The lunatic left is scared to death that Supreme Court is going to toss Obamacare into the ash bin of history, just in time for the 2012 election.
The majority of States have sued to strike down the Health Care law as an unconstitutional expansion of Federal power. If the Court does not strike down the mandate, there may well be enough States to ratify a Constitutional amendment to clearly and unequivocally declare such power to reside with the States or the people, but not with the Federal government.
If the Court does not strike down the mandate, there may well be enough States to ratify a Constitutional amendment to clearly and unequivocally declare such power to reside with the States or the people, but not with the Federal government.
The Amendment Process.......
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two- thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Since I don't see the first happening unless the voters are really pissed off and vote out all the Dems in 2012, then that leaves the second route, which has never been done.... And if you do go the second route and convene a Constitutional Convention aren't you opening the door for other less desirable Amendments to be introduced and voted on at the same time you try to make an Amendment to strike down ObamaCare??? Isn't that the main reason a Constitutional Convention has never been convened???
Since I don't see the first happening unless the voters are really pissed off and vote out all the Dems in 2012, then that leaves the second route, which has never been done.... And if you do go the second route and convene a Constitutional Convention aren't you opening the door for other less desirable Amendments to be introduced and voted on at the same time you try to make an Amendment to strike down ObamaCare??? Isn't that the main reason a Constitutional Convention has never been convened???
26 states sued in the 11th Circuit. Virginia sued in the 4th Circuit.
If the people voted out incumbent Dems and Pubs in 2012, we could call it merit-based voting.
As for a constitutional convention, if the people can't get satisfaction from their elected officials and take matters into their own hands, they are, after all, the sovereigns.
At a convention, they can do as they please. Remember, the convention at Philadelphia was convened to recommend amendments to the Articles of Convention. History of the Philadelphia convention is massaged to claim that the delegates present voted unanimously for its proposal. Of course, Rhode Island refused to send delegates. The NY delegates, except for Hamilton, walked out and no vote of the state could be cast. It was a union between the states ratifying the new constitution. Washington took office with a union of eleven states. North Carolina ratified about six months later. Rhode Island held out for about a year.
By way of amendment, the people could choose to replace the entire text of the Constitution with [fill in the blank]. They could adopt a parliamentary system of government if that's what they want.
The people, acting in their sovereign capacity, do not need permission from the Federal government they created in order to act.
If the people are driven to take matters into their own hands, nobody knows what will come of it.
By way of amendment, the people could choose to replace the entire text of the Constitution with [fill in the blank]. They could adopt a parliamentary system of government if that's what they want.
In a Constitutional Convention, each state would get one vote. California would have the same vote as Wyoming. Given the political composition of the country, it is implausible to get 34 states to agree to anything really radical. It is even more implausible to get 38 state legislatures to ratify anything really radical.
I have long supported calling a Constitution Convention to clarify the meaning of the 10th Amendment and the Interstate Commerce clause to re-balance the power between the states and the federal government.
Given the growing number of areas (Obamacare, medical marijuana, regulation of locally grown and consumed farm products, gun control, etc.) where the states and the federal government are in conflict, I can see this happening within the next 10 years.
