" Once approved by Congress, the joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment does not require presidential approval before it goes out to the states. While Article I Section 7 provides that all federal legislation must, before becoming Law, be presented to the president for his or her signature or veto, Article V provides no such requirement for constitutional amendments approved by Congress or by a federal convention. Thus, the president has no official function in the process.[b] In Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798), the Supreme Court affirmed that it is not necessary to place constitutional amendments before the president for approval or veto.[10]"

If Democrats win control of the House and Senate what amendments would most likely be ratified by 38 states? We could have an amendment to increase the federal minimum wage and tie it to the cost of living or quality healthcare as a basic human right or ban political free speech protections for non-human legal entities or ban broad immunity for the president and allow the pardon power of the president to be blocked by The Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader.

What hypothetical amendments would have the most support?

  • melvisntnormal@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Seems like the “state-ratifying conventions” route is the only thing that has a chance of working, and that’s ignoring that the Constitution doesn’t regulate them.

    Although, seeing as an amendment need 2/3rds of each chamber of Congress to pass, regardless of sending it to the legislatures or conventions (not for the convention to propose amendments), could Congress use that veto-proof majority to pass a law regulating conventions?

    Whatever the idea, pretty sure this ends up in the Supreme Court regardless?

    … is it weird that I’ve been thinking about this for the last decade? I’m not even American.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      There are no rules at all to a constitutional convention, any rules are set by the delegates themselves. The last time we had one, they were charged with revising the Articles of Confederation, and decided to rip the whole thing up and write the Constitution. And this time, they have an official ruling that “money is speech”, which will guarantee a ton of corporate cash flowing in to influence it.

      Conservatives here have been looking to the convention process as a way to rip up parts of the Constitution they don’t like. They can rewrite anything they want, and revoke rights we’ve had for hundreds of years. Yes, they still need 38 states to adopt it in the end, but as I covered above, they have complete control of many of the states they need to accomplish this.

      And if this happens, what happens to the 12 Liberal states who do not go along with these changes? They will likely just leave, and make their own new country, with the original principles intact.

      At least the amendment process only changes one thing at a time. A convention will blow it all up, and likely result in the country splitting in two. The only bright spot may be that it might be done without resorting to a civil war first.