Amendment V of the United States Constitution

[Sisyphus]

Right, if you're not an anarchist, you must be a liberal.

[JohnB]

What I can't get over is that you have no say in the Amendments.

 

Your Constitution opens with "We the People..." then has 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

Only your Politicians get to vote on Amendments? Please compare this to;

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives......

 

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

I'm surprised you don't have Referendums on Amendments.

[Sisyphus]

I think the idea was to isolate the process as much as possible from fads and "mob rule." An amendment to the Constitution is permanent and the unquestioned supreme law of the land, and as such we need to make sure we "really mean it." I can only imagine all the crazy stuff that would be in the Constitution if all that was needed was a referendum, since you'd just need a cause that two-thirds (or whatever) agree with.

 

This isn't a perfect guarantee, of course, but as is, the only really "faddish" one so far was the prohibition of alcohol, which we then needed another amendment just to overturn. There are also several stupid amendments that tend to get proposed around election time (banning flag burning, banning gay marriage, etc.), but they haven't been passed yet, even though they almost certainly would have been if it had been a straight referendum.

 

That said, however, considering the strong majorities needed on multiple levels, it's really impossible for an amendment to be passed that most people don't actually want.

[doG]

Only your Politicians get to vote on Amendments? Please compare this to;

 

That is how a representative form of government is supposed to work...

[ecoli]

This isn't a perfect guarantee, of course, but as is, the only really "faddish" one so far was the prohibition of alcohol, which we then needed another amendment just to overturn. There are also several stupid amendments that tend to get proposed around election time (banning flag burning, banning gay marriage, etc.), but they haven't been passed yet, even though they almost certainly would have been if it had been a straight referendum.

 

It was the type of amendment that they didn't truly want to pass, but you couldn't say that out loud or you were branded as amoral. I think the way it got repealed was that people found it unenforceble, and it led to a rise in organized crime.

[JohnB]

"Faddish"? In 1951 there was a referendum concerning banning the Communist Party. (Remember the Cold War?) Should have been a faddish shoe in shouldn't it? Sorry, the "Yes" case only managed 49.4% of the vote and only carried in 3 states. Hence it failed to meet either of the criteria for passing. I would suggest that a couple of hundred politicians voting the way the polls tell them to in a public vote are far more likely to be faddish than several million people voting in a secret ballot.

That said, however, considering the strong majorities needed on multiple levels, it's really impossible for an amendment to be passed that most people don't actually want.

So most people wanted Prohibition? I doubt it. My point is that you aren't even asked if you want it.

That is how a representative form of government is supposed to work...

No. It's one system of representative government. Ours works differently. If my Representatives want more power he/she has to ask my permission in a referendum, if yours want more power they vote to give it to themselves. Doesn't it worry you to have the foxes in charge of the chicken coop?

 

I just see it as a possible flaw in the system that could be abused, that is not to say that it would be abused.

[bascule]

I'm surprised you don't have Referendums on Amendments.

 

We don't have national referendums period. We are completely at the mercy of our legislators when it comes to national law.

 

It sucks.