Current Events – A New Constitution

“A striking contradiction between the professions and the practice of the nation … is the action of its legislative and judicial authorities. By such action it will give the lie to those liberal and peaceful principles which it has put forth as the foundation of its policy. …

“Such action would be directly contrary to the principles of this government, to the genius of its free institutions, to the direct and solemn avowals of the Declaration of Independence, and to the Constitution.” The Great Controversy, 442.

The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention’s proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

On November 12, 2012, Frank Lake, reporter for Weekly World News, New York, wrote that the President of the United States reportedly said the United States Constitution is out-of-date, so he is ripping it up and writing a new one. President Barack Obama reportedly told reporters last night [November 11, 2012] that the U.S. Constitution has become a hindrance to progress in America. “The document is so out-dated, that it is now becoming a hindrance to governing the country.” Obama has signed an Executive Order voiding the U. S. Constitution. “We need to move forward. We need change.” Obama reportedly said he has already drafted a new constitution and that Americans “will love what I came up with.” Insiders say Obama is keeping a lot of old elements from the original constitution “he’s just making it better, bringing it into the 21st century,” said White House Spokesman, Jay Carney.

This is in regards to Senate Bill 139 of the 113th Congress, which was presented to prevent the Second Amendment rights of the United States from being given to the United Nations. Data shows that 99 Senators voted, with 46 of them voting “Nay” (which means they were willing to give our rights per our Constitution in regard to the Second Amendment to the United Nations). This vote was recorded on March 23, 2013, which was just a few months after the Election in November 2012.

Republicans are warning that Democrats will regret their November 21, 2013, party-line vote to change rules of the United States Senate to permit confirmation of presidential appointees (except Supreme Court justices) by a simple majority instead of the 60 percent supermajority which had been required. The U.S. Constitution does require a supermajority in the U.S. Senate for specific reasons like the ratification of treaties and amendments to the Constitution itself. But in all other cases including legislation and confirming presidential appointments, Article I provides that in the event of a tie vote in the U.S. Senate, the vice president of the United States should cast the deciding vote.

Allowing the U.S. Senate to act by simple majority, except as otherwise specified in the Constitution, seems like the essence of constitutional democracy. The practice of simple majority rule in the U.S. Senate should be expanded to include enactment of legislation and the confirmation of Supreme Court justices.