Well, it's all up to Kerry now

[RedImperator]

Alyrium, with one exception, all of those "flip-flops" are based on statements he made 6-10 years ago. Color me unimpressed.

Two exceptions: Not only did he vote for the Patriot Act (and is now trashing it)

Bullshit. PATRIOT was rammed through so quickly most Senators and Congressmen didn't even have time to read it. It was pure panic legislation. Kerry's hardly the only one who voted for it who now regrets it--no less than the chairman of the House Judiciary Committe (a Republican) has promised the PATRIOT Act will be extended "over his dead body".

[Perinquus]

How does that change the fact that it is flatly incorrect to state that no amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been successfully proposed since the 18th century? Or are you contending that every amendment, even the ones adopted in the 1960s and 1970s were originally proposed prior to 1800?

I know for sure that the Amendment adopted in 1992 was proposed over two hundred years ago, it barely missed being passed by one state, and was tabled until being passed in '92.

Got a source?

In any case, so what? That's one amendment out of twenty six. There are plenty of other examples where it went through quite quickly.

The twenty-first amendment was proposed by Congress, on the 20th of February, 1933, and was ratified that same year.

The twentieth amendment was proposed by Congress, on the 2nd of March, 1932, and ratification by the states was completed on January 23rd, 1933.

The nineteenth amendment was proposed by Congress, on the 4th of June, 1919, and ratification was completed on August 18, 1920.

The list goes on and on.

Amendments to the Constitution

Now I grant you, the groundswell of public support for some of these issues began mucher earlier, but that's harder to pin down to a precise date. In the case of the nineteenth amendment, for example, which gave women the right to vote, the amendment was the culmination of a political movement that went back very much farther. The first resolution calling for women's suffrage in the U.S. had passed at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, convened by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. The women's suffrage movement goes back even farther - into the 18th century. Yet I see no evidence that the U.S. government was appreciably slower in adopting this necessary reform than other western countries. Women got the right to vote in 1913 in Norway; in 1915 in Denmark and Iceland; in 1917 in Russia; in 1918 in Great Britain (but only for women 30 and older, as compared to 21 and older for men), in Canada (except for Quebec), in Germany, and in Austria; in 1919 in the Netherlands, in Belgium, and in Sweden (though with some restrictions); in 1925 in Italy; in 1928 Britain finally gives women full equality in the vote; in 1931 in Spain; in 1934 in Portugal (with some restriction); in 1940 in Quebec.

International Woman Suffrage Timeline

So where is the evidence that our reform process is inordinately slow? I don't see any.

[Xenophobe3691]

I found it. The 27th Amendment was submitted as one of the 12 original Bill of Rights, and it dictates that any pay raises Congress gives come into effect only after the next elections.
Click Me!

[HemlockGrey]

There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of proposed Constitutional amendments. Only 33 have been approved by Congress (and, obviously, only 27 have been ratified).

Check it out

[RedImperator]

There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of proposed Constitutional amendments. Only 33 have been approved by Congress (and, obviously, only 27 have been ratified).

Check it out

I heard 10,000 proposed amendments once, which is plausible, as it works out to less than 100 per session (or less than 50 a year). Obviously, the vast majority languish in committee.

[SyntaxVorlon]

During the whole campaign all we've heard about Kerry is he's the flip-flopping Easter Island outcast. But the speach he gave, despite it's corny beginning, showed he has got the ability to spin rhetoric while making good points almost at the volume of Rev Al. I personally couldn't give a fuck if he'd spent the 60's in Canada, he's got an agenda, he's presented it well. Let's see if Bush could even measure up.

Still I was kind of hoping for Kerry/McCain, but Edwards is ok too.

[Darth Wong]

Well, excuuuuuuuse me for not being a constitutional scholar in a foreign country's history. The point, however, remains that Americans are obviously loathe to revise their constitution, refused to do so even with something like the ERA, and it says a lot about this administration that such a hullaballoo is being made about this proposed bullshit amendment. In fact, the last time I heard such open publicity and rhetoric over a constitutional amendment was the flag-burning amendment, which coincidentally (if memory serves) came up as an idea under the tenure of another president named Bush.

[Iceberg]

Well, excuuuuuuuse me for not being a constitutional scholar in a foreign country's history. The point, however, remains that Americans are obviously loathe to revise their constitution, refused to do so even with something like the ERA, and it says a lot about this administration that such a hullaballoo is being made about this proposed bullshit amendment. In fact, the last time I heard such open publicity and rhetoric over a constitutional amendment was the flag-burning amendment, which coincidentally (if memory serves) came up as an idea under the tenure of another president named Bush.

There was also some static raised about it in early 1994, during the height of the power of the so-called "Republican Revolution" (which fizzled out during the budget crisis of late 1995).

[HemlockGrey]

Well, excuuuuuuuse me for not being a constitutional scholar in a foreign country's history. The point, however, remains that Americans are obviously loathe to revise their constitution, refused to do so even with something like the ERA, and it says a lot about this administration that such a hullaballoo is being made about this proposed bullshit amendment. In fact, the last time I heard such open publicity and rhetoric over a constitutional amendment was the flag-burning amendment, which coincidentally (if memory serves) came up as an idea under the tenure of another president named Bush.

Not trying to offend anyone; just spreading enlightment .

Obvously, the problem is that religious radicals have a voice vastly disproportionate to their numbers because they can mobilize moderates who, if the issue were not hot-button, would generally live-and-let-live, but when confronted with the issue feel that it's necessary to defend their traditional values because they've had them dogmatically ingrained into their psyche and been brainwashed to accept them.

[RedImperator]

Well, excuuuuuuuse me for not being a constitutional scholar in a foreign country's history. The point, however, remains that Americans are obviously loathe to revise their constitution, refused to do so even with something like the ERA, and it says a lot about this administration that such a hullaballoo is being made about this proposed bullshit amendment. In fact, the last time I heard such open publicity and rhetoric over a constitutional amendment was the flag-burning amendment, which coincidentally (if memory serves) came up as an idea under the tenure of another president named Bush.

The flag burning amendment reared its head again during the Clinton administration and got about as far as it did when it came up under Bush 41. The amendment was initially proposed because SCOTUS struck down Federal flag-burning laws 9-0 early in 41's term, leaving the amendment the only way forward.

Anyway, I would venture, based on the number of proposed amendments that have actually been submitted (not to mention who knows how many the public has concocted which never got written up as a proposal in Congress), we're actually NOT loathe to amend the Constitution. Every half-assed idea that won't fly with the courts probably has an amendment written for it somewhere. The genius of the system is that between the internal Congressional process to bring a bill to the floor, the high standard for passing Congress, and a ratification process that needs 36 states to sign on, transient issues and election year bullshit like the gay marriage amendment and the flag burning amendment, as well as hundreds of others, run out of steam long before the process is over. It's telling that for all the noise made about the marriage amendment, it couldn't even muster a majority (let alone the 60 votes it actually needed) to get onto the floor for a vote (in other words, the marriage amendment supporters lost the vote to have a vote).

[Stuart Mackey]

snip Yet I see no evidence that the U.S. government was appreciably slower in adopting this necessary reform than other western countries. Women got the right to vote in 1913 in Norway; in 1915 in Denmark and Iceland; in 1917 in Russia; in 1918 in Great Britain (but only for women 30 and older, as compared to 21 and older for men), in Canada (except for Quebec), in Germany, and in Austria; in 1919 in the Netherlands, in Belgium, and in Sweden (though with some restrictions); in 1925 in Italy; in 1928 Britain finally gives women full equality in the vote; in 1931 in Spain; in 1934 in Portugal (with some restriction); in 1940 in Quebec.

snip

Ah-hem! New Zealand-1893 the first in the world.

[Xenophobe3691]

What about Wyoming? Granted Women's Sufferage just to get enough votes to become a state...

[Stuart Mackey]

What about Wyoming? Granted Women's Sufferage just to get enough votes to become a state...

Wyoming is not a nation state.

[Perinquus]

What about Wyoming? Granted Women's Sufferage just to get enough votes to become a state...

Wyoming is not a nation state.

No, but it reminds me of what Gene Hackman said in The Unforgiven (albeit about a different backwater state): "Hell, I thought I was dead too, then I realized I was just in Nebraska".

[Perinquus]

Well, excuuuuuuuse me for not being a constitutional scholar in a foreign country's history. The point, however, remains that Americans are obviously loathe to revise their constitution, refused to do so even with something like the ERA, and it says a lot about this administration that such a hullaballoo is being made about this proposed bullshit amendment. In fact, the last time I heard such open publicity and rhetoric over a constitutional amendment was the flag-burning amendment, which coincidentally (if memory serves) came up as an idea under the tenure of another president named Bush.

The flag burning amendment reared its head again during the Clinton administration and got about as far as it did when it came up under Bush 41. The amendment was initially proposed because SCOTUS struck down Federal flag-burning laws 9-0 early in 41's term, leaving the amendment the only way forward.

Anyway, I would venture, based on the number of proposed amendments that have actually been submitted (not to mention who knows how many the public has concocted which never got written up as a proposal in Congress), we're actually NOT loathe to amend the Constitution. Every half-assed idea that won't fly with the courts probably has an amendment written for it somewhere. The genius of the system is that between the internal Congressional process to bring a bill to the floor, the high standard for passing Congress, and a ratification process that needs 36 states to sign on, transient issues and election year bullshit like the gay marriage amendment and the flag burning amendment, as well as hundreds of others, run out of steam long before the process is over. It's telling that for all the noise made about the marriage amendment, it couldn't even muster a majority (let alone the 60 votes it actually needed) to get onto the floor for a vote (in other words, the marriage amendment supporters lost the vote to have a vote).

To this I would add that we may merely seem more reluctant to change than some other countries because we, unlike some such as Great Britain, for example, have a written Constitution. Profound changes in the British constitution probably come with about the same frequency as they do in the U.S., but since theirs is unwritten, it doesn't show so easily. I think our amendment process works very well. Truly necessary amendments seem to get passed as needed, but more frivolous or doubtful ones, such as the gay-marriage amendment or the flag-burning amendment can't make it through the process. That's the way it ought to work.

[Stuart Mackey]

What about Wyoming? Granted Women's Sufferage just to get enough votes to become a state...

Wyoming is not a nation state.

No, but it reminds me of what Gene Hackman said in The Unforgiven (albeit about a different backwater state): "Hell, I thought I was dead too, then I realized I was just in Nebraska".

*snigger* I may not be an American..but that is quite amusing

[Stuart Mackey]

To this I would add that we may merely seem more reluctant to change than some other countries because we, unlike some such as Great Britain, for example, have a written Constitution. Profound changes in the British constitution probably come with about the same frequency as they do in the U.S., but since theirs is unwritten, it doesn't show so easily. I think our amendment process works very well. Truly necessary amendments seem to get passed as needed, but more frivolous or doubtful ones, such as the gay-marriage amendment or the flag-burning amendment can't make it through the process. That's the way it ought to work.

I agree with this. The Westminster system, as it stands now, is the product of hundreds of years of evolution, with the odd civil war and a bit of constitional blackmail thrown in for good mesure. Change is made as its felt tobe nessary and is done according to a system.

[Aeolus]

I agree and disagree; at this point, I'd say that antipathy for Bush could easily carry Kerry to the White House. However, if he gets elected, Bush will be out of office and he won't be able to garner as much public support as he did when he was running against Bush. It's a recipe for winning the Presidency (assuming things don't just start going astoundingly well for Bush, out of the blue), but not for actually being President.

A lame-duck, do nothing president would be fantastic after what we've been through.

The sad thing is..thats so true. Kerry would have no sway over the congress and little public support. We could have 4 years of nothing getting done. I am rather warming to that idea.

[Aeolus]

Really? I thought Reagan seemed a lot more socially conservative than Bush, both in actions and beliefs.

In beliefs it's possible, however in actions Bush seems to be by far worse. Remember that whole Consitutional Amendment a couple weeks back? That's way beyond anything Reagan's done, way more than anyone really.

Mind you, didn't Bush Sr. propose constitutional amendments to criminalize flag-burning, grant constitutional protections to fetuses starting at conception, and mandate a "moment of silence" (read: prayer) in public school?

What's amazing is that the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for men and women) failed. You'd think that a society so averse to revising its constitution that there's been no successful amendment proposed since the 18th century would not even consider such a stupid idea as a marriage amendment.

there were several amendments passed in the 20th cetury. But your general point is true, there was never any real chance that such a divisive amendment was going to suceed.

[Elfdart]

I've seen a couple of people claim that people aren't really for Kerry, but against Dubya.

Well, here I am! I am actually FOR Kerry. Even if a sensible Republican was in the White House, I would vote for Kerry instead of him. I think his career as a prosecutor and investigating corruption in government as a Senator makes him well-suited for what the next President needs to do: clean up the government.

He's not perfect; I disagree with his positions on NAFTA and GATT and agree more with Edwards and Gephardt, but his experience with foreign policy, miltary matters and other federal issues also make him a better candidate than his rivals in the primaries, to say nothing of Dubya.

Kerry-Edwards 2004!

[Rogue 9]

Still voting independent.

[SecondStorm]

Still voting independent.

Go ahead, throw your vote away!!!

[Durandal]

What about Wyoming? Granted Women's Sufferage just to get enough votes to become a state...

Wyoming is not a nation state.

No, but it reminds me of what Gene Hackman said in The Unforgiven (albeit about a different backwater state): "Hell, I thought I was dead too, then I realized I was just in Nebraska".

And of course, there was Grandpa Simpson's quote.

"Grandpa, there are only 49 stars on this flag."
"I'll be dead and cold in the ground before I recognize Missouri!"