How Can the Constitution Be Changed?

[MineralMan]

Do you know? If you can't answer the question, then it's time to educate yourself so you can write and discuss that subject intelligently. I've come to the conclusion that many people who want change don't actually know how fundamental parts of our system of government work or how changes can be made to that system.

Our Constitution can be changed, and how that is done is explained in a single paragraph in the Constitution itself. It's all laid out in Article V of that document. You can read it in a minute. Below, you'll find a link to a pdf file of the entire Constitution and all of its amendments.

And while you're looking up how to change the Constitution, you might as well read the rest of it. If it's been years since you read it, read it again. It explains how our system of government is designed to operate and who has the power to do things and who does not. It's a fascinating document that should be the foundation all political discussions are built on. Without a reasonably good understanding of the Constitution, it's impossible to discuss things without misunderstanding or making incorrect statements.

Anyhow, just in case you're interested and want to be fully informed, you'll find the entire Constitution, its amendments and notes where necessary for full understanding. I hope you enjoy reading it. A lot of people, myself included, read it again on a regular basis, just to make sure we have its contents available for recall when needed.

Here it is. You can download it to read on screen, or print it out for some fascinating bedtime reading:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

[BigmanPigman]

1. Only congress can decide the punishment for treason...good info in here. Thanks!

[liberal N proud]

2. Butternut thinks he and only he has the power to change it

The President of the United States of America has no clue about constitutional law.

[hedda_foil]

3. Not to rain on your parade, MM...

But that's the aim of the Koch's and their 400 billionaire buddies. In fact, they're aiming for their very own Constitutional Convention. That's why they've been focusing on state legislatures and governors, and they're <font="teensyweensy"> this close</font> to achieving their goal. And that means that we liberals are the real conservatives definitionally speaking.

Fun times.

[MineralMan]

5. Yes, I'm aware of that. It's potentially a very dangerous thing.

I hope they are not able to make that happen. How we vote for our state legislatures makes a great deal of difference. I wish everyone understood that and made sure to turn out and vote in every election. Sadly, too many do not.

[hedda_foil]

10. I figured you'd know but some here don't realize the danger.

And if it should come to pass, most liberals would probably focus on all the positive changes that could be made, until it's too late.

[MineralMan]

11. There was a group of people on DU who were excited about the

idea of a Constitutional Convention. They seem to have stopped talking about it, lately. The problem with such a thing is that everything is up for change if such a convention occurs. Always optimistic, some people just assume that progressive and liberal ideas will win the day and all changes will be for the good.

The reality is that it's far more likely that things would change in negative ways. When polls are taken, for example, about the First Amendment, it's amazing to learn that people are quite willing to change that amendment's protections. People who don't understand the Constitution are often quick to want to make changes that seem like good ideas, but they seldom think that through and figure out how changes could cause great harm.

A majority of Americans, I am afraid, have little understanding of our system of government and think only in limited terms when it comes to such issues. It's very risky, really.

I do not want a Constitutional Convention. I fear that it would result in destruction of many protections we currently enjoy, but without adding protections we need to prevent tyranny. We really, really need to take back control of a few crucial state legislatures, along with both houses of Congress. If we do not, we may be facing horrible changes before too long.

Again, though, short-term, limited-scope thinking by many makes it difficult to explain that in a way that sinks in.

[longship]

4. Here's the Wiki entry, which contains an annotated version.

United States Constitution

Easier than a PDF for some people.

[MineralMan]

7. Thanks. Anything that will help people actually

become familiar with it is terrific. I can't believe how many people have told me that they haven't read our Constitution, but who continue to discuss politics in a way that shows that they haven't. It's very frustrating, especially on a forum like this one.

[longship]

6. Thanks, MM. Some here should note the lack of presidential election do-overs in there.

Just saying.

My best to you.

[boston bean]

8. Yes people understand how to change it, but no need for acconstitutional amendment.

The constitution can always be interpreted in a new way, with the changing times and events.

Happens all the damn time.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Years ago, in another life, I taught a constitutional law/history course.

Last edited Sat Jul 1, 2017, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Familiarity with the Constitution is useful, particularly when you are stuck arguing with right-wingers - who usually don't know a damn thing about what's actually in it (the only amendment they seem to know or care about is the second). On our side of the fence there seems to be better general knowledge, but still not enough appreciation for how damn difficult it is to amend the thing. "We have to amend the Constitution to make X happen!" Well, yeah. Good luck with that. I'm not saying it should never be tried, but the chances of success are slim, and the process is very, very slow. For example, the Equal Rights Amendment granting equal rights to women in matters of employment, marriage and property ownership, among other things, was first introduced in 1923. It was finally approved by Congress and submitted for ratification almost 50 years later, in 1972 - and it *still* hasn't been ratified by the required 2/3 of the states. So that one, which by now should be a complete no-brainer, has been languishing for almost 100 years.

I have also noticed that a desire to employ extra-constitutional means to achieve a desirable goal occasionally is expressed on DU. I don't know whether that's just the result of unfamiliarity with the document and the Supreme Court's interpretations, or whether some are comfortable with the notion that we should just disregard it to get what we want. I hope not... The Constitution was a product of the Enlightenment of the 18th century, a time when people started valuing reason and science, and acknowledging the existence of inherent rights and the necessity of rational governance. The Constitution created a framework, although an imperfect one, for realizing those principles; the modern GOP disdains those things. We should not. Something to think about.

[MineralMan]

13. That the ERA has gone unratified by 2/3 of states seems to me to

be one of the strangest things about this country I can imagine. I've never understood that, given the fact that women are actually a majority in the United States. It's puzzling and disturbing.

Worse, we appear to be moving toward an Age of Disenlightenment these days.

[Demsrule86]

12. I am concerned about a constitutional convention by the states.

[MineralMan]

14. Yes. Anyone who thinks is concerned about that.

It's a very risky proposition.

[Demsrule86]

19. It is terrifying.

[Initech]

15. We will have zero say in how it's changed.

It can be changee, but right now we have no influence to make positive change. Who does? The Koch Brothers, who are quietly gaining the majority they need to hold a constitutional convention. Which is why I'm 150% against it. I don't want them changing it, and I sure as shit don't want the Christian right changing it. If either scenario happens, we're truly FUBAR.

[Takket]

16. yeah and might i add, the following rationales do NOT override the Constitution

It is not fair
Russia helped
Trump is horrible
Hillary got more votes
The election is invalid

I don't like it any more than any of you do......... but we have methods to deal with this crap that we have to follow..........

[Thomas Hurt]

17. It isn't the liberals you should worry about changing the Constitution....

you should be more concerned with the christofascist right theocrats.

Think of them as the Christian version of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Dominionists
Reconstructionists
conservative fundamentalist christians in general
birchers
randian acolytes
nativists/KKK/neo nazis and other generally white supremacist wingers
Tea Party
Patriot Movement and its progeny
sovereigns/constitutionalists

the far right in all its paranoiac and authoritarian glory would have no problem with installing a christian theocracy in the name of freedom.

[CK_John]

18. The convention people want to give the Confederation a 3rd chance.

[Buns_of_Fire]

20. A Constitutional Convention, if assembled, would be a bull in a china shop.

No matter what the ostensible purpose would be, they could do any damned thing they please.

It's terrifying.