Horse 3376 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 5

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.

-

Either:

- a supermajority of both houses; or

- a supermajority of the States.

call a Convention for a proposed Amendment.

Then, 

Upon ratification of three-quarters of the State Legislatures, the Amendment is passed.

There are so many horribly stupid things wrong with this that this Article demanded its own post, as opposed to Articles 3 & 4 which could Be posted as a single post.

Firstly, unless a proposed Amendment is so amazingly urgent that even the Members of the Congress know that they will lose their jobs if they do not pass it, proposed Amendments either get defeated before they can be approved, or languish for so long that they then get unmade.

The Equal Rights Amendment which was proposed in 1920, which would have and should have given women equal rights under the Constitution, was passed and ratified by enough states to pass but then was unmade before it came to be added, due to states unratifying it and other states being admitted to the Union. Ladies, as it stands under the United States Constitution, we hold this truth to be legally evident, that you are not created equal and are not endowed by the United States Constitution with those same inalienable rights as men.

Secondly, even if a proposed Amendment is unequivocally just, due to the nature of the Members of the Congress being self-interested and selfish and at times actually evil, then it will not pass.

Justice is not a measure by which Amendments are made to the United States Constitution. It is for this reason why Slavery is still technically on the books. It is for this reason that there is still no explicit right to vote and can be denied or abridged on grounds other than the ones prescribed by the various Amendments. There is no right to Life under the United States Constitution. There is no right to Healthcare under the United States Constitution. There is no right to Education under the United States Constitution. Not even FDR with his suggested Second Bill of Rights could force Congress's hand. As far as the United States Constitution, American citizens are functionally garbage who do not have the right to life, liberty, or happiness, or the conditions which promote or allow it. 

Thirdly, even if a proposed Amendment is necessary, due to the nature of the Members of the Congress being self-interested and selfish and at times actually evil, then it will not pass.

An Amendment needs either a supermajority of both houses or a supermajority of the States to call for a Convention and then ratification of three-quarters of the State Legislatures. Anyone who has seen C-SPAN knows that the only things that you can actually get Congress to agree to as a supermajority, are gibberish pieces of nonsense such as renaming Post Offices or Highways and the like; the kinds of things that have no actual impact to people's lives.

When you have people crying out in the streets, Congress can and will argue and refuse to agree to even the most petty of things. It someone proposed that Congress were to make a hero sandwich, then I am sure that Congress would fail to agree to pass the sandwich. Some on the touchy-feely libertarian left would want alfalfa and cress, while those on the gun-totin' all shootin' authoritarian right want raw elephant meat with the blood still dripping down the sides. The boring sensible centre-right who just want roast beef and the equally boring centre left who want tomato and cheese, have to sit around and wait while every position becomes an extreme version of itself; where the opposition is worse than Hitler, or worse than Stalin, and where everyone is pro-anti-super-crypto-based-cringe-psyop-identikitist.

Fourthly, assuming that you do manage to cobble together some kind of coalition of the willing, the method of Ratification is still dependent upon the approval of the Congress. We have already seen in those first three objections that the self-interest by the Members of Congress is antithetic to the approval process. Article 5 then empowers that antithesis by placing the power to change the decision for the method of Ratification into those same self-interested persons.'

My objection here is that the Constitution here, embeds a conflict of interest. From any kind of logical perspective, that is just bad law. Worse, that is bad law which sits as the central plank of the rule of law in the nation. 

Fifthly, the fact that the method of changing the Constitution is so arcane and labyrinthine, it means that things which should not be rights, such as the right to bear arms, stay on the books and then become the object of idol worship because they are in the Constitution. 

If you have a thing which actively endangers domestic Tranquility, the common defence, the general Welfare, and slashes and burns the Blessings of Liberty, then I do not care whether or not it is a right because the Constitution says so. Both the people defending something that gives rise to death, and the right itself are objectively evil. 

Sixthly, is the undemocratic mode of operation of this Article. Unlike a referendum in Australia which is the way that the Australian Constitution is changed, there is not referral to the People of the United States if the United States Constitution is to be changed. The requirement that there be a majority of voters and in a majority of states in Australia looks similar, but that supermajority of both houses, and the supermajority of the States is not any kind of referral to the people at all.

It seems pretty fundamental to me, that the supreme law of the land and the prime rule by which all the other rules must stand by, should be referred to the people who have to live under it. Yet again I refer to the Declaration of Independence in which Jefferson stated that governments only justly derive their power from the "consent of the governed". Article 5 makes no attempt to confer with the people whatsoever; so I have no idea why it pretends to have the "consent of the governed".

One objection is a check light. Two objections is a waving red flag. Three objections is red lights and sirens time. SIX objections aught to be enough to let someone inside the house know that the house is on fire.