Let’s Amend the Constitution – Yet More!
We’ve pointed out new constitutional amendments a couple of times here. Well, a bunch of new ones are on Congress’ docket.
Just for you, we’ve organized them into two piles. From the consistent-with-our-scheme-of-negative-rights pile, there’s:
- H. J. Res. 28, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote
- H. J. Res. 31, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to equality of rights and reproductive rights
- H. J. Res. 34, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to taxing the people of the United States progressively
- H. J. Res. 36, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President by the popular vote of all citizens of the United States regardless of place of residence
- S. J. Res. 13, A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to parental rights
And from the inconsistent-with-our-scheme-of-negative-rights pile:
- H. J. Res. 29, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality
- H. J. Res. 30, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality
- H. J. Res. 32, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing
- H. J. Res. 33, Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment
- H. J. Res. 35, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth
What does that mean? “inconsistent with our scheme of negative rights”? Is there something wrong with this second pile? Well, kinda.
Our constitution is really a document about government, not society. It lays out the organization and powers of the federal government, how it should work, and what its limits are. As to limits, the Bill of Rights in particular lays out a list of negative rights – rights individuals have to prevent the government from doing certain things that interfering with our lives and freedom. The constitution doesn’t determine what outcomes the government should achieve or give individuals rights to enjoy anything that we don’t earn ourselves.
So a set of constitutional amendments that guaranteed a high quality education, high quality health care, affordable housing, a sustainable environment, or full employment – those are inconsistent with what the constitution has been used for up to now.
These things are all good, of course. We want everyone to have them. But it’s an open question whether people would get them by requiring it in the constitution.
susan
RE: HJ Res 36
Senator Bill Nelson also supports the National Popular Vote bill.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado — 68%, Iowa — 75%, Michigan — 73%, Missouri — 70%, New Hampshire — 69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, North Carolina — 74%, Ohio — 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware — 75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire — 69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas —80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi —77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 23 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
HG
They just want Obama President for life and the electoral college closed.
So, Dell is the same as Holbrooke, too bad about the Afpak war.
Ed in Fort Lauderdale
I’m not entirely sure what is being amended in regards to H.J. Res. 28. Is this something pertaining to the right to vote outside of the jurisdiction of your current residence?
And yes, you mention the topic of ‘negative rights’. Unfortunately, many individuals are not fully aware of what these rights actually are. Even more unfortunate is that it seems the number of our negative rights will only decrease as times goes on. With a seemingly ‘ever-increasing’ government, our right to question the government
Eric
If we look to the founders for guidance we will find they broke down the topics by the need to protect the union , the powers and design of national government, money, trade and the specific rights of the people.
Where is the protection from foreign influence of the press/ elections? Where is the protection of education from manipulation by sedition?
Remove these dangers and we can slowly return to a union of the people, by the people and for the people not of the slaves by the wealthy for their interests.