2 ms·
There is, in theory, a much greater check in the form of constitutional amendments. It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitu
by OkayPhysicist 4y ago
There is, in theory, a much greater check in the form of constitutional amendments. It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional.
Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Of course, you’d be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything. “66% of America” isn’t actually relevant (that is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to ratify, or even submit for ratification, a Constitutional Amendment).
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoAh, oops, mixed up the proposal requirements and the ratification requirements. 2/3 to propose. 3/4 to ratify.
- dragonwriter 4y ago2/3 of each House of Congress isn’t 2/3 of America, though.
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoIt can also be 2/3 of states by convention, which, while isn't 2/3 of the population, 2/3 of states is compellingly 2/3 "of America".
- falcolas 4y ago> It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional. You're not wrong. That said, it's the SC's job to interpret the wording and the intent of the constitution, including all its amendments. It's how one group of SC justices created the Roe vs. Wade decision, and another group of SC justices overturned it, both using the same constitution and precedent.