But... a lot of the amendments that various politicians are pushing (prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, prohibit desecration of the American flag, castrate rapists, allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress, etc., etc.) is VERY MUCH radical change.
As far as the same sex marriage goes, any judicial action, or constitutional amendment, to favor either side of the argument, is radical change.
I've never heard of an attempt to create a constitutional amendment to require, or even allow castration of rapists. Perhaps someone tried, but "someone" has tried just about anything. The same goes for "allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by congress", with the addition that the limited support it did get was probably not just from Republicans, but was a tiny percentage from supporters of both parties (unless your talking about repealing a specific limited set of, or type of, laws, in which case the support would come from whoever wants those type of laws repealed).
Not allowing government ownership of formerly private companies would be radical, but then so is the nationalization itself.
Requiring a super-majority for tax increases would be radical, but might be a good idea, maybe that could go along with a balanced budget amendment so that the amendment doesn't become a force to push tax increases. Separately they might be bad ideas since the BBA would push taxes up, and the super-majority requirement without a BBA would tend to push deficits up.
The flag burning ban amendment idea, is one that pretty much was from Republicans, and would be radical, and IMO clearly negative, but its never going to go anywhere.
The important point about all of those is that they are proposing amendments. Whether the idea is a good one or bad one, its best to change the constitution through actually changing it rather than pretending it says what you want it to say. |
