Activism and Amendments

One thing I cannot stand is when someone proposes a Constitutional amendment based upon their pet cause. I find the idea of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" absolutely laughable, considering the fact that only 11% of Americans live debt free. I hear people complain that a flat-tax will eliminate the mortgage-interest deduction and kill the already flat real estate market and in the next breath demand that Congress "live within its means". The double-standard makes me want to choke.

I understand that the Federal deficit is dangerously large; so much so that it will probably never be paid down, but people do not seem to realize just how difficult it is to pass a bi-partisan Constitutional amendment, let alone a partisan one. With the exception of the post-Civil War era of the "radical reconstructionists" it has never been an expedient process to get two-thirds of both Congressional segments (the House and the Senate) to pass a partisan bill and then get three-fourths of the states to agree with it. Yet, when you read the email that makes the rounds - regarding whatever alleged amendment has "recently been proposed" - it states that "once it gets through Congress, approval by only 3/4 of the state legislatures is all that is needed!" Wow, is that all?

It took the 19th Amendment - the removal of the sex requirement to exercise the rights of suffrage - sixty years of activist activity to pass both the House and the Senate, and then an additional two years to receive ratification by the states. The Equal Rights Amendment - first proposed in 1923 - did not receive Congressional approval until 1972 - that's 49 years, for those who are counting. To this day, only 35 states have ratified it (38 are needed for approval)...almost 40 years after it finally received Congressional approval. This past February, Virginia sought to be the 36th state to ratify it, but the issue was tabled in their House of Representatives. This past June, E.R.A. ratification bills were re-introduced in the U.S. Senate. The issue is still alive and awaiting ratification.

These examples are why I laugh out loud when people demand the passage of Constitutional amendments like the "28th Amendment" that I see Tea-Partyists referring to on Facebook (written as such, like it has already passed into law). If they pulled their heads out of their collective asses, they would know that there already IS a proposed 28th Amendment in the works, that it was proposed long before the passage of Amendments 20 - 27, and it has nothing to do with limiting the power of Congress - it is the E.R.A., whose supporters are not so presumptuous to call it the "28th Amendment", just as the 19th Amendment was called the "Susan B. Anthony Amendment" before its passage*! To put it in plainer language, the "proposed" 28th Amendment of which these people write does not exist! It has never been proposed ! Knowing that, I hardly think passage of such an amendment to be an impending reality, and this is in complete disregard of the fact that it can take a lifetime or more for a controversial amendment to pass. Considering that slacktivism is de rigueur right now, I don't think Congress has any reason to worry.


*Had the Susan B. Anthony Amendment been so presumptuous to call itself "the proposed 18th Amendment", it would have been judged poorly by history. Prohibition passed first, thereby making it the 18th Amendment.