Interesting. I was presuming that state legislatures would be faithfully representing a majority of their constituents but of course once elected there’s nothing binding them to it and there’s considerable debate about whether they should even attempt it with those that do often earning the pejorative “poll-driven politician”.

Twenty-six states have laws authorizing recall elections. If the scenario you mention happened against majority wishes in the two thirds of proposing states would there be time for recall elections before ratification was possible? I’m not aware of any limiting time table so a well organized effort could get it done in a very short time. I think most state legislatures have debate rules that allow filibuster so simple majorities wouldn’t cut it as the opposition could drag it out long enough to get a recall election.

At any rate, someone should start a grassroots movement and name it the “Red State Movement” or something like that. Check out all these cool maps. Almost 66% of the states are red but the red/blue population is almost evenly split. Since the constitution favors majorities of states over majorities of people we (as members of red states) should be interested in taking greater advantage of numerical (number of states) superiority.

Now that I’m thinking of it, a case could be made that, in theory, the Constitution could be amended by a few thousand people, not a few million. Nothing in the Constitution requires the voters of the states to approve a convention. Therefore, the legislatures of 2/3 of the states could call conventions to propose an amendment, and that amendment could in turn be ratified by the legislatures or conventions of 3/4 of the states. No voter is ever asked for his/her opinion on the matter.

When I was in the Colorado legislature there was a proposal to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments for some matter (I forget what; I think it had something to do with putting some teeth in the 10th Amendment). I opposed it on the ground that a convention, once called, can run amuck, as did the first convention. While the first run away convention did good work, I would not hope for the same today.

I meant that the convention method has never been used to propose an amendment, which is true. You are quite correct that the 21st amendment, while proposed by 2/3 of each house of Congress, was ratified by conventions of 3/4 of the states.

I qualified referendum conventions with “for the sake of argument”. I also said it was possible “in theory”. Nothing you said disputed the theory, only that it had never been done in pratice.

You weren’t quite right on conventions either. Hoop 2 of the 21st amendment was via convention. Hoop 1, introducing an amendment, has never been utilized. That’s why I said “in theory”.

My point still stands as firmly as ever. In theory a minority can modify the constitution.

I’ll go further by roughly quantifying that minority. If 66% of the smallest states collectively constitute 33% of the population of the US (the actual number is less than 33%) then 51% of the voters in those states can introduce an amendment via convention. Thus it requires, properly apportioned by state, only 17% of the voting population in the U.S. to introduce an amendment.

Furthermore, if 75% of the smallest states collectively constitute 50% of the US population (the actual number is less than 50%) then 51% of the voters in those states can ratify an amendment via either legislatures or conventions, assuming the legislature votes according to a majority of the residents. Thus it requires, properly appportioned by state, only 25% of the voting population in the U.S. to ratify an amendment.

The constitutional amendment process isn’t what you think it is if you think the founders meant for it to be the “will of the people”. They meant it to be “the will of the states” with each state getting a separate but equal vote regardless of whether that state is New York (current population 19 million) or Delaware (current population 619,000).

I used New York and Delaware because they were both amongst the 13 original states. The maximum population skew is actually 70:1, California vs. Wyoming respectively. Imagine that. Little red state Wyoming with a population of 500,000 has an equal vote in proposing and ratifying constutional amendments as does big blue state California with 35 million residents.

It isn’t at all difficult to understand how it purposely came to be that constitutional amendments are a matter of the will of a majority of states not the will of a majority of people. When the original constitution was ratified it the small states who were attending the constitutional convention weren’t dummies. They knew that much larger states could run roughshod over them by virtue of number of voters so they insisted on certain powers that couldn’t be diminished or increased by number of voters. Among those powers were equality in the constitutional amendment process and equal representation in the US Senate.

If you haven’t guess by now I’m strict constitutional constructionist and that includes strong independent states rights. Where the constitution reads The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people I pay heed.

If I could choose an amendment for repeal (or modify in this case) it would be the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which has been used to force state compliance with such things as federal interference with abortion and education. Can you imagine the founders wanting Washington, D.C. micromanaging the states on things like abortion and education? I can’t. The federation was formed to provide for 3 things; a common defense, a common currency, and regulation of interstate commerce. How on earth do abortion and education fall within any of those? If I could choose a second amendment to modify it would be the 16th – income tax. This has been abused as well to interfere with the independence of states. The federal government directly collects a usurious percentage of income from state residents then offers it back to the state legislatures with strings attached. The old 55mph speed limit is my favorite case in point. Because there was no way to possibly justify the constitutionality of a federal 55mph speed limit on intrastate highways the feds threatened to withhold highway construction/maintenance funds from any state that didn’t make a statewide maximum speed limit of 55mph. That’s just plain ugly and wanton abuse of power by the feds.

Article V states: “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;”

Thus, all amendments must go through two hoops: Hoop 1: Either 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures shall call a convention to propose amendments. Hoop 2: Ratification of the proposed amendment by 3/4 of the state legislatures or 3/4 of the stated conventions.

The only way amendments have ever actually been apprived is through the 2/3 of Congress to 3/4 of the state legislatures method. The convention method, while still possible in theory, has never been tried.

By requiring each amendment to jump through both of these hoops, the framers ensured that no amendment would be ratified unless there was a widespread consensus.

Public opinion should at least dictate an honest and open discussion. That would be a good start.

Nostrowski:
Indeed, it can rightly be argued that the vast majority of Christians have no need of (and little interest in) scientific proof whatsoever.

Two things- science is not about proof and as Einstein told us “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

If we add up the populations of the smallest 75% of the states it is far less than 51% of the total population of U.S. It’s barely a third.

I didn’t add it up by red state and blue state but given states with smaller populations tend to be red states… the next constitutional amendment might be quite interesting. I can hear the howls from the blue states already.

For example, the Constitution prevents a majority, no matter how large, from establishing a religion; or imposing double jeopardy on a criminal defendant; or denying a newspaper the right to publish its editorial position.

Not even these can stand against a 75% majority of the states.