• Categories

  • Housekeeping

Constitution Monday: Changing Our Constitution

Note: Throughout this series, items that are hyperlinked were in the Constitution as written in 1787 but have since been amended or superseded.

Article V of the Constitution of the United States outlines the process for making changes to the Constitution.  Here is the entirety of Article V:

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The last part about 1808 and so forth could use a little discussion. Here is a link to my entry on Article I, Section 9. The first and fourth clauses dealt with slavery. One of the compromises of the drafters of the Constitution was that they agreed not to reopen the issue of slavery at the federal level until 1808.

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. GW’s political remnants not the least of which are appointees to the US Supreme Court have taken certiorie of a case, US v Comstock, wherein someone (Comstock may be a repeat actual physical offender but the case will impact a different class of “offenders) who (unbenownst to them) may have received child porn on an unprotected computer in the form of government diseminated illegal (in some jurisdictions) spam who then is labeled a sex offender for political purposes since it is not disclosed who owns the child porn, is it the government, then these selected politically labeled have to be placed in a mental institution for the rest of their lives since it is judicially noticed that “sex offender” is not defined in the lower briefs; especially it is not defined as containing any actual physical assualt; in so much as the government has purchased through contract I believe the distribution for ostensibly “sting” ops purposes which is a service of government most do not want. Such a politically selected isp may be the isp of an only child of a family of registered, active democrats thus foreclosing the future of that line of the family. This is against the US Constitution I would think. However GW’s buddies (dear family friend Roberts et al.) are changing the rules of the US Supreme Court to take effect 1/16/10. The filthy Comstock case they should not be hearing was “heard” on 1/12/10. I wonder if Mr. Roberts of the Supreme Court knows more about the political ramifications of this case than he will state in the ensuing brief allowing lifetime incarceration of those just ACCUSED of such filth he willingly will author. GULAGS are not constitutional at this time are they? Can US Constitution decisions and clever rule changes change the US Constitution? I believe they can…you were saying…? Please continue.

  2. Hi Sudsy – My post was talking about the mechanics of changing the official words and provisions of our Constitution. Governments can rule in non-constitutional ways if the citizenry and the other branches of government cooperate. It is my hope that as more people see what the Constitution actually says, the less cooperation in non-constitutional government will occur.

  3. Anyone who is NOT a constitutional hypocrite should support the mission of Friends of the Article V Convention at foavc.org, which simply is to make Congress obey the Constitution and give us the first Article V convention, the path the Founders gave us for peaceful reform and revolution. With some 750 applications from all 50 states the one and only requirement has long been met. Why does Congress willfully disobey and dishonor the Constitution? Because they fear true reforms through constitutional amendments. Become a member of the nonpartisan FOAVC and help us defend the Constitution.

  4. Hi Joel, Thanks for stopping by. Rereading Article V, I don’t see any obligation for Congress to call a constitutional convention. It merely states that they may do so.

    It also says that we don’t need Congress to call a constitutional convention as one would have to be held if 2/3 of our state legislatures called for one. That might be a better place to channel your efforts if your group is determined to have a constitutional convention.

    Finally, your comment makes it sound like only Congress disrespects the Constitution and I think history since World War II implicates the executive as well.

  5. […] Original Constitution but not our Constitutional Journey. Since the Constitution was written, the amendment process in Article V has been used to add 27 Amendments. I hope you will stay with me through the next 27 Mondays as we […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: