" 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?
I agree with everything you said, but I’m not talking about conventions to propose amendments, I’m talking about the ones to ratify amendments. Could a Democratic Congress with 2/3rds of each chamber pass a veto-proof law to regulate the ratifying conventions, then pass amendments specifying that they must be ratified by conventions, similar to how prohibition was repealed? As I understand it, the convention route was created by the founding fathers specifically in case they needed to bypass state legislatures.
The statewide convention seems to be an interesting approach, but one that is easily ratfucked by a party intent on doing so. Your links mention the process used in various states, including New Mexico, where the state convention is simply composed of the state legislature.
Most states seem to hold an election, though, where they put all candidates on the ballot and allow people to vote for all of them. So, envision a long ballot with 100 sets of “for” and “against” names, and voters have to vote for each one. Yes, they could make it simpler, but they probably won’t , in an attempt to make it so complicated that one side can seek to invalidate votes cast for the other.
It seems to give the veneer of democracy, but still provide enough ambiguity for the State government to put its thumb in the scale. I’d like like to see some state say “The convention is every eligible voter, and the election on a strict yes/no vote determines the findings of the convention”. Maybe California can do this, they are big on statewide referendums.
New Mexico was the reason I was thinking that Congress would have to pass federal legislation first to dictate how state ratifying conventions are run.
Again, from someone on the outside looking in, it seems like the option with the best chance of succeeding. But I also think Article V itself should be amended to explicitly use referendums to ratify amendments. Maybe even take a page out of Switzerland’s book?