, so demoralized, so etcetera, that the grossest of anti-democracy power plays could be gotten away with. (Sure, the Const. still stands, but who has been punished? Were these not bids for tyranny?) And don't forget that the Dems in 2021 were one or two votes away from federalizing election oversight, and maybe ten or so votes away from packing SCOTUS.
G.) Thus, I do not think it is against conservative political philosophy or against proper constitutional reverence to be for making the Constitution somewhat easier to amend. As for whether it is good tactics, that is a question which shifts about. But I know--and this is where I pull out my PhD. in pol. sci. and my several years of teaching con-law and put them on the table--that it WOULD NOT CONTRADICT ORIGINALISM. Indeed, there are writings of Scalia where he comes close to arguing what I have, that in having made the Const. so difficult to amend, the natural pressures to adjust it would come out in judges doing defacto amendment under the cover of "Living Constitution" interpretation.
H.) Thus, even over a decade ago, I argued for what I called the "Responsibility Amendment," an amendment of Article V which would take the thresholds down to 55 and 66 percent, respectively, of Congress, and of state legislatures (or conventions). The present 66 percent and 75 percent are too high to allow anything but the most widely-backed amendments. No amendment of any partisan dispute can pass. Only amendments with widest popular support, or more likely, with widest "uniparty"/elite-class support, can pass. I provide more of my reasoning there. https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/08/mark-levin-meet-herbert-croly
I.) The chances of getting that Responsibility Amendment, however, are very slim. For the same reasons the chances for getting any amendment are. Generally, we are going to have to rely on statutes in regular legislation, national and state.