Posted 3 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 1:56 p.m. EST by unimportant
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I have been doing a bit of research and found the Constitutional Amendments can be passed by a National Referendum. This means that, while I would be interested in seeing and participating in a Constitutional Convention, the Constitutional Convention may not be required and it may not be the best idea. I am not usually long winded but I think this deserves the scrutiny and time to make sure we get it right.
If we do a Constitutional Convention we do not have control over it and those that do have control are not trust worthy; these legislators and Courts are the problem in the first place. It is semantics to debate whether or not the problem is because big money offered the legislators money or is the problem the legislators taking the money.
The down side of the referendum is a possible Court challenge but I don't see how a court can challenge the process since this would be a constitutional Amendment.
On the plus side it would require between 500,000 and 1,000,000 signatures of voters to get the the National Referendum on the ballot; 650,000 to 1,000,000 people transferred their money from banks to credit unions. A poll showed 85% of Democrats, 87% of Independents and 67% of Republicans wanted big money out of politics. One amendment, one reform, one National Referendum.
How exactly can big money air commercials against this?
I am thinking a National Referendum is the way to get Constitutional Amendments passed.
I really would like to hear the good, the bad and the worse on this.
Three Constitutional Amendments for three very important changes in our Country:
Constitutional Amendment defining the Status of Created Entities
Constitutional Amendment Creating Public's Right to Know
Constitutional Amendment Creating a National Holiday To Vote