3 ms·

I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. Given the structure of the political system in the US, it is impossible for a two-thirds majority of both ho

I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. Given the structure of the political system in the US, it is impossible for a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to agree on any even mildly controversial topic. You’ll note that the 1992 amendment was about a boring and uncontroversial topic. The last one that had anything to do with a cultural hot-button issue was the repeal of alcohol prohibition, in 1933, when the political system operated completely different to how it does now. So, yes there’s a mechanism. But getting together enough votes to activate that mechanism is impossible in the actually existing reality of the United States. So, now what?

paulcole 4y ago
> I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. It didn’t sound like you were. Let’s start with one state or 1 member of congress saying they want to amend the constitution. Then get a 2nd and perhaps a 3rd. You can probably see where this is going. It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Believing that is very defeatist. We can also just sit around and wait for the next school to get shot up and act confused again.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  > You can probably see where this is going. Yeah, I can. It will get to about 49 or 50 senators (at the absolute maximum) and then stall out. Many of those senators, especially in marginal states like Arizona, will then become subject to difficult primary and general election challenges, dissuading anyone from trying again anytime soon. > It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Provide even one counterexample, then. > Believing that is very defeatist. Yes it is. I’m a defeatist on this subject. Things don’t magically become possible because you really wish they were. Sometimes defeatism is the factually correct position. But you’re making moral/emotional arguments, not factual/logical ones. I’m also a defeatist on such subjects as whether I’ll live forever, or whether I can win the lottery and stop working, or whether Iran or Hong Kong will become a democracy anytime soon.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    > Provide even one counterexample, then. I don’t need to. It should be obvious why it’s true.

paulcole 4y ago

> I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. It didn’t sound like you were. Let’s start with one state or 1 member of congress saying they want to amend the constitution. Then get a 2nd and perhaps a 3rd. You can probably see where this is going. It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Believing that is very defeatist. We can also just sit around and wait for the next school to get shot up and act confused again.

School-Cotton 4y ago
> You can probably see where this is going. Yeah, I can. It will get to about 49 or 50 senators (at the absolute maximum) and then stall out. Many of those senators, especially in marginal states like Arizona, will then become subject to difficult primary and general election challenges, dissuading anyone from trying again anytime soon. > It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Provide even one counterexample, then. > Believing that is very defeatist. Yes it is. I’m a defeatist on this subject. Things don’t magically become possible because you really wish they were. Sometimes defeatism is the factually correct position. But you’re making moral/emotional arguments, not factual/logical ones. I’m also a defeatist on such subjects as whether I’ll live forever, or whether I can win the lottery and stop working, or whether Iran or Hong Kong will become a democracy anytime soon.
- paulcole 4y ago
  > Provide even one counterexample, then. I don’t need to. It should be obvious why it’s true.