Those Past Constitutional Amendments

Let’s have some fun and learn something.

You got it!  The Old Professor is going to drop some history that most have no idea about.

How well do you know your history of this country?  (Purely rhetorical because most know little to nothing)

There has been numerous amendments considered to the Constitutional but we shot down….but what would this country look like if they had passed?

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.

“The U.S. Constitution was intended to be amended,” writes historian Jill Lepore in her new book, We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution. However, “almost all efforts to amend the Constitution fail. Success often takes decades. And for long stretches of American history, amending the Constitution has been effectively impossible.”

Most proposed amendments die quietly in congressional committees (if they even get that far), with only a few sent on to the states for ratification. At present, there are six proposed amendments awaiting possible state ratification—one of them dating back to 1789.

Many failed amendments have involved fairly minor administrative matters. But others would have changed the American government in substantial ways and possibly altered the course of history.

Here are a dozen of those failed amendments and what they set out to accomplish.

In 1866, Missouri Representative George Washington Anderson proposed dropping “United States” from the country’s name and simply calling it “America.” The current name was “not sufficiently comprehensive and significant to indicate the real unity and destiny of the American people as the eventual, paramount power of this hemisphere,” he argued, albeit unsuccessfully.

Weighing in from across the Atlantic, the Illustrated London News mocked the proposal as the “verbal appropriation of a hemisphere.”

Just one hemisphere wasn’t enough for Lucas Miller, a first-term representative from Wisconsin. On a single February day in 1893, he introduced 46 bills, one of which would have changed the country’s name to the “United States of the Earth.”

Miller’s rationale, in his own words, was that “it is possible for the republic to grow through the admission of new states into the union, until every nation on earth has become part of it.” Another source suggests that he might also have settled for the “United States of the World.” Miller’s proposal was widely ridiculed at the time, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the congressman didn’t return for a second term.

(Read On)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/twelve-failed-constitutional-amendments-that-could-have-reshaped-american-history-180987425/

There are a couple that would apply to the situation today….

Abolishing the Senate….not bad should be considered because the Senate is where good bills go to die.

Numbers 8 and 9 deserve consideration…

Numbers 10 -12 should already be part of the Constitution….

If you read the article then I would like to hear your thoughts on these past proposed amendments to our Constitution.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

Class Dismissed

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

New Constitutional Amendments?

There is a movement under consideration after the 2024 election to draw up some new Constitutional amendments to be considered for ratification and added to the existing document.

The next wave of constitutional amendments is more than a few years out, but it will arrive sooner than we think (we are late in the gap between such waves, when no or only extraordinary amendments occur). We can anticipate this wave because today’s thought leaders are moving past the late-gap conventional wisdom that amendments can’t happen; they are now proposing amendments, a potentially significant milestone.

So which proposals might prevail? The factors that will determine the survivor amendments are numerous and ever-changing. However, for any amendment to reach the ratification goal line, it must address a genuinely constitutional issue while garnering wide public support and overcoming partisan divisions, a high bar under the best of circumstances.

The most obvious amendment candidates are those involving existing constitutional features, such as the Electoral College or the lack of congressional term limits. While proposals to abandon both are popular, they also generate strong partisan opposition, which reduces their prospects, at least in the short term.

Newer amendment proposals also aim to correct existing provisions. Recently, the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project produced five recommendations that united teams of conservative, libertarian and progressive scholars. Among them are replacing the “natural born” requirement for presidents with both citizenship and residency for at least 14 years; creating staggered, single, 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices; and reducing but retaining the supermajorities required for Congress to pass and then states to ratify amendments.

Vetting of and building public support for these amendment proposals are mostly nascent, perhaps excepting the Supreme Court proposal. But it is starting. For example, the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University hosted a Model Constitutional Convention over the Memorial Day weekend. More than 100 student delegates from over 70 universities and law schools devoted half of their deliberations to the CDP recommendations. (Disclosure #1: I participated, and will report on the complete convention in my next writing.)

And then there are proposals, some long-standing as well as some comparatively new, for additions to the Constitution. Among them are an Equal Rights Amendment, an affirmative voting rights amendment and the For Our Freedom Amendment, which calls for reasonable limits on campaign spending. Today, FOFA would seem the most likely to reach ratification, as it also benefits from having popular support and a growing grassroots network.

https://thefulcrum.us/electoral-reforms/amendments-to-the-constitution-2668391664

I will agree that the Constitution needs to be amended…..most of the ones mentioned here are needed and needed badly….the money thing…..the term limit thing…. the ERA…..etc.

These should be already under consideration….I look for some hard charging opposition to most of these especially in Red States….keep in mind the ratification process.

The traditional constitutional amendment process is described in Article V of the Constitution. Congress must pass a proposed amendment by a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and send it to the states for ratification by a vote of the state legislatures. The amendment becomes part of the Constitution when it has been ratified by three-fourths (currently 38) of the states. This process has been used for ratification of every amendment to the Constitution thus far.

Article V also provides for an alternative process, which has never been utilized. If requested by two-thirds of the state legislatures, Congress shall call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments. To become part of the Constitution, any amendment proposed by that convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states through a vote of either the state legislature or a state convention convened for that purpose. 

Any thoughts on these ideas?

Just a little something to think about on this Friday as we close in on November.

I sincerely hope that everyone has a lovely and safe weekend.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”