Originally Posted By Labuda Ok, so... I'm not surprised to read this, but can someone please confirm if I'm right that to kill an Amendment, we'd need the same 75% vote in each state that we need to create an Amendment? If so, then I will stop worrying quite as much about what the Republicans are trying to do to what I consider a very important part of our Constitution, even if it is an Amendment. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/14/kerber.14th.amendment/index.html?hpt=C1" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINIO...l?hpt=C1</a>
Originally Posted By Labuda Ok, so... I'm not surprised to read this, but can someone please confirm if I'm right that to kill an Amendment, we'd need the same 75% vote in each state that we need to create an Amendment? If so, then I will stop worrying quite as much about what the Republicans are trying to do to what I consider a very important part of our Constitution, even if it is an Amendment. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/14/kerber.14th.amendment/index.html?hpt=C1" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINIO...l?hpt=C1</a>
Originally Posted By hopemax There are two ways amendments are proposed to the Constitution. 1. 2/3rds of the states legislatures must call a Constitutional Convention, where the amendment can be proposed. There has never been a Constitutional Convention. So no one knows what would actually happen once called about proposing the amendment. or 2. 2/3rds of Congress must propose the amendment. And it must be in both the House and the Senate. Once an amendment is officially proposed, then yes, ratification by 3/4ths of the states is necessary. Either by state legislatures, or by special state convention (only done once). Which is why all this talk about modifying the 14th amendment is mostly political blustering. We're more likely to see Southern states continue down the secession path they've been teasing about. Or they are hoping to get a case in front of the Supreme Court so Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts can have some more fun bullying Kennedy, and rule that the 14th is only about slaves.
Originally Posted By Mr X Just a word on the language you're using Labuda, it's important to note that you can NOT "kill" an amendment, you can only repeal it by creating another amendment to do so (so yes, you're right on the percentages it would take). You can see that in action easily by googling up the 18th and the 21st amendments. However, the 21st amendment didn't "kill" the eighteenth. Prohibition remains, to this day, the eighteenth amendment and such things never get crossed out or erased, they're all still a part of the Constitution which is unlike some other countries but I think it's a very good thing. Sort of keep the "warts and all" around for future generations to consider.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Any change to the constitution would require 2/3 of the full congress (house and senate) and ratification by 3/4 of the states' legislatures. It was intentionally made incredibly difficult to amend the constitution because, if it was easier, the constitution would change every time a new party gained control. I wouldn't be too worried...out of thousands and thousands of amendment proposals, there are only 27 amendments total-and the first ten are the original bill of rights.
