Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo
The problem (as far as I think most people see it) is that the Amendment process is completely unworkable on a day-to-day basis due to the complexity of the issues involved vs. the intelligence of the average voters in this country.
|
I really think the only reason for that is that because when there's zero need to change the constitution (when you can just change laws and have the same effect), zero effort has gone into modernizing the process of doing it to make it more effective.
Edit: That potentially creates the same dangerous situation that the framers were trying to avoid. They didn't want 51% of a legislature to be able to vote and wipe out free speech, or anything else in the constitution. Today, with a "living constitution" that would be entirely possible.
If history had gone a different way, there'd be other ways to get an FDA-like entity. The criminal law (one of the places states still have some power), has been very efficient at developing nationwide uniform state acts. There's nothing unconstitutional about the states getting together and agreeing to do something. And when they get the chance, they're pretty quick to do it when it will save a lot of money. And when the number of states that join up reach that threshold for constitutional ratification - the rest then have to fall in, willing or not.