Curious if a lot of liberals think that amendments to the Constitution should be done by 34 states having the same ballot measure..and then if it passes in 34 states it amends Constitution? Also if liberal agree with a 2 year Presidency, or, abolishing the supremacy clause?
The amendment process is good as is; making such substantial changes should have a high bar to meet. The issue lies in the deep division spurred on by Republicans and their inability to compromise, not the procedure itself.
A two-year presidency seems insufficient and is a change that seems focused on the wrong problem (that being Congress’ unwillingness to hold a president accountable for…literally anything).
The supremacy clause is absolutely necessary for a democratic country to function. Where would opposition to it even come from?
Nah, I’d rather have it by something like a 60% supermajority after being approved by Congress & the President (basically the regular legislative process with the referendum as an additional step).
States are blocking ballot measures and just refusing to implement any winning ballot measures right now. See Missouri and their ballot measure to expand Medicaid coverage. See Kansas and the stupid stunts they pulled to have the anti-abortion state constitution amendment during an August primary election in an off year. The SCOTUS ruling two months before that is essentially the reason Republicans lost that amendment. Even if this were to happen, Republicans would fuck this up with so much bullshit and just refusal to comply, nothing would happen.
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
liberals view on certain laws in USA?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
On amendments: Amendments are supposed to be hard, I don’t see any reason to remove the role of Congress or a convention.
Two-year Presidency seems too short to me. There would be no break from campaigning.
Abolishing the Supremacy Clause would basically dismantle the government.
The Constitution has no meaning anymore.
The amendment process is good as is; making such substantial changes should have a high bar to meet. The issue lies in the deep division spurred on by Republicans and their inability to compromise, not the procedure itself.
A two-year presidency seems insufficient and is a change that seems focused on the wrong problem (that being Congress’ unwillingness to hold a president accountable for…literally anything).
The supremacy clause is absolutely necessary for a democratic country to function. Where would opposition to it even come from?
Why only 34 states? And how do you choose which 34?
I can’t accept these as serious questions asked in good faith.
No, America has enough problem with valuing land over people. For example, the electoral college, the senate, etc.
Nah, I’d rather have it by something like a 60% supermajority after being approved by Congress & the President (basically the regular legislative process with the referendum as an additional step).
We should just abolish the presidency.
States are blocking ballot measures and just refusing to implement any winning ballot measures right now. See Missouri and their ballot measure to expand Medicaid coverage. See Kansas and the stupid stunts they pulled to have the anti-abortion state constitution amendment during an August primary election in an off year. The SCOTUS ruling two months before that is essentially the reason Republicans lost that amendment. Even if this were to happen, Republicans would fuck this up with so much bullshit and just refusal to comply, nothing would happen.
No. The population discrepancy between states would make small states with barely any people in them too influential.
How about about ballot initiatives passed in states representing 66% of the population?