i don't think it is too comlex at all, think of the political ramifications of having a simple majority legislative vote to ratify an ammendment, you would have a constitutional overhaul at the end of every major election....I think that the difficulty in ratifying the constitution is what has made it as respected as it is. it sets up a set of rules that everyone has to follow, and only if the overwhelming majority of the land agrees can there be a change made.
I agree with Tim, Rob. See, you don't have to make it easy, just less difficult & cumbersome. Imagine if back in 1824 when SCOTUS heard Gibbons v. Ogden (link), they had decided that, rather than reinterpreting the Commerce Clause, they had thrown out the case, telling Congress to amend & clarify the clause. It would have been more in line with the original intent of the Constitution - holding the federal gov't power in check - and would likely have prevented many of the abuses that have stemmed from the decision.My initial reaction is to say no way, it needs to be difficult to change. But thinking more about it, it might be a good counter balance to the power of the supreme court if it were easier to amend.
Compare the damage done by the supreme court vs the damage done by amendments. When the supreme court makes a bad decision, we are basically stuck with it since amendments are so difficult.
I for one think they should let them
Because truthfully they are going to be with each other just the same
they are not stopping the the act or feelings so who cares
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.