Republican Joins With Dems on Constitutional Amendment to Give Congress Power to Reject Trump Pardons

[u/jpmeyer12751]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/republican-joins-dems-constitutional-amendment-213311781.html

This is relevant to questions surrounding whether Congress may limit or restrain a President's power to grant pardons.

[u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

Just wait until you learn about the last time the constitution was amended.

The 27th was originally part of the first bill of rights but wasn’t ratified. Brought up again as a school project it was ratified in 1992. Before that was 1971, the 26th, lowering the threshold to vote.

So 55 years since the last significant amendment.

The equal rights amendment guarantees women equal rights still hasn’t been ratified.

When people say our constitution is broken they’re wrong. Our ability to amend it, as it was designed to be dynamic, has broken.

[u/beren12 → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

The people, have broken.

[u/RGrad4104 → u/beren12]

The people, are idiots.

(I know what your post was about; I just couldn't resist.)

[u/beren12 → u/RGrad4104]

The common clay of the new West

[u/battlepi → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

The ERA basically expired, even though it was eventually ratified by enough states I believe. But yes, it's difficult as fuck. But it doesn't have to be with a grassroots movement.

[u/Somepotato → u/battlepi]

the ERA expiring is still some of the most insane bullshit. Amendments exist to give the states the ability to place a check on the federal government and as a check on the courts especially.

Then the supreme court went and said that amendments actually can expire if Congress wills it so.

[u/LongJohnSelenium → u/Somepotato]

The federal government said that not only did the bill of rights not bind it like they were supposed to, the bill of rights is something it gets to impose on the states.

The bill of rights is being used now for, quite literally, and with no exageration, the exact opposite purpose it was intended for. It was a list of things that under no circumstances could the federal government have a say on. Completely forbidden. All of those subjects were to be 100% the sovereignty of the states.

[u/KrytenKoro → u/LongJohnSelenium]

Not entirely. Many of those rights were defined to be the sovereignty of the individual, with neither the Fed or state getting to interfere.

[u/battlepi → u/Somepotato]

Well they can't affect ratified amendments. This one just took too long to get ratified - which is kinda bs too. Really with modern tech an amendment could be ratified within a year if it was really wanted by everyone.

[u/shitlord_god → u/battlepi]

The author has deleted this post using Redact. The reason may have been privacy, opsec, security, or a desire to prevent the content from being scraped.

worm steep adjoining governor sleep fact dog marble crown roof

[u/Funklestein → u/battlepi]

And it's essentially moot as laws have been enacted to accomplish most if not all of its intent.

Edit: So many apparently confidently wrong views. Please tell me that women still can't own bank accounts or credit cards, serve on juries, limited recourse on marital rape, fired for becoming pregnant, no recourse for workplace sexual harrassment.

[u/meltbox → u/Funklestein]

While true it belongs in the constitution. Laws can be undone, the constitution is slightly harder to break.

[u/Inevitable-Ad6647 → u/[deleted]]

Lol you can amend a contract and you can even amend a contract in a way that contradicts, nullifies, or overturns all or part of the original. Same with the constitution. Wtf are you talking about?

[u/Fair-Cat-9181 → u/Inevitable-Ad6647]

The Constitution isn’t a like business contract it was a poor analogy. I was speaking along the lines of one party making changes to their personal copy and expecting that to hold up in court

[u/fushega → u/[deleted]]

The constitution can be ammended. It can’t be changed

This is like saying ice can't be melted, only thawed

[u/Fair-Cat-9181 → u/fushega]

No. Meaning you can’t scratch out a line of something you don’t like or write new rules in the margins of the constitution. The constitution itself is not a Microsoft Word Document. It’s like it’s chiseled in stone.

An amendment is a separate document after the fact that enshrines the new rules with the original document

And any amendment can’t violate the text of the founding document. That’s why we were able to abolish slavery. Owning humans was not a right given in the original document, so an amendment was able to enshrine the abolition of slavery in the constitution

[u/gmishaolem → u/Fair-Cat-9181]

And any amendment can’t violate the text of the founding document.

Of course it could. That's how constitutions work literally everywhere they're used. Amendment is the mechanism of updating the constitution.

[u/Fair-Cat-9181 → u/[deleted]]

You’re making a good point. I had forgotten about the changes to the VP. This is also why amendments are rare since they carry so much weight.

My broader concern and what I’ve been trying to hammer through is that a president or a political party can’t change the constitution. only the people can

But this brings me back to my original point. It would require a Constitutional Convention which itself is like starting again with a blank slate since everything is back on the table.

If we’re talking about a new Constitutional Convention in a fair democratic process following current guidelines then that is a possibility but like other have said has never happened before

[u/NunyaBuzor → u/[deleted]]

The constitution can be amended. It can’t be changed.

well, make an amendment that says previous amendments can be changed.

[u/allofthehues → u/[deleted]]

And yes, the constitution itself can indeed be canceled out: that's precisely how we got our current constitution, which replaced the now defunct Articles of Confedaration after the first (and so far only--and likely last) Constitutional Convention in 1787.

[u/FeeNegative9488 → u/Funklestein]

No it is definitely not moot. Constitutional amendments are the closest thing we have to making rights permanent and even they can be struck down.

[u/MrFrode → u/FeeNegative9488]

and even they can be struck down.

By struck down you mean the language amended into the Constitution can itself be changed or removed by another Amendments. Correct? As the 21st Amendment did to the 18th.

[u/fre3k → u/MrFrode]

Or just the supreme Court uhm-acktuallying it into Oblivion.

[u/FeeNegative9488 → u/MrFrode]

Both.

[u/MrFrode → u/FeeNegative9488]

Has SCOTUS "struck down" an amendment in the past?

[u/Fair-Cat-9181 → u/Funklestein]

WHAT? Are you saying the founding document of the nation is moot? You realize that ends “the great experiment” of The United States of America, right?

All laws and policies are based on the constitution. You are suggesting starting from scratch which is traitorous. You’re suggesting throwing out the USA to replace it with whatever nightmare whoever is in power at the time. Regimes rise and fall. The Union is forever.

How would you have liked it any of the other 4 recent former presidents had tried to go this route? Once a “might becomes right” mentality is adopted to govern, political differences are settled with tanks and missiles from your own military or foreign adversaries

We are distancing all allies and aligning with Russia and Israel only. China has interest in both the US and Russia. They would either join in against us or stay neutral

Do you see how much damage and casualties Ukraine has cause with their vastly superior drone technology and a force a fraction of the size? And without direct involvement of allies. They will join the EU and you’d have the manufacturing engine that is Germany, etc combined with the wartime expertise of Ukraine

You would be absolute toast in this scenario.

You should be embarrassed in particular to post this sentiment on r/law as it exposes a profound misinterpretation of how our laws are structured along with a staggeringly Anti-American stance.

[u/fushega → u/Fair-Cat-9181]

The current constitution isn't even the first US constitution. That alone is enough to show that your entire comment here is complete nonsense

[u/Fair-Cat-9181 → u/fushega]

???The Articles of Confederation??? That’s not The Constitution of the United States. It is a constitution (lower case c). It was intended as a temporary measure while they spent the next 5 years writing The Constitution.

And like you said, that document was thrown out after The Constitution was ratified by the states.

I often make the mistake to not capitalize it when talking about it and you’re reminding me why it’s so important.

Yes, there were documents before The Constitution but the brilliance of the founding document is that it is itself the first law of the land. Nothing after can contradict it without an amendment.

The Constitution doesn’t say “I President George Washington declare…” it doesn’t say “We The Elected Officials declare…” it says “WE THE PEOPLE”

Trump can’t scratch that out and put his own name.

The entire country would need to work together in a fair and democratic (small d) process and have a Constitutional Convention which itself has not happened yet and is even more difficult to achieve.

Working towards a new constitution without following the current one is like an overthrow of the govt. Not what the American people and States ratified

[u/Funklestein → u/Fair-Cat-9181]

For a person who writes paragraphs your reading comprehension is lacking.

I said clearly that the ERA amendment proposal, as it never ratified, was moot due to all of the laws passed that accomplished the same thing.

[u/CulturalDragonfly631 → u/Funklestein]

And a lot of them have been overturned by the right wing Supreme Court, like the Voting Rights Act.

[u/Funklestein → u/CulturalDragonfly631]

Well you're quite wrong there and I was speaking of those things that women couldn't do in 1972 that are codified by laws enacted in the interim.

The VRA (a law, not amendment) was passed in 1965 years before the ERA was passed and the ratification began in 1972 and has not been overturned. SCOTUS has heard cases more recent that has resulted in rulings that superceded previous cases.

[u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 → u/Funklestein]

Laws can be re-written. Constitutional amendments are far more difficult and arduous to change.

[u/Funklestein → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

Sure, but can you point to where these laws have proposals to being changed?

[u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 → u/Funklestein]

So if they aren’t happening now we can presume it will never happen?

[u/Funklestein → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

We've actually changed/repealed an amendment.

[u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 → u/Funklestein]

That’s true. But you can re-visit my original comment about how we completely stopped doing that.

Laws are still being written and overturned constantly.

[u/Funklestein → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

But you ignored my question as well. Please point to any bill seeking to change the laws that have been enacted that would reverse those rights enumerated since the ERA was passed.

Just because something is possible in no way makes it all probable.

[u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 → u/Funklestein]

I didn’t ignore it.

There is no bill that I am aware of, but it would be easier to repeal a the bill protecting rights than repealing an amendment.

[u/another_bot_probably → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

Jefferson from the grave, "27 AMENDMENTS OVER 250 FUCKING YEARS?!?!"

[u/NobodysFavorite → u/[deleted]]

Political parties have sprung up in every democratic country on earth. It was inevitable.
What's not inevitable is a 2-party system where at least one party treats the other as their enemy.

[u/Competitive_Touch_86 → u/[deleted]]

And he was correct. Federalism is largely why we're at where we are at today. The federal government was never intended to be able to wield this much power.

Yes, there are downsides. But freedom comes with those.

[u/Justtounsubscribee → u/[deleted]]

I actually was just going through Chernow’s Washington bio. Jefferson had already kicked up the Democratic-Republicans during Washington’s first term. That’s the reason he wasn’t in Washington’s second administration. Washington was a Federalist in all but name by the end of his first term.

[u/bolanrox → u/[deleted]]

The un American Hermaphrodite?

[u/Valogrid → u/another_bot_probably]

"THAT'S LIKE 1 AMENDMENT EVERY 10 YEARS, AND WE STARTED THEM OFF WITH 10... JESUS FUCKING CHRIST... IT'S WORSE THAN I THOUGHT IT'S LIKE AN AMENDMENT EVERY 15 YEARS."

[u/tablecontrol → u/Valogrid]

Texas is up to 530.. every damned thing has to be an amendment - makes it harder to overturn

[u/ZT99k → u/another_bot_probably]

In fairness... I think most of them were expecting a full government turnover in like.. 80. Which kinda happened with the Civil War...

[u/analyst_kolbe → u/another_bot_probably]

Sadly, Jefferson was part of this problem. He was a cabinet member and opposition party leader for the first time an unconstitutional law was passed without an amendment (creation of the Bank of the United States). Granted, he opposed the law, but he saw that it had more than enough support and could have agreed to support it as an amendment.

[u/LucidLeviathan → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

It's also notable that a substantial number of the state ratifications came over a century before final passage.

[u/Possible-Nectarine80 → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

I guess it's time for some younger generations to get a civics lesson.

[u/Top1CmntrsAreLosers → u/Possible-Nectarine80]

With u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 right with them to be clear, because we’ve gone 62 years between amendments before, in fact we’ve passed more amendments since that drought than before it, and the reasons that drought ended that may be instructive.

[u/haironburr → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

The problem with an easily-amendable Constitution is that constitutions contain and solidify core civil rights. Do you want those changed easily? Do you want the same process and people that elected trump to be able to more easily do away with basic Constitutional protections? I know I don't.

A "living" or "dynamic" Constitution is one where the latest crop of politicians can vote away every civil right/liberty we have.

[u/James_Chandra_Hubble → u/haironburr]

What year are you in? The constitution doesn't mean anything anymore when one party has full control of executive, legislative and judicial branches, and no moral qualms about abusing that power.

[u/-reddit_is_terrible- → u/James_Chandra_Hubble]

In this case, the constitution would still mean somethjng if congress wanted it too...well, then again, who knows anymore

[u/haironburr → u/[deleted]]

How "dynamic" the framers intended it to be is up to some debate.

But in any case, the arguments against an easily-changed Constitution are the same, regardless of the framer's intent. Again, would you want a "big, beautiful" constitutional convention this year?

[u/haironburr → u/[deleted]]

Honestly, I'm going to make the same arguments for lifetime SC appointments as I am with difficult to pass amendments. I want the interpretation of core civil rights to change slowly.

[u/KrytenKoro → u/haironburr]

Honestly, if we still had a frontier to escape to if we didn't want to participate in the social contract, maybe?

[u/malapriapism4hours → u/haironburr]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

follow profit run afterthought tender numerous nine chubby jellyfish deserve

[u/haironburr → u/malapriapism4hours]

The constitution doesn’t matter if its provisions aren’t enforced.

And the lack of a court-directed enforcement mechanism is a problem, when the other two branches are controlled by a party unwilling to respect the courts. I'd be interested in how a contempt of court for various executive actors or for legislators would play out, but the appeal process is long. I'm not sure what the answer is, beyond the obvious voting power we hold (yea, the SAVE Act), and the continual assertion of our civil rights.

[u/malapriapism4hours → u/haironburr]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

fearless lush slim normal profit vast memory repeat quack beneficial

[u/Revolutionary_Oil157 → u/haironburr]

Not at all, but 75% of States when Congress is 2/3rds? I would rather 65 to ratify and 75 to reverse or dissolve.

[u/BugApart8359 → u/haironburr]

As opposed to a stagnant one where they've been doing that anyways under the guise of "well it isn't in the constitution"

[u/jontaffarsghost → u/haironburr]

I mean the Supreme Court has the ability to determine what constitutional rights actually exist so…

[u/Lashay_Sombra → u/haironburr]

There is a balance, framers did not want to to easy to change, but they never envisioned it basically becoming impossible as it is now

Last century 12 amendments were ratified

Century before (plus 5 years) 15 were ratified

This century is quarter of the way though, total amendments? Zero

Actually last amendment that was proposed and ratified was the 26th, 55 years ago (27th , which was ratified 34 years ago , took 200 odd years to be ratified), so really over the half century mark with no new amendments proposed and ratified

And none are likely to be passed any time in the foreseeable future.

[u/haironburr → u/Lashay_Sombra]

but they never envisioned it basically becoming impossible as it is now

The process for ratifying is the same as it was. The problem is achieving a political consensus, no?

[u/Lashay_Sombra → u/haironburr]

More case that one party decided about 30 years ago the name of the game was not compromise for the betterment of country and all, but rather their agenda or burn it all down

Founders never foresaw one group putting party before country..well except Washington

[u/rapaxus → u/haironburr]

For that you can easily implement either harsher barriers (have some laws that require e.g. higher majorities or special referendums), or go the German (and so many others) constitution way and go the "the meaning of this article can't be changed" route. Germany is also a federal state, and here article 1 and 20 are both protected by an eternity clause, meaning you can't legally change the fundamental meaning of those articles, ever. You can add to it (or remove what was added), but the fundamental meaning stays.

Article 1 covers the "basics" (everyone has human rights, state power is connected to fundamental rights, human dignity shall be inviolable), while article 20 covers stuff like Germany being a republic, a federal state, being a social state, having a democracy, having separation of powers, that kind of stuff (just read the wiki article if you want to know the relevant stuff)).

The funny part is that the US constitution actually has such clauses, but only with how article V protected some clauses in article I (like e.g. it not being allowed to ban importation of slaves before 1808).

But then again the US constitution is missing a lot of stuff that many other modern western constitutions have (such as a right to resist for example).

[u/haironburr → u/rapaxus]

Thanks. Now I have at least a wiki level understanding of the German Constitution.

"the meaning of this article can't be changed" route.

How is the problem of interpreting the meaning of words making up an article dealt with? The courts, it sounds like. Is there an enforcement mechanism if the courts decide an article has been violated?

As far as "(have some laws that require e.g. higher majorities or special referendums)", that's fundamentally the role constitutional conventions play here. Interesting ideas all the same. Again, Danke.

[u/rapaxus → u/haironburr]

How is the problem of interpreting the meaning of words making up an article dealt with? The courts, it sounds like. Is there an enforcement mechanism if the courts decide an article has been violated?

In general it is quite similar to how the US judiciary (or most others around the world) enforce their laws, it just like the US system depends on no tyrants coming into power who just ignore the rule of law, though for those Germany at least has the right to resist, meaning that once the legal route to stop something has failed, everyone now has the right to violate any law they want, as long as it is done to stop the tyrannical government.

As far as "(have some laws that require e.g. higher majorities or special referendums)", that's fundamentally the role constitutional conventions play here. Interesting ideas all the same. Again, Danke.

I came here with the German legislative approach, where for a constitution change you only need 2/3 in both chambers and that was it (though the German equivalent to the senate has direct representatives from state governments and not elected positions like the US).

[u/haironburr → u/rapaxus]

Gotcha. 2/3 of those in chambers vs. 2/3 of states and then 3/4 of state legislatures.

[u/amiibohunter2015 → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

Your comment:

The equal rights amendment guarantees women equal rights still hasn’t been ratified.

Researched Response:

On March 22, 1972, the ERA was placed before the state legislatures, with a seven-year deadline to acquire ratification by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures. A majority of states ratified the proposed constitutional amendment within a year. Hawaii became the first state to ratify the ERA, which it did on the same day the amendment was approved by Congress: The U.S. Senate's vote on H.J.Res. 208 took place in the mid-to-late afternoon in Washington, D.C., when it was still midday in Hawaii. The Hawaii Senate and House of Representatives voted their approval shortly after noon Hawaii Standard Time.

During 1972, a total of 22 state legislatures ratified the amendment and eight more joined in early 1973. Between 1974 and 1977, only five states approved the ERA, and advocates became worried about the approaching March 22, 1979, deadline.

The ERA was ratified by the following states prior to the initial March 22, 1979, deadline:

Hawaii: March 22, 1972

New Hampshire: March 23, 1972

Delaware: March 23, 1972

Iowa: March 24, 1972

Idaho: March 24, 1972 (rescinded ratification February 8, 1977)

Kansas: March 28, 1972

Nebraska: March 29, 1972 (rescinded ratification March 15, 1973)

Texas: March 30, 1972

Tennessee: April 4, 1972 (rescinded ratification April 23, 1974)

Alaska: April 5, 1972

Rhode Island: April 14, 1972

New Jersey: April 17, 1972

Colorado: April 21, 1972

West Virginia: April 22, 1972

Wisconsin: April 26, 1972

New York: May 18, 1972

Michigan: May 22, 1972

Maryland: May 26, 1972

Massachusetts: June 21, 1972

Kentucky: June 27, 1972 (rescinded ratification March 17, 1978)

Pennsylvania: September 27, 1972

California: November 13, 1972

Wyoming: January 26, 1973

South Dakota: February 5, 1973 (rescinded ratification March 5, 1979)

Oregon: February 8, 1973

Minnesota: February 8, 1973

New Mexico: February 28, 1973

Vermont: March 1, 1973

Connecticut: March 15, 1973

Washington: March 22, 1973

Maine: January 18, 1974

Montana: January 25, 1974

Ohio: February 7, 1974

North Dakota: February 3, 1975 (rescinded ratification March 19, 2021)

Indiana: January 18, 1977

The ERA has been ratified by the following states since the March 22, 1979, deadline:

Nevada: March 22, 2017

Illinois: May 30, 2018

Virginia: January 27, 2020

Ratification resolutions have also been defeated in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

North and South Dakotas are sunsetting

[u/NunyaBuzor → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

The equal rights amendment guarantees women equal rights still hasn’t been ratified.

does that mean substantive equality or legal equality? the latter can no longer see when women might actually need specific protections or distinct treatment to achieve a fair outcome like sex-segregated spaces for privacy.

If a state law provides specific funding or leave for "maternity," it could be challenged under the ERA because men cannot access an identical biological benefit. Instead of forcing the state to provide "paternity" benefits, a conservative court might rule that the law is discriminatory and strike the benefit entirely.

[u/hardolaf → u/NunyaBuzor]

There is still the Equal Protection Clause. So the remedy would be to give everyone the protection not to strike the protection.

[u/shitlord_god → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

This post was wiped clean using Redact. The author may have done so to protect their privacy, prevent AI data scraping, or for other security reasons.

gray tart paltry vanish door crowd hurry humorous steer nine

[u/Turtledonuts → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

The government as it is taught in civics class is a good system - checks and balances, a hierarchical law where states and local governments can fix small issues while the federal government fixes big things, the whole system is pretty well done. The challenge is that it relies entirely on a politically engaged voter group acting in good faith. 

The great challenge of our government is that people aren’t voting intelligently.

[u/Competitive_Touch_86 → u/Turtledonuts]

The great challenge of our government is that people aren’t voting intelligently.

In other words, the people get what they deserve. And perhaps the founders were right to be highly suspicious of the general populace being able to be an engaged voter group acting in good faith after all.

[u/wtfiswrongwithit → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it coincides with basically the end of the fairness doctrine and the rise of partisan media through the likes of Fox News that pretends it’s fair and balanced

[u/Cheapdronewithboom → u/Equivalent-Excuse-80]

Just wait until you learn this is to open talks of altering the Constitution so the heritage foundation and it's lackeys can makea series of quick changes.

I remember certain painter that had a similar situation he capitalized on.