It should be mentioned that there is controversy about all this. Dick Cheney thought that the president had a lot more power than I do, for example.
But I don't think anyone reputable, nor even Dick Cheney for that matter, thinks that either the president on his own or Congress could simply ban a political organization.
There are two ways ot formally propose amendments:
1. 2/3 of both houses od Congress agree on a porposed amendment
or
2. 2/3 of state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
Once an amendment has been proposed, it must be ratified. Either:
1. Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it
or
2. Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition. (Prohibition was itself a Constitutional amendment.)
The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.
The president cannot veto an amendment or negate ratification.
There tons of ideas for amendments. Hundreds surface in Congress each year.
Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.
The 6 that were never ratified are listed here on Wikipedia.
Some proposed Amendments lists all sorts that have been considered by congress.
I'm not aware of some that are seriously being considered right now, although the Equal Rights Amendment will probably come back. There has also been serious talk about changing the provision that to be eligible for the presidency, you must be a "natural born citizen."
George W. Bush has endorsed at least seven amendments to the Constitution. One limiting marriage and to one man and one woman, one allowing people who desecrate the flag to be criminally punished, one mandating that abortion be treated the same as murder, one mandating a blanced federal budget (hah!), and others that I don't remember.
I am about to finish the book which triggered all thse questions, and I am amazed at it. I know it is quite biased but yet, very interesting as a whole process.
Is there significant variation between a D or an R government general lines of policies?
Are Unions still strong there? are they legal? are there still strikes?
Is the Ku Klux Klan still acting?
(more questions tomorrow when I finish the book!!!)
Unions are still legal but I don't think they can be described as strong. I believe only 8% of the private-sector work force is organized. In the 1950s it was about one-third A bigger percentage of the government work force is organized but those unions don't have the right to strike or generally to bargain over wages and hours -- just benefits and things like day-care centers for children.
Strikes are much less common than they used to be. Starting in the Reagan administration it became easier for companies to hire replacement workers for strikers.
There's a proposal before congress now which will make it easier and cheaper for unions to organize workplaces, but its passage is uncertain. If Republicans engage in a tactic called a filibuster, they can block legislation in the Senate with only forty (out of 100) votes, which they have.
In my childhood, there were many more liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats than there are today. There are real differences between the parties today, although the Democrats would probably be a center or center-right party in European terms.
I haven't heard of the Klan doing anything in twenty or thirty years. And even then it was hardly active.
I've wanted to read that Zinn book for a while.
if Republicans engage in a tactic called a filibuster
this made me laugh...filibuster got to mean the same in Spanish=filibustero a.k.a Pirate? hehehe.. why does it bring a sarcastic smile to my face...
May I make more questions?
if so:
what is the line of poverty now ( before this huge crisis) how much had a person to earn not to be under it?
What is the % of the National Budget for the International Military Defence?
(I suppose it must be huge since the 9-11 attack)
Vinny, I can mail this book to you on Monday if you want, will have finished it either tonight or tomorrow morning. The book is really interesting, lots of facts I have never studied at school or highschool since we never finished the History programs not to get to the Democratic governments ( I studied all through dictatorship until my second year of University)
A republican acquaintance of mine has diminished it and said Bah! is just a commie.. LOL I find it interesting and informative.
What else could I read on these lines? (not necessarilly commie, just informative and with less opinions) and more facts
The poverty level is defined by the US Census Bureau, depending on family size. You'll find a chart here that gives the various income levels.
The most recent data they published was for 2007.
>In 2007, the family poverty rate and the number of families in poverty were 9.8 percent and 7.6 million, respectively, both statistically unchanged from 2006.
poverty rates ranged from 7.1 percent for New Hampshire to 20.6 percent for Mississippi.
Hola Nutrax, thanks again. I asked this since at some point normal salary per year was around 500 USD, which now seems ridiculous...Do not remember if this was under Lincoln or after that...
In Argentina the amount of people under the poverty line is growing despite the populist government of ours. The Institute which was created to measure this index is under the government's control and totally biased and makes funny reports as inflation was 0,5% in last month or similar.. if you go to the supermarket you realise that is NO WAY possible.
