Population Changes and Constitutional Amendments:

[Halophyte]

Population Changes and Constitutional Amendments:
Federalism Versus Democracy

The addition of states of unequal size to the Union, and the migration of the population into urban areas, has in effect amended article V of the Constitution. As a result of these demographic changes, the amending process under article V now permits a minority of the population (about 40%) to adopt amendments, and a tiny minority (about 4%) to veto amendments. Thus, a sufficient number of sparsely populated states can override the intense preference of up to 96% of American citizens. The principle that makes this possible is not protection of minorities but federalism.


http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/acessay.htm

[Carl]

The whole thread is a mass of false premises and assertions.

For example: "When the Constitution was written, debated, and adopted, the requirement for three-fourths of the states invariably translated into a requirement for a significant supermajority of the population."

"Population" has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment process, state's rights and a limited central government does.

Just about every political evil visited upon us over the last 90 years or so have been the product of democracy in government to desire even more democracy is just insane.

.

[Halophyte]

I agree, this is an article about how the organic constitutional process was unsurped.


.

[Carl]

I agree, this is an article about how the organic constitutional process was unsurped.


.No, it is an article whining about how unfair it is that less populous states have veto power over the states that are more densely populated.

And again I will state that Population Density has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional amendment process, organic or otherwise.

[SAUM]

I might add that the less populous states are generally farther right than the roaches in D.C. Most of the people I work with feel that Bush is a sell out. Lastly, in the early 90s I was mining gold in NV, during that time the media was having a hey day about big holes in the earth and all the stuff that goes with it. In essence it was all about a bunch of New Yorkers trying to tell Nevadans how things were going to be and how we would use the land. Of course the Easterners couldn't have cared less about all of the high paying jobs that would be lost. Look up the Sage Brush Rebellion some time to see why we have equal votes.

Here's something a little more recent.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18045

[Halophyte]

Yup, and that's why James Watt did the BLM/Forestry Service land swap around Vegas .... to kick out the people workin their claims there a.k.a. the desert rats.

Now we have a couple million acres of "forest land" ? ..... in the middle of the desert ?

.

[Anty Ep]

the globalists are kicking the remaining white-gentile population of this country in the groin by the daily unabated invasion of non-white third world savages. I just went through a big airport and I was the only white guy around at several times.

let's be frank. once we're taken out, there will be no real impediment to global government. we are the only people in this country who both understand and appreciate concepts of self-government, liberty, and international peace based on national sovereignity-- as opposed to peace based on global government. the globalists have been working on this problem assiduously the past 100 years, in the first phase the USSR was the point man, now it's the USA.

we are the residual naysayers of this and it's their plan to liquidate us, if not quickly then slowly by reverse-assimilation-- "reconquista" via demographic annexation.