The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
Campaign Finance Reform is the single issue from which ALL other issues flow. We will never fully fix our system, until we remove money from campaigns. That is the primary vehicle for bribery and corruption by lobbyists. Take money out of campaigns, and all that goes away.
And without a way to grift the system, many career criminals will choose arenas other than Politics to play their trade, leaving more elected offices in the hands of people who have motivations other than money.
The equal rights amendment that was never ratified. This is a great example of the state of our country. Kind of hard to get excited about a new amendment when we can't even get a reasonable one passed to protect half of US citizens.
Should call it the Freedom Patriot Eagle Amendment and it will get passed
You need to look at it a bit differently: it's not that 38 states are needed to approve amendments, but rather that only 13 states are needed to block them. And Republicans have been very effective at electing politicians at the state level. Republicans have total control of 28 State Legislatures, and also hold the Governor's seat in 23 of them.
So, any amendment that manages to get through Congress (and the filibuster) will have to be approved by a bunch of these State Republicans. So pretty much any policy that that can be considered liberal will be DOA.
In fact, Democrats have more to worry about in the other direction. They only hold 18 State Legislatures, holding the Governor's seat in 16 of them. That is perilously close to the threshold of not being able to block amendments. If Democrats lose just a few more of those safe states, the the next time Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate, they may be able to force amendments through that the blue states don't like.
(Source: https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition)
Seems like the "state-ratifying conventions" route is the only thing that has a chance of working, and that's ignoring that the Constitution doesn't regulate them.
Although, seeing as an amendment need 2/3rds of each chamber of Congress to pass, regardless of sending it to the legislatures or conventions (not for the convention to propose amendments), could Congress use that veto-proof majority to pass a law regulating conventions?
Whatever the idea, pretty sure this ends up in the Supreme Court regardless?
... is it weird that I've been thinking about this for the last decade? I'm not even American.
There are no rules at all to a constitutional convention, any rules are set by the delegates themselves. The last time we had one, they were charged with revising the Articles of Confederation, and decided to rip the whole thing up and write the Constitution. And this time, they have an official ruling that "money is speech", which will guarantee a ton of corporate cash flowing in to influence it.
Conservatives here have been looking to the convention process as a way to rip up parts of the Constitution they don't like. They can rewrite anything they want, and revoke rights we've had for hundreds of years. Yes, they still need 38 states to adopt it in the end, but as I covered above, they have complete control of many of the states they need to accomplish this.
And if this happens, what happens to the 12 Liberal states who do not go along with these changes? They will likely just leave, and make their own new country, with the original principles intact.
At least the amendment process only changes one thing at a time. A convention will blow it all up, and likely result in the country splitting in two. The only bright spot may be that it might be done without resorting to a civil war first.
I agree with everything you said, but I'm not talking about conventions to propose amendments, I'm talking about the ones to ratify amendments. Could a Democratic Congress with 2/3rds of each chamber pass a veto-proof law to regulate the ratifying conventions, then pass amendments specifying that they must be ratified by conventions, similar to how prohibition was repealed? As I understand it, the convention route was created by the founding fathers specifically in case they needed to bypass state legislatures.
The statewide convention seems to be an interesting approach, but one that is easily ratfucked by a party intent on doing so. Your links mention the process used in various states, including New Mexico, where the state convention is simply composed of the state legislature.
Most states seem to hold an election, though, where they put all candidates on the ballot and allow people to vote for all of them. So, envision a long ballot with 100 sets of "for" and "against" names, and voters have to vote for each one. Yes, they could make it simpler, but they probably won't , in an attempt to make it so complicated that one side can seek to invalidate votes cast for the other.
It seems to give the veneer of democracy, but still provide enough ambiguity for the State government to put its thumb in the scale. I'd like like to see some state say "The convention is every eligible voter, and the election on a strict yes/no vote determines the findings of the convention". Maybe California can do this, they are big on statewide referendums.
New Mexico was the reason I was thinking that Congress would have to pass federal legislation first to dictate how state ratifying conventions are run.
Again, from someone on the outside looking in, it seems like the option with the best chance of succeeding. But I also think Article V itself should be amended to explicitly use referendums to ratify amendments. Maybe even take a page out of Switzerland's book?
How many state legislatures will vote no against a higher federal minimum wage? How many state legislatures will vote no against banning corporate political free speech?
A ton. Where have you been the last 20 years?
https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wages
34 states have set wages above the Federal minimum, which means that 16 feel the Federal minimum is not too low.
A couple that I've found
Presidential Pardon Power and Immunity Reforms https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5088538-biden-calls-for-constitutional-amendment-on-presidential-immunity/
Corporate Political Speech Restrictions https://www.movetoamend.org/motion
Healthcare as a Righr https://usconstitution.net/constitutional-right-to-health-insurance/
The United States Constitution had been in effect for little more than a year when Congress first moved to amend it. On September 25, 1789, the legislature sent a dozen proposed amendments to the then-13 states (soon to be 14) for ratification, as the law required. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of states had ratified 10 of the 12 amendments, which collectively became known as the Bill of Rights.
Another 17 amendments have been ratified in the 234 years since, for a total of 27. But these measures represent just a tiny fraction of the amendments that have been proposed in Congress over the years—nearly 12,000 to date.
It's hilarious that even with all of that going on, there's still not a single issue that the two parties can agree on and implement.
Term limits? Profiting from your position/insider trading?
Both popular issues with both parties, but absolutely zero attempt from either side to implement them.
Why would greedy men give up an easy way to make money?
Oof, so you think that greater than 70% of the people in congress care more about their take home pay than the success of the country they represent?
Yes. Have you not been paying attention?
The money isn't that great, that by itself doesn't explain anything; your chances of being the next Nancy Polosy is about 0%.
Yeah, no shit. I work in a factory. What exactly does that have to do with anything?
The obviously implication is that I meant "that, working in congress"... I didn't mean exactly you in your current life situation.
Pelosi isnt even the top 10% of grifters in congress using their position to inside trafe
Sure... If you exclude her husband, but theres only one reason you would do that...
no even counting her husband too, there's trade trackers for all these motherfuckers. pelosi's are barely even in the top 10
Which congress person were referencing is irrelevant to the initial point.
Oof, so you think that greater than 70% of the people in congress care more about their take home pay than the success of the country they represent?
Yes. Easily greater than 70%.
I'd like to think that if I was in their situation that I wouldn't be in that 70%.
If I was in a situation where I could screw everyone behind me, but make the county better in the process I'd do it in a heartbeat.
That's why you won't get to their situation. You self-select out of it
I thought this was funny sarcasm
The republicans are doing literally everything in their power to protect pedophiles and child sex traffickers. If raping and murdering 12-year old girls isn't too much for them, what makes you believe that republican-led states would agree to anything other than increasing their own power or wealth?
republican states have wealth?
In very concentrated pockets.
Most people don't know what's going on. They don't need to defend much. It's already out of the news cycle
bold of you to assume that that many democrats would agree to all that. many are too worried about their potential moderate republican voters
many are too worried about their ~~potential moderate republican voters~~ corporate donors, the same donors who donate to republicans.
FTFY
has anyone asked the baileys what they think?
Between dem strategists (donors) constantly pushing dems to appeal to the right and the number of DINOs (both known and more behind the scenes ready to step up) - it really is a depressing state of affairs.
I can’t think of a single thing that would garner such support. You could suggest an amendment that convicted child rapists couldn’t hold public office and there would be enough pushback that even that wouldn’t succeed.
I don't think I should know the US constitution.
Yeah not going there
It also allows the calling of a Convention to amend the constitution if only 2/3 of states make application for one, without approval of Congress.
This. This is something that more Americans should be aware of. State legislatures are generally less corrupt than federal, and more responsive to voters. The framers put a way to make amendments that completely bypasses the federal government for a reason. It's never happened because every time a convention is close to being called, the federal government passes that amendment, seeing the writing in the wall.
A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of both houses of the legislature, and ratification by the states. Passing a law with a veto-proof majority requires 2/3 of both houses. So I don't think a constitutional amendment is any easier.
Or a simple majority in Congress and 2/3 of the state legislatures ratifying it.
They're not going to win. MAGA convinced Leftist to take themselves off social media. The spaces where swing voters are swung.