If we were to replace the COTUS:

[Salty]

Lets suppose there was a movement to replace our COTUS

1) would it be constitutional to do so?

2) if a new one was to be written - what would be the approval?
A) Both houses of Congress and with signature of the POTUS
(just a simple majority- or would one House have to be a certian %?

B) same as "A" except no signature by POTUS needed

3) Approval of a certain amount of States/Commonwealths (what %)
if so - would the Gov also have to sign the legislation?

4) Combination of 2) & 3)

5) Popular vote? Simple majority or higher?

6) Other

 

[KenH]

Would it be constitutional? Yes.

The way the COTUS is used in practice today is probably no more than 10% of the way the Founders intended anyway. So, really, the original COTUS has been pretty much replaced in practice over time.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were done away with(a mistake, in my opinion).

As to how? Pretty irrelevant as there is no way to replace it in a 50-50 country, but I would think 3/4 of the states approving it would suffice. Would probably have to be drawn up by a convention, not by Congress.

 

[Salty]

As to how? Pretty irrelevant as there is no way to replace it in a 50-50 country, but I would think 3/4 of the states approving it would suffice. Would probably have to be drawn up by a convention, not by Congress.

I think it would be virtually impossible to even come up with a proposed new Constitution.

For example -:
the Pro-life would demand a article saying conception makes a new person
The Pro-abortions would demand an article allowing for abortion - and then there would be disparagement as to the cutoff - ie - 3 months, 6 months, 8 months - 9 months, 3 months after birth

The second amendment -boy o boy

10th amercement - to what extant

The electoral college - another O-boy

Citizenship - vs illegal aliens - another O-boy

Voting rights - should it be uniform at least for federal elections
only citizens? age, is voting a right? should all voting be in person
(other than valid reasons - should there be a national voting ID?

Term limits? POTUS - remain at 2 terms - should a term be 4 years or 6 years
what term limits and term length for congress - House remain at 2 years?
How many months should be considered a full term - ie POUTS is 48 months -
should 24 months be considered a full term or 30 or 36 months?

How should the pay of congress be considered?
Should committee leaders be given extra pay
Should majority/minority leaders be given extra pay

How to brings new states/commonwealths be brought into the Union
Should a State/Commonwealth be allowed to leave at will?
if so - what about Federal facilities -ie military, other Federal offices, ect
Should DC become a State? if not should they have representation in Congress?

The original constitution called for 1 rep for each 30,000. Using that formula - we would now have 11,000 Rep. How should a good representative be counted? Should a State/commonwealth be limited to a maxium number of Rep? ie say Calif is entitled to 60 based on population - but lets say no state will have more tha-n - say 50 reps

Should there be two Veeps - the second one would be the President of the House of Rep

Age limit for elected officials
Age limit for judges?

Should the USA form a new govt - which would negate any - previous treaty
if so - what about treaties with the Indians?

other issues......

FWIW - when the Constitution of the CSA - was written - much of it was word for word of the USA

 

[canadyjd]

Lets suppose there was a movement to replace our COTUS

1) would it be constitutional to do so?

2) if a new one was to be written - what would be the approval?
A) Both houses of Congress and with signature of the POTUS
(just a simple majority- or would one House have to be a certian %?

B) same as "A" except no signature by POTUS needed

3) Approval of a certain amount of States/Commonwealths (what %)
if so - would the Gov also have to sign the legislation?

4) Combination of 2) & 3)

5) Popular vote? Simple majority or higher?

6) Other

It would require a constitutional convention of the states to make that kind of drastic change/replacement. The states simply have to vote to hold a constitutional convention.

Amendments can be added by Congress (pres not needed) with 2/3 vote of each house then 2/3 approval of the states.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

It would require a constitutional convention of the states to make that kind of drastic change/replacement. The states simply have to vote to hold a constitutional convention. ...

Not necessarily - the current COTUS does not address that issue.
A Congress vote and signature by the POTUS - could do so.

 

[KenH]

It would require a constitutional convention of the states to make that kind of drastic change/replacement. The states simply have to vote to hold a constitutional convention.

Amendments can be added by Congress (pres not needed) with 2/3 vote of each house then 2/3 approval of the states.

peace to you

3/4 of states, or 38 states at the moment. 2/3 of states, or 34 at the moment, can call for a constitutional convention.

 

[canadyjd]

Not necessarily - the current COTUS does not address that issue.
A Congress vote and signature by the POTUS - could do so.

The constitution gives the protocol for change. If you completely throw it out, that is change.

Bottom line. The constitution is a piece of paper that every government official promises to uphold. The only thing standing between the radicals completely throwing it out is their word and the voters.

Don’t underestimate the citizens of the US demanding officials uphold the COTUS.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

It would be Unconstitutional to replace The Constitution. It would not be Unconstitutional to by Constitutional Amendment, in effect repeal everything in it.

Lets suppose there was a movement to replace our COTUS

1) would it be constitutional to do so?

2) if a new one was to be written - what would be the approval?
A) Both houses of Congress and with signature of the POTUS
(just a simple majority- or would one House have to be a certian %?

B) same as "A" except no signature by POTUS needed

3) Approval of a certain amount of States/Commonwealths (what %)
if so - would the Gov also have to sign the legislation?

4) Combination of 2) & 3)

5) Popular vote? Simple majority or higher?

6) Other

 

[Salty]

It would be Unconstitutional to replace The Constitution. It would not be Unconstitutional to by Constitutional Amendment, in effect repeal everything in it.

Where does the COTUS state that it cannot be replaced?

 

[canadyjd]

Where does the COTUS state that it cannot be replaced?

Not sure what you are getting at, but I’ll try again. To replace it is to change it. You are making it cease to be the law of the land.

The constitution gives the protocol for making changes (amendments). To replace it, those protocols must be followed as outlined above. The constitution does not give the congress the authority to replace it with a simple majority vote and pres signature.

If there is some other process that avoids wanton lawlessness, totalitarianism and civil war, I can’t think of it.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

Where does the COTUS state that it cannot be replaced?

Article 5 establishes what it takes to Change constitution. Abolition of entire COTUS is definitely a change.

 

[Salty]

. To replace it, those protocols must be followed as outlined above. The constitution does not give the congress the authority to replace it with a simple majority vote and pres signature. ...

I disagree!

Changing and replacing are two totally differently things.

Lets Say - Congress did pass and the P did sign
you know it would go to the SCOTUS'

how and WHY would the SCOTUS rule?

 

[canadyjd]

I disagree!

Changing and replacing are two totally differently things.

Lets Say - Congress did pass and the P did sign
you know it would go to the SCOTUS'

how and WHY would the SCOTUS rule?

The constitution was not created by congressional vote. Everything in it had to be ratified by the states. It took years. That’s where we got the amendments. The states wouldn’t ratify without articulating rights to free press, religion, assembly, gun ownership etc.

If the first Congress had attempted to impose its will by decree, we wouldn’t be here today.

I do not believe the people of this country would allow the Congress to “replace” the constitution.

If the Congress and Pres would violate their oath and replace the constitution, what makes you think they would care what the SCOTUS says about it?

peace to you

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Replacing rather than amending the COTUS would assume complete authority over it. There is no such provision of power to do that within, and oaths are taken to uphold the COTUS. It is the supreme law of the land.

This is not to say it could not be replaced, it just couldn’t be done legally without the states themselves or the people doing so. All powers not specifically granted the federal government under the COTUS are reserved to them.

 

[Salty]

The constitution was not created by congressional vote. Everything in it had to be ratified by the states. It took years. That’s where we got the amendments. The states wouldn’t ratify without articulating rights to free press, religion, assembly, gun ownership etc.

That is incorrect- the COTUS was confirmed 17 Sep 1787. The Bill of Rights ( A 1-10) were approved 15 Dec 1791.

I do not believe the people of this country would allow the Congress to “replace” the constitution.

- More than likely - they would not - as the procedure would be for 2/3 or 3/4 of the States/Commonwealths to approve a new Constitution.

If the Congress and Pres would violate their oath and replace the constitution, what makes you think they would care what the SCOTUS says about it?

I do not see that as violating their oath! Esp if they were to make that a campaign issue.

Would be interesting to see what a (valid) poling company would find out if they asked such a question.


But keep in mind what I wrote in post # 3 - there are so many issues - that it would almost be impossible to have a new Constitution approved!!!

 

[canadyjd]

That is incorrect- the COTUS was confirmed 17 Sep 1787. The Bill of Rights ( A 1-10) were approved 15 Dec 1791.

- More than likely - they would not - as the procedure would be for 2/3 or 3/4 of the States/Commonwealths to approve a new Constitution.



I do not see that as violating their oath! Esp if they were to make that a campaign issue.

Would be interesting to see what a (valid) poling company would find out if they asked such a question.


But keep in mind what I wrote in post # 3 - there are so many issues - that it would almost be impossible to have a new Constitution approved!!!

I’m not incorrect. The constitution was not passed by congressional vote. Each state had to ratify the constitution before it went into effect.

I still have absolutely no idea what point you are attempting to make and my head is starting to hurt.

Thanks for the conversation.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

I’m not incorrect. The constitution was not passed by congressional vote. Each state had to ratify the constitution before it went into effect.

I still have absolutely no idea what point you are attempting to make and my head is starting to hurt.

I NEVER said the COTUS was passed by congressional vote!!!
I have no ideal where you got that thinking from.

The point I'm making is if there was a movement who wanted to have a new constitution - how would it happen!

The reason you head is hurting is because you are over thinking my post!

 

[canadyjd]

……

The reason you head is hurting is because you are over thinking my post!

Ok, have a nice evening.

peace to you

 

[Two Wings]

Lets suppose there was a movement to replace our COTUS

Don't have to suppose. It's already happened. Started a little over 100 years ago to the structure. but the movement started around 1861

1) would it be constitutional to do so?

the above notwithstanding, I understand the only change can be amendments to the Constitution, no option to simply disregard it.

2) if a new one was to be written - what would be the approval?

I suppose since we're departing from the Constitution, it'd be whatever the governed wished it to be. Would there be a Congress? Would there be (50) State Legislatures?

6) Other

this

 

[Aaron]

Not necessarily - the current COTUS does not address that issue.
A Congress vote and signature by the POTUS - could do so.

Not without ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures.