I don’t mean the actual rules of passing it, I mean what organization, activities and funding are necessary to do so.

The last one passed was in 1992 and it was just about congressional pay. Last one before that was 1971. Is there some kind of play book? It seems to happen so infrequently that it would be hard to study and conditions would vary enough that the last effort wouldn’t be useful as a model.

(“The amendment process is very difficult and time consuming: A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.” Link)

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I forget which one but one of the Supreme Court Justices has stated that they’ve estimated it could take as little as 2% of the national population to halt an amendment by starting from the smallest state and getting half plus 1 in opposition.

    The kind of monumental change that a lot of people think this country needs will have to come via a convention, and right now neither side wants to pull that trigger out of fear that the other side will be able to edge them out and inaugurate a constitution that completely wipes out all their issues and positions.

    Basically it would require either a compromise of proportions unseen just to even begin talking about it, that or the absolute devastation of one side to the degree that they would be completely incapable of stopping an absolute steamroll at the hypothetical convention.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I forget which one but one of the Supreme Court Justices has stated that they’ve estimated it could take as little as 2% of the national population to halt an amendment by starting from the smallest state and getting half plus 1 in opposition.

      That would have been Antonin Scalia. He also advocated for lowering the bar to pass amendments.