DCMcCabe, i guess one of your points brings up a question: past amendments, should you change the Constitution (amendments) BEFORE you change the law? or vise versa??
Homework assignment.
@Chron,
Sorry, I had a crap ton of errands today, so I apologise for not responding sooner. š
As far as changing the Constitution, that would be cool Koetter it up to you. I was just pointing out why there are some flaws in your proposals. The extreme, vast majority of legislation rarely changes the Constitution. A Constitutional Amendment is incredibly difficult, requiring a very high number of votes in the Senate, as well as then getting a vast majority of the states, (38? I really canāt recall at this second, but itās high), to ratify the Amendment. In fact, TBH, thatās why it rarely happens. Sometimes amendments that are shorter are sometimes hardest to pass. (You canāt really attach Pork to something like that, so individual legislators canāt throw things in to help their states, and Congress loves Pork, on all sides of the aisle, and even out in the hallway. š)
Example: back in ā74, iirc, the Equal Rights Amendment was supposed to be, I think, the twenty-seventh? Amendment. The entire amendment was roughly just over twenty words. Something to the effect that: āAll citizens shall have equal rights under the law, regardless of sexā. Yeah, thatās a bit of a paraphrase, but it is accurate in the intention.
(Cont.) Now, consider that this is 1974. The country was still in Vietnam, and that world, in all honesty, is now gone. Those twenty-some words evoked all kinds of fear-mongering, including some legislators saying that if women were considered equal under the Constitution, then it would lead to all forms of terrible outcomes. The biggest argument pushed was that the military could no longer keep women out of combat. Now, consider current times. Women have been in combat in a good deal of the wars in the Middle East. (Granted, I am not aware if a woman can be an 11 Bravo; however, no one wants to be a grunt. 11 Bravo is what you do, or did, if you completely blew the ASVABās. Itās not an ideal MOS). Additionally, women have been on or near the battlefields a number of times in history. They just couldnāt be a grunt, and storm up a hill blasting the enemy with a Carbine.
(Cont. 2) IMHO, Iām looking back, I doubt that Thinking like that could ever fly Annette in the US these days. In reaction, a very high number of states passed what amounted to a mini-ERA, at the state level. Just last year, in 2020, Virginia became the final state required to enact the ERA. As such, the ERA should now be in the Constitution; however, Virginia ratified the amendment beyond its expiration date. So, as such, itās currently in limbo. Congress can extend the time limit, retroactively, and the ERA would finally be in the Constitution, forty-seven years after it was proposed. Who knows what will happen? Itās still up in the air, afaik.
Going further, afaik, the Voter Rights Act of 1964 is not in the Constitution, itās just a law that has been on the books since I was in elementary school. (I could be slightly incorrect. I donāt really keep up with Amendments to the Constitution. Iām pretty sure that thereās only been a few at most, though).
Roe v Wade was not a constitutional amendment. Itās a court decision that set precedent for abortion rights.
Brown v Education, 1954?, which ended segregation in public schools was a court decision. Ultimately, it led, in part, to the Civil Rights Act; however, afaik, that isnāt even an amendment in the Constitution.
And so forth.
My point: Election laws have changed over time, and isnāt really identical to what was originally written almost 250 years ago; however, the process has evolved over time. The Electoral College, IMHO, is archaic and really has no place in modern society. It is flawed, and no longer serves itās original intention.
Another point: Senators were not originally elected by the people, it were appointed by the state that they would represent. Shall we go back to that? Iām pretty certain very few people would want a return of that. People have grown accustomed to voting cut their own representatives to the Senate. Iām pretty certain the modern process has bipartisan support.
Iām just sayinā, peeps have to evolve. This aināt 1776 anymore, the Constitution was to be a living document, and I donāt think many people would want a return to how this country worked waaaaaaay back then. (The Pony Express got rid of horses, and now the USPS, have replaced horses with odd little vehicles, and really embarrassing short pants.) š
Another example of change: My father, maybe not in the 1930ās, but by the time he was six or so, carried a shotgun to school each day. (Loaded and ready to fire). I wonder if they had a āshotgun checkā in the cloak room. š The difference, was my father went to elementary school in Ontario, Canada, and there was a very real possibility of encountering a bear on the daily walk to school. Ya think that would fly in todayās world? Canada, back then, wasnāt evens country yet. It gained sovereignty in 1949. The country was still under British rule, and people born back then were subjects to the crown.
Like I said, ya gotta evolve at some point. What was ānormalā in 1940 Canada has kinda fell by the wayside. š
As far as establishing some form of test in order to vote, Iām all for it, but like I said, I expect that that will have impact on all voters. With the current state of affairs, do we really want to expand āelection fraudā to include what works amount to cheating on the SATs? Would Trump pass the test? š
As mentioned, In all for election reform; however, that is something much easier said than done.
Again, sorry for the late response.
I’d rather have a beer bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.
Ā
