Anyone else notice that the New York Times can’t even get basic Constitutional law correct?
Like any constitutional amendment, it faces enormous hurdles: it must be approved by both chambers of Congress — requiring them to agree, in this case, to check their own power — and then by three-quarters of, or 38, state legislatures.
Nope, an amendment requires approval by both chambers of Congress OR three-quarters of the states. The framers would have never allowed Congress to be the sole gatekeeper for amending the Constitution.
Nope, proposing an amendment requires approval by both chambers of Congress OR three-quarters of the states. Ratification requires approval by 3/4 of the states alone. The framers would have never allowed Congress to be the sole gatekeeper for amending the Constitution.
Oh, and check out the other professor of Constitutional law:
Sanford V. Levinson, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas, called the proposal “a really terrible idea” because it would give the same weight to small states as it would to large ones, allowing those with a relatively small proportion of the national population to have outsize influence.
You mean like the way we elect Senators and the President? Oh, the horror!
Of course, the article has all the bias and slanted innuendo one expects from the New York Times, but you’d think they could get the basic facts correct when they’re mocking others for their supposed Constitutional illiteracy.
7 thoughts on “Sending the New York Times back to School”
or Article 5 of the US Constitution.
In this case the NYT is substantially correct. This happens quite rarely, but it does happen occasionally.
Article V requires an Amendment be passed by a 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress and then ratified by 3/4 of the States. The Times has it absolutely right.
Alternatively, under Article V 2/3 of the states could call a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments.
Well, the Times probably should have used the word “proposed” rather than “approved”, but the Times is correct to say and proposed amendment only needs 3/4 of state legislature (or state conventions.)
You should probably put in a mea culpa here.
Sorry guys but I think I am correct. Article 5 states:
Proposed amendments can arise from either the congress or the state legislatures. Ratification requires 3/4 of the state legislatures or a convention called by 3/4 of state legislatures.
If 3/4 of the states call for a proposed amendment, the Congress has no choice but to comply. The founders were deeply suspicious of centralized authority and set out to make it difficult for one institution to control everything. Article 5 provides a bypass mechanism in the case Congress itself goes off the rails.
Shannon, you wrote: “Nope, an amendment requires approval by both chambers or Congress OR three-quarters of the states.”
That is simply wrong, as this makes it sound like an amendment could be approved without assent from the states.
(I dont think you typed what you meant to say there.)
Good catch, I should have said “proposing an amendment” instead of ratifying. I’ll edit.
All the news that fit to slant.
Comments are closed.