You’ll get closer to 3/4 the states than 2/3 of congress. The amount of separation between legislators has widen in the past decades
With difficulty, it was designed to be that way too. The exception really being Reconstruction when the Union states hammered through amendments because the losers weren’t allowed to have a say. And probably should have given them another 200 year timeout, doing as how things played out
1 Like
What a prohibition 1919 and its reversal in 1933.
Did Americans used to be more proactive with amendments?
As I understand it, during that era, many of the same groups pushing for the women’s right to vote were also pushing for prohibition, and that’s why both ultimately became amendments.
As it turns out…one amendment made sense…and the other, really just didn’t.
1 Like
Getting a 2/3 vote in both Houses seems impossible.
1 Like
There’s actually some pretty solid evidence that prohibition worked much better than it gets credit for. Cirrhosis deaths dropped by about 2/3, and drunken disorderly arrests were cut by about half. It was just deeply unpopular. It’s one of those cases where you might want to consider who was making the laws and writing the history books.
I remember reading that the women’s suffrage groups also pushed for prohibition because, while getting the right to vote empowered women, prohibition would supposedly protect them from being assaulted by drunken husbands.
2 Likes
Interesting, I have wasn’t aware of that.
Subject to the jurisdiction there of. Which people here illegally or in tourist visas are not
2 Likes
People that are here (legally or illegally) must follow the laws here. They are pretty clearly subject to US laws.
But anyway, the Supreme Court has treated birthright citizenship as settled law for over a century and has never adopted the interpretation you’re advocating. It’s not like they came out of nowhere with this ruling. You can have an opinion but it doesn’t change anything. Lawyers can come up with all kinds of arguments but this one clearly doesn’t hold.
Also, you can make very similar arguments with the “well regulated militia” language in the Second Amendment regarding how much weight to give certain clauses. The courts disagree with reading into them like you are doing here (and someone that supports some level of gun control does with the second amendment).
2 Likes
That is the liberal translation. Not what was meant by the amendment. The founders would be rolling over in their graves.
1 Like
Same “liberal” interpretation that’s been there for 170 years.
You may not like it, and that’s your right, but it’s pretty plain and clear English on that one. You may think the amendment should be changed, and that’s your right. But if you live in reality, that just ain’t happening.
2 Likes
This reflects a profound misunderstanding. The founders are rolling over due to the fact that any justices bought into that failed argument.
There is nothing “liberal” about what I said. 
I’ll take that as you have nothing to come back with.
If anything, it’s the opposite of a liberal interpretation. Birthright citizenship has been the accepted interpretation of the 14th Amendment for over a century, by courts across the ideological spectrum. Calling that a liberal reading is odd when it’s been the mainstream legal understanding since the 1800s.
4 Likes
The Founders had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment as it was written around 100 years after the founding.
1 Like
I mean to be fair many of them might have been rolling over in their graves because of the 14th you know what with the racism and all
1 Like
Also, it was written in English. No translation needed.
The “liberal interpretation” argument really is one of the sillier things I’ve heard. 3 conservative justices decide to ignore the Constitution. That doesn’t make it the settled conservative position. Gorsuch at least isn’t an originalist, unlike Alito.
Bizarre times.
