Popular Amendment of the Constitution

[AlloyDragon]

Long version: http://www.ni4d.us/library/amarpaper.pdf

Short versions:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Popular Amendment

One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."

It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.

Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070326004038AAMIRkO

Popular Amendment To The Constitution??

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."

It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local.

[RichG]

I agree that the people should be able to amend the constitution but there is a means to do that already. If the people REALLY get to choose their representives, the the congress will want what the people want.

This idea is just a means to lull the sheeple into a false sense they are really "free" and the "masters" of the government. Any sort of "majority rule" or "popular" vote kind of thing is too easily influenced invisibly (to the sheeple) by TPTB.

Good point Skyvike.....

What is our voter turn out now.....less than half?

Plus as the demographics change how to you protect from an energized voting block from just a few over-populated States? The East and West coasts would rule.....bye-bye guns.....

We have a fair system now.....it just needs to be used. :smokin:

[mjk1971]

I agree that the people should be able to amend the constitution but there is a means to do that already. If the people REALLY get to choose their representives, the the congress will want what the people want.


You apparently fail to understand that the "voters" are only permitted a certain slate of candidates, with every deck stacked against any third-party candidate, AND, we have seen how Diebold, ES&S and the black-robed whores are used to make sure the "correct" candidates "win."

[mjk1971]

Unfortunately, "popular amendment" is a very difficult process, but nonetheless secured by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.

The right of popular amendment is eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This right, of course, is that of ARMED REVOLUTION.

[AlloyDragon]

I agree that the people should be able to amend the constitution but there is a means to do that already. If the people REALLY get to choose their representives, the the congress will want what the people want.

This idea is just a means to lull the sheeple into a false sense they are really "free" and the "masters" of the government. Any sort of "majority rule" or "popular" vote kind of thing is too easily influenced invisibly (to the sheeple) by TPTB.

I'm not so sure. I don't think awareness of popular amendment is very high.

[Anty Ep]

Unfortunately, "popular amendment" is a very difficult process, but nonetheless secured by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.

The right of popular amendment is eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This right, of course, is that of ARMED REVOLUTION.

in government, it all comes down to that just like mao said

[AlloyDragon]

I don't fail to understand any of it. It's CAFB to me.

This "popular amnendment" garbage will just make it easier for TPFB to do what they already do by brainwashing the sheeple into thinking they actually have a say about it.

CAFB? Googling isn't giving me anything that makes sense in this context...

As the TPTB already own the MSM, federal, state, and major metro governments and their parallel courts, they wouldn't seem to be need to go around the federal and state governments to amend the Constitution to reign in those governments. More importantly they no longer even bother amending it to make the actions of their puppets Constitutional, and now just simply ignore the Constitution where it suits their plans.

[Halophyte]

I'm not so sure. I don't think awareness of popular amendment [via popular vote] is very high.

Never seen American Idol ?